HomeMy WebLinkAboutdavid letterMo hannam, Kathleen
Frain: Yamaguchi, Kim
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:32 PM
To: Moghannam, Kathleen
Subject: FW: Butte County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance 34A
FYI
From: iennarivera@comcast.net fmailto:iennarivera(c~comcast.neti
Sent. Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:18 AM
To: Connelly, Bill; Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; BOS District ~#; Yamaguchi, Kim
Cc: gmcconne[I
Subject: Fwd: Butte County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance 34A
Subject: Butte County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance 34A
Dear Supervisors,
first point out your sworn oath as an elected official. It is your duty to serve the people, not the D.A. I hope
that you understand the pain and suffering that this ordinance causes to the sick, dying, elderly and poverty
stricken citizens of Butte County, who up to this point, have collectively cultivated and used Medical
Marijuana legally without fear of prosecution. This ordinance targets our loved ones. Criminals will find a way
around it, but the sick and dying will not. Larry Wahl is concerned about theft and violence related to grow
sites in residential areas. With that in mind, this ordinance would break up a collective that accommodates up
to 16 members in an area of "sparse population" forcing patients to grow in town, and the county would
receive no money for them separately. Da the math on this one. 16 new grow sites in town for every collective
eliminated in unincorporated Butte County. It appears that your efforts in February were scare tactics meant
to make us ("we the people") feel lucky that we have any rights left at all come May 4t~', 2011. It seems that
somehow, you have already made up your minds to copy Tehama County's ordinance exactly. They have set a
bad example. They are in hot water and you're jumping in with them. Tehama County's ordinance is not
consistent with other counties throughout California. It is the most restrictive and violates patient's rights.
Even Judge Scheuler has ignored the law, which is why his decision is being appealed. In his decision he cited
H&S code 11362.768 (f} which allows counties to restrict locations of collectives, while ignoring 11362.768 (e}
which clearly states; that this section shall only apply to storefronts or mobile retail outlets which ordinarily
require a local business license. Yau cannot zone away patient's rights to cultivate collectively unless they have
a storefront. You cannot eliminate a patient's right to cultivate collectively based on the amount of land they
own. If this ordinance is not a direct conflict with state law, then what is? Look at San Diego County
Supervisors who realized they had no authority to restrict patient's rights to cultivate or reduce their limits.
They did not want to lose the ordinance by injunction or restraining order because it conflicted with state law.
Instead, they did what they could legally do and created an ordinance that restricted the sites of storefront
collectives. Please rethink this ordinance and take into account who it truly harms. I know some of you
personally and I know that you are good people trying to do the right thing. Please don't punish the sick and
dying for the acts of those who abuse our laws.
Sincerely,
David
C ~ ~ ~ ~ l O