Pubdate: Wed, 11 Nov 2015
Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA)
Copyright: 2015 Chico Enterprise-Record
Contact:  http://www.chicoer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/861
Note: Letters from newspaper's circulation area receive publishing priority
Author: Ryan Olson

DISCUSSION ON STATE MARIJUANA LAWS LEADS TO DIFFERING PROPOSALS FOR 
FUTURE BUTTE COUNTY POLICIES

Oroville - A presentation on California's three new medical marijuana 
laws sparked a discussion about the future of Butte County's existing policies.

While county officials questioned how the laws affected current 
ordinances regulating marijuana grows based on lot size, many 
residents asked the county to consider setting a different course.

Jessica MacKenzie, director of the Inland Cannabis Farmers 
Association, said many growers welcomed a state framework that 
provided oversight for taxation and regulation of the industry. She 
said they were working on their own proposals ahead of 2018, when 
many of the new regulations go into effect.

"We are stakeholders who want to come to the table and work on a path 
to 2018 that works for everybody," MacKenzie said.

The current laws come nearly 20 years after California voters 
approved the medical use of marijuana in 1996.

County Administrative Officer Paul Hahn explained that local 
governments have been asking the state to provide a framework for 
years. Now that there is a new law, Hahn said there are staff 
questions about how it affects the county's current ordinance, often 
referred to as Measure A.

Hahn introduced Paul Smith, senior legislative advocate with the 
Rural County Representatives of California, and Karen Keene, senior 
legislative representative from the California State Association of Counties.

Keene said their groups worked on the legislation and were now 
working to inform counties about the potential impacts.

She said the state laws move away from a nonprofit, collective model 
to a strict, commercial licensing scheme. The laws also view cannabis 
cultivation as agriculture.

However, the state rules and licensing for cultivating, dispensing 
and delivering cannabis are statewide minimums. Local jurisdictions 
can add stricter regulations and retain existing authority to impose 
fees and taxes.

Hahn noted that if the county imposed its own licenses the fees could 
only recover the cost of providing service or it would be a tax.

While the state has requirements that commercial grows obtain both 
state and local licenses, it exempts personal grows of up to 100 
square-feet and caregiver grows of up to 500 square-feet. Smith said 
the law only exempts these small grows from licensing and they would 
still have to register with the state.

Right now, the law allows local governments to regulate these grows. 
Smith said that provision of the law is controversial because some 
groups assert that there shouldn't be restrictions on personal 
cultivation of medical marijuana. There will likely be an effort to 
remove it next year.

Hahn asked how Measure A would be covered under the pending state law.

Smith said it depended on the nature of the grow. The current county 
rules may still be effective, if local control of personal grows 
remains. If that control is stricken, he said it might be difficult 
to regulate personal grows of less than 100 square-feet at the county 
and state levels.

The current county ordinance sets medical marijuana growing areas 
based on lot size. Outdoor grow sizes vary from 50 square-feet for 
properties between a half-acre and 5 acres to 150 square-feet for 
parcels larger than 10 acres.

While the rules won't go into effect until January 2018, Smith said 
local governments shouldn't wait to develop their own rules.

"We encourage folks to start thinking about that sooner rather than 
later," he said.

One factor is a provision that requires local jurisdictions to have 
cultivation ordinances in place by next March or lose licensing 
authority to the state. Smith said there is an effort to remove that provision.

Keene and Smith discussed other aspects of the law that affect local 
jurisdictions, including taxation and how counties can restrict use 
by county employees. There was also discussion about how pesticide 
use and waste discharges from cultivation sites will be regulated.

Smith also discussed how mobile deliveries from licensed dispensaries 
are allowed by default unless a local jurisdiction acts. Even if a 
jurisdiction bars mobile delivers, it can't impede legitimate 
deliveries or transporting through its territory from outside locations.

Although supervisors planned to take no action Tuesday, the matter 
was opened to public comment. Of the 16 people that spoke, most 
called for the county to consider more open rules.

"All we want is a chance to be frontrunners in the industry that's 
going to be here whether we want it or not," one man said.

Many drew a distinction between legitimate growers and outsiders that 
are illegally growing in sensitive areas. At least one noted that 
permitting cultivation could provide revenue to target illicit 
growers instead of using general fund money.

Some noted that changes would be coming from either the ballot box or 
the courthouse, as some groups are filing lawsuits over regulations.

Two people who spoke praised the county's current regulations, saying 
it gave other jurisdictions the courage to impose their own rules.

One person called for a total ban on marijuana, saying the county was 
in violation of federal laws prohibiting the substance.

"You're all wrong," the man told supervisors. "You shouldn't even be 
wasting your time on this."

California voters are expected to consider voting on at least one 
proposition next year to allow recreational marijuana use. Smith said 
one proposal would utilize a lot of the new framework, and local and 
state governments may work with sponsors on amendments.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom