I would like to clear up a false analogy. Some who favor commercial cannabis compare its restriction to prohibition. By constitutional amendment, Prohibition banned making, importing, transporting, and selling alcoholic beverages from 1920-33. No one could legally make or purchase alcoholic beverages, except wines made for sacramental use by rabbis and churches.
Federal law did not prohibit personal ownership or consumption of alcohol, though some states banned possession. Some “dry” towns and counties still prohibit sales of alcoholic beverages.
Distilling alcohol remains illegal in the U.S. unless one has either a TTB “distilled spirits permit” or a “federal fuel alcohol permit.” It doesn’t matter if the alcohol is for personal use only and not for sale. Current federal law sets specified quantity limits for the production of beer or wine for personal use only. Federal, state and local governments tightly regulate, license and tax beer or wine that is made to be offered for sale.
The true analogy: growing one’s legal six marijuana plants is analogous to producing the legally allowed amount of wine or beer for personal use. A legal right to grow six marijuana plants for recreational or medical use and the right to buy where sales are legal roughly parallel current laws concerning the production and purchasing of wine or beer for personal use. You may produce a limited quantity for personal use, and you can buy it where legally available.
Those who oppose commercial cannabis in Plumas County are not working toward another Prohibition; that false analogy obscures rather than clarifies the issues. California law grants the right for the cultivation of six plants for personal recreational or medical use; that right stands, as does the right to make a legally limited amount of beer or wine for personal use. Restriction is not prohibition.