Supervisor candidates and commercial cannabis in Plumas?

Measure B

We all want to be informed voters. With that in mind, we asked each candidate to provide a statement of position on commercial cannabis in Plumas County. Here are their words:


“I am not in favor of commercial growing in Plumas county. The negative I believe out weighs the possible positive side.”

District 1, BILL POWERS

“My official position is broken into two parts: Producing and Selling. Both Producing and selling will follow State law. Farmer’s right to grow is paramount as long as whatever they grow doesn’t interfere or degrade others’ rights or well-being. Seller’s right to sell products is paramount as long as whatever they sell doesn’t interfere or degrade others’ rights or well-being.”


“Pot growers are farmers. Treat them that way, not better, not worse.”

District 1, JOHN PATO

No response given

District 2, GREG CAMERON

“Marijuana is here and it is not going anywhere … so we should develop a plan that includes commercial cannabis in an effort to get ahead of any future state mandates.”

District 2, MIKE GRANT

“I feel the current commercial cannabis policy in Plumas County is the most appropriate and should not be modified unless mandated changes in State law require the County to do so. Even with a possible change, I will hold my ‘no commercial cannabis’ position to the extent the law allows.”

District 2, KEVIN GOSS

“Going towards the future and what the state may or may not have counties do is yet to be determined. There may come a time when commercial cannabis can make sense from all stand points law enforcement security and all other factors.”

District 2, PHIL SHANNON

No response given

District 4, GREG HAGWOOD

“I have been an opponent of commercial activity in our county since the issue presented itself. I will never support commercial cannabis activity- period. It has been a failure across the state and creates more problems than it solves. Vagrancy, loitering, thefts and assaults are documented issues in areas that have implemented commercial activity. It requires an increase to county staffing to administer, regulate and enforce that would cost more than any revenue it would create.”


“This is California, its here and it’s not going away. I personally do not partake, but who am I to judge? I believe meth and alcohol abuse should be more concerning to all of us.”

One comment on “Supervisor candidates and commercial cannabis in Plumas?

  1. William Stivers says:

    I will never support any action that would attempt to legalize any commercial cannabis activity in Plumas County.

Leave a Reply