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