Pubdate: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 Source: Ukiah Daily Journal, The (CA) Copyright: 2015 The Ukiah Daily Journal Contact: http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/feedback Website: http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/581 Author: Jonathan Middlebrook Note: JM lives on the frontier, between Potter & Redwood valleys, where cannabis in the neighborhood is not an abstraction but a fact we all together live with. IT'S ALL GOOD "My favorite )) color is chocolate."--Visited the grands last week. Gentleman Jack is 3.5 years old. Pretty much )) everyone assumes that recreational pot will become California-legal in 2016. The Yes vote will be urban, consumer-driven (ready access, cheap) and careless of our rural concerns: Community, land use, sustainable water use, environmental protection, reasonable profit.--That last one, "reasonable profit," is especially problematic in this our America. Those rural )) concerns recently put two of our more risk-taking supervisors on Jane Futcher's KZYX "Cannabis Hour" (July 16, available on KZYX's Jukebox link).--John McCowen and Tom Woodhouse are our BoS's ad hoc marijuana policy committee, so what they said-antiphonally-likely indicates the course our Supervisors will take as they deal with the few cannabis policy matters that are in their and (through electing them) our local control. In general )) Woodhouse and McCowen see the County's goal as a localized regulatory structure for an illegal industry soon to assume its rightful place in the hustle & b. of the above-ground marketplace.--Perhaps paradoxically, both supervisors see development of that local structure depending on out-of-county developments: Woodhouse stresses an alliance of rural counties-6 or 7-to amplify our voice in Sacramento, "which has not been kind" to rural California. McCowen emphasizes continued work with our state representatives, Asemblyman Wood and Senator McGuire, as their regulatory bills morph through the legislative process. Goals )) McCowen: No state cap on the number of cannabis grow permits . . . a cap would favor Big Farma, Central Valley cannabis growing. (BF is my phrase, not McC's, though he's welcome to it.) State law should allow local permitting of grows, taking into account local, rugged topography out here. And, yes, that means you may not be able to have a grow just anywhere.-- Woodhouse: Treat growers as the people we grew up with, as neighbors and friends. Protect their property rights and restore the trashed, back country environment.--M & W in chorus: Now there are teeth in environmental enforcement. The recent Shasta case, where an illegal grower not only had his crop cut down, but also had to pay for environmental restoration, is a milestone on the road to proper cannabis regulation. Key notes )) McCowen: "We hear concern about Walmartization of marijuana . . . they're cultivating 100s of acres in the Central Valley, harvesting with combines or something . . .".--Woodhouse: "Fear out there about what [legalization] means to people who are using this to finance their property & their lifestyle and the price has gone down . . ."--Futcher: "So you did not support MCPC's attempt to get an initiative on the ballot but you are sympathetic with some of the goals & want to keep small farmers?"--McCowen: "We have to realize that there are many hundreds, perhaps thousands of local people who very much want to follow the rules . . . we found that out with the 9.31 program . . . there are people out there who want to be as legal as they can be . . . we have to find an avenue to bring these people into a regulated environment . . . but again . . . be careful that some big, outside entity, whether it be the state or some big corporation . . . doesn't make all the rules for us." Too large )) a note book for one column. More on Saturday. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom