Submitted by Jesse Davis – February 27, 2017 – The Board of Supervisors (BOS) this Tuesday, February 28th will discuss 
options for handling state legislation known as the MCRSA (medical cannabis regulation and safety act) and prop 64 known as AUMA (adult use of marijuana act). Regardless of any cannabis ideology, here are the county’s options in practical legal terms:
- Consider a BAN; ban all commercial activity for medical and/or rec. cannabis.
- Consider an ordinance under the MCRSA; define the scope of legal commercial activity for MEDICAL cannabis only.
- Consider an ordinance under AUMA; define the scope of legal commercial activity for RECREATIONAL cannabis only.
- Consider a combined ordinance under both the MCRSA and AUMA.
- Consider an urgency ordinance under the MCRSA; define the scope of legal activity under the MEDICAL collective model as defined by prop 215, SB 420, MCRSA, and CA attorney general guidelines published 2008, to reconcile with Del Norte’s EXISTING cannabis production for the 2017 season.
- Do nothing; continue enforcement until the state issues commercial cannabis licenses under AUMA in 2018, without local control.
Option 6 is the easiest in the beginning and ends with an urgency ordinance to clean up the mess.
Option 1 results in recalls and voter initiatives because Del Norte voted by a 20% margin in support of AUMA. Option 2 is what Humboldt did and is a big project but it’s working. Options 3 or 4 are not something that can be completed until the state has a regulatory framework established for AUMA. Option 5 is what Trinity and Mendocino county did which allows them to generate revenue and begin to create working regulations and accountability for the industry with programs like ‘Track and Trace’ used by the Humboldt AG department.
Del Norte can ignore AUMA without consequence until the state gets close to issuing licenses under AUMA. At that time the county will need to participate to get a piece of the state excise tax and to retain local control over licensing. Del Norte can participate now under the MCRSA because it contains a very detailed and comprehensive regulatory platform that can be scaled and tailored to fit this county. Del Norte has been annually producing millions of dollars in cannabis products for many years. The voters clearly want regulation. The MCRSA was designed specifically to integrate these two realities for the benefit of the communities impacted by prohibition. We can be the county that focuses on the medical value of cannabis by incentivizing production of varieties high in CBD compounds that are saving lives. These varieties have little black market drug value due to their low THC levels and so they are tragically under produced leaving patients undersupplied. I know there are a lot of intelligent readers of the Crescent City Times; let’s see some replies or I will assume everyone is too indifferent or scared to care.
The BOS discussion starts at 1:30 pm.
Unfortunately, Jesse, California voters have approved another proposition that leave many Californians in an awkward position, and not knowing what to say about the issue. As much as people tout the medical benefits of cannabis, there is much we have yet to learn about its effects on society as a whole and individuals in particular. We have all heard the assurances of the miraculous curative powers of cannabis and the stories of how I wouldn’t be alive today without it, but along with those stories are others that paint a somewhat darker picture of those benefits. I understand that cannabis usage has been around for centuries and its medical benefits have been researched to a degree, but imbibing “for the entertainment value” on a wide scale basis is something both “legal and new” in California. I can appreciate the lure of “tax money” for politicians and the “recreational value” it might have for many people, I’m just not “sold” on the overall benefits that are intimated by the pro cannabis people and the recreational value as somewhat shallow. I have the same problem with tobacco and alcohol.
That being said, the voters have given Californians no other choice but to deal with the impending process. As far as here locally, it would be advisable to get out in front of the actionable regulation and claim the financial tax benefits in order to pay for the potential fall out that wide scale use will inevitably create. As much as local leaders either resist or welcome cannabis as a recreational drug, it will be left to them to sort through all the ins and outs. It seems to me that paying close attention to those States that have gone before is a good place to start looking for answers. Try Colorado.
I appreciate the effort you have gone to, in order to give us some kind of idea what options are available to our leadership. And, I am certainly glad that I am not at the sharp end of the pointy stick when it comes to formulating policy in this matter. All I can say is that something that is “popular” is not always for the best for everyone. One only has to look at alcohol, tobacco, and certain prescription drugs to understand. I, for one, do not wish to be traveling in a car alongside someone who is under the influence, no matter how much that they insist that “they can handle themselves just fine”.
FORGET ABOUT RECREATIONAL CANNABIS! Please stop with this confusion! Nothing I have said, supported, or shared with anyone has anything to do with support for prop 64 or recreational cannabis. The MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATION AND SAFETY ACT was passed by our state legislature with strong bi-partisan support in oct 2015, as a culmination of years of professional effort and grassroots funding. Prop 64 is a ‘johnny come lately’ distraction, funded by greed. You are falling for it. The county can’t do anything about PERSONAL rec cannabis, ever. The state has a long ways to go before COMMERCIAL rec cannabis is figured out. The MCRSA is here NOW and the county can participate on any level we want. Regulation gives us the tools we need to mitigate the dangers that exist now. The CHP is now testing cannabinoid breathalyzers, which would not have been possible without regulation.