Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Group Votes to Recommend Ban on Sale of Santa Cruz Home Grown Pot
The 13 member Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4) tasked with developing recommendations on the regulation of cannabis cultivation in Santa Cruz County is recommending a ban on all GMO cannabis and almost all home grown plants. It’s estimated that more than two thirds of current grow sites could become illegal if the current recommendations were adopted.
Group Votes to Recommend Ban on Sale of Santa Cruz Home Grown Pot
Also Recommended: New Taxes, Ban on GMO, Provisional Licensing Program
By SLVNews.Net
The 13 member Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4) tasked with developing recommendations on the regulation of cannabis cultivation in Santa Cruz County is recommending a ban on all GMO cannabis and almost all home grown plants.
(Cultivation strictly for personal medical use – no sale or donation, would be allowed, with some restrictions.)
They also recommended giving licensing priority to growers and sites where cultivation has occurred prior to Jan 1, 2016 with a provisional licensing program for grows that meet “basic standards”.
By a reported 11-2, C-4 members also voted to recommend a new tax measure for the November 2016 ballot.
In all, the committee voted on over 20 specific policy statements at their last meeting March 29. They’re scheduled to meet again Tuesday (12:30 Simpkins Center) and take up an additional 40 or more issues that they will send on to County Staff and the Board of Supervisors as recommendations for use in drafting a permanent local ordinance.
Supervisors will hear all of the recommendations on April 19th and give further direction to the County Counsel who anticipates presenting a draft of a final ordinance by the end of May.
While the group reached unanimous agreement on the GMO ban, they split 6-7 on permitting the home grows.
The recommendations, if accepted, would ban all grows of any size, indoor or out, on parcels less than one acre except for so called indoor “warehouse” grows on selected commercial and manufacturing zones (C-4, M-1, M-2, M-3). Cultivators in those zones could grow up to the maximum allowable state limit of 22,000 square feet.
It’s estimated that more than two thirds of current grow sites could become illegal if the current recommendations were adopted.
- - -
http://cannadvocates.org
Also Recommended: New Taxes, Ban on GMO, Provisional Licensing Program
By SLVNews.Net
The 13 member Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4) tasked with developing recommendations on the regulation of cannabis cultivation in Santa Cruz County is recommending a ban on all GMO cannabis and almost all home grown plants.
(Cultivation strictly for personal medical use – no sale or donation, would be allowed, with some restrictions.)
They also recommended giving licensing priority to growers and sites where cultivation has occurred prior to Jan 1, 2016 with a provisional licensing program for grows that meet “basic standards”.
By a reported 11-2, C-4 members also voted to recommend a new tax measure for the November 2016 ballot.
In all, the committee voted on over 20 specific policy statements at their last meeting March 29. They’re scheduled to meet again Tuesday (12:30 Simpkins Center) and take up an additional 40 or more issues that they will send on to County Staff and the Board of Supervisors as recommendations for use in drafting a permanent local ordinance.
Supervisors will hear all of the recommendations on April 19th and give further direction to the County Counsel who anticipates presenting a draft of a final ordinance by the end of May.
While the group reached unanimous agreement on the GMO ban, they split 6-7 on permitting the home grows.
The recommendations, if accepted, would ban all grows of any size, indoor or out, on parcels less than one acre except for so called indoor “warehouse” grows on selected commercial and manufacturing zones (C-4, M-1, M-2, M-3). Cultivators in those zones could grow up to the maximum allowable state limit of 22,000 square feet.
It’s estimated that more than two thirds of current grow sites could become illegal if the current recommendations were adopted.
- - -
http://cannadvocates.org
For more information:
http://slvnews.blogspot.com/2016/04/group-...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
if a group wants to grow a certain way, let them label what they are doing and let the market decide what to buy....something from someone's house or something certified by an organization....
do not let another oligarch class get started....
do not let another oligarch class get started....
For more information:
http://talltalk.info
So this committee recommends that someone living in a house on a conventional 1/4-acre lot can't even grow a few plants in the back yard for personal use in his or her own home? Print the names of the committee members and how they voted (or at least include a link to minutes or motion logs where their votes are recorded).
Also, for any grower taking advantage of the grandfather clause because they were cultivating before January 1, there needs to be full disclosure of how many pounds they grew and how much their gross sales were.
Also, for any grower taking advantage of the grandfather clause because they were cultivating before January 1, there needs to be full disclosure of how many pounds they grew and how much their gross sales were.
More typical BS from this increasingly screwed up town. The industry knows the only way they can maintain decent prices is if they control the supply in relation to the demand. Cannabis is so easy to cultivate that most people with ANY sun can grow a year-long supply with a little practice and help, which would of course cut into the greedy growers' profits. When I got into the cannabis industry I thought I might meet some interesting people who were interested in doing things differently--not so. As a class I would rank cannabis growers as at least as greedy as your typical Wall Street thief. Keep growing and FLOOD the market--even if that means just growing it and giving it away to friends. It has been my personal experience that with just 6 plants enough cannabis can be grown to keep 2-4 people supplied for well over a year. Screw the C4 task force and their attempts to cater to an elite group of growers who are chosen using arbitrary guideines. Keep growing and don't trade your hard-earned cash for cannabis--you may be helping fund someone who doesn't deserve your money. Those of you who avoid Starbucks and their ilk should realize the same practices need to be applied to your cannabis provider of choice. The cannabis world has a plethora of unscrupulous growers who will do anything to get their hands on as much cash as possible. A lot of them talk a bunch of feel-good hippy-dippy BS but the only green they care about is the kind with dead presidents on them. Like with all things there are exceptions, but still, grow your own and screw the cannabis industry and the greedy tax-collectors salivating at the chance to reap a bigger harvest. Personally I support decriminalization over legalizing--there is a HUGE difference. Have a nice day y'all! Keep it green, keep it local!
No really. Why? Is it some plan to capture the market for an exclusive list of growers, a get rich quick scheme?
Or is it because legal grows compete with illegal ones and fewer illegal grows destroying our parklands is just bad for law-enforcement dollars?
Why drive a legitimate and taxable business out of the county? After you're done with the marijuana growers, why not go after the local breweries? Alcohol is a dangerous an addictive drug that is directly related to vastly more violent crimes than marijuana. There are dozens of studies on the subject. And we should probably close down those sextoy shops in downtown too. OH and local music! Rock and roll is the devil's music after all.
But I'm going to guess the puritanical sorts are just being exploited by the money and power sorts. It looks like the state will probably legalize soon, so this legislation is an attempt consolidate power and make an elite group wealthy.
Probably worthwhile to look into the affiliations of the people proposing this legislation and find out what their interest really is.
Or is it because legal grows compete with illegal ones and fewer illegal grows destroying our parklands is just bad for law-enforcement dollars?
Why drive a legitimate and taxable business out of the county? After you're done with the marijuana growers, why not go after the local breweries? Alcohol is a dangerous an addictive drug that is directly related to vastly more violent crimes than marijuana. There are dozens of studies on the subject. And we should probably close down those sextoy shops in downtown too. OH and local music! Rock and roll is the devil's music after all.
But I'm going to guess the puritanical sorts are just being exploited by the money and power sorts. It looks like the state will probably legalize soon, so this legislation is an attempt consolidate power and make an elite group wealthy.
Probably worthwhile to look into the affiliations of the people proposing this legislation and find out what their interest really is.
One would hope.that cannabis proponents, regardless of what role they play, could be held to a higher standard that assumes an altruistic viewpoint to some extent. This is brazenly selfish, unfortunately.
I have a First Amendment right to grow and give away medical pot. RLUIPA and RFA defeat these civil zoning laws designed to prop up prices by eliminating small outdoor gardeners. Taxing medicine is also not legal in california.
;;
;;
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$200.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network