Mendo’s Murky Pot Rule Enforcement

by Mark Scaramella, January 12, 2017

With Big Pharma (aka Big Dope) poised to move big time into Mendocino County, we decided to take a look back at last June’s report by Jane Futcher, writing in the AVA about the ever-changing pot regulation landscape.

At that time, May of 2016, Mendo had issued an “urgency ordinance,” a preliminary version of the County 9.31 cultivation ordinance, in anticipation of the looming Green Rush. The urgency was explained in its intro: “in the absence of a formal regulatory framework” the County was adopting this ordinance because “the negative impacts frequently associated with marijuana cultivation are expected to increase, resulting in an unregulated, unstudied and potentially significant negative impact on the environment and upon the public peace, health and safety.”

According to Futcher, on May 26 of 2016, Mendocino County Undersheriff Randy Johnson, who represents the Sheriff on all cannabis matters, told an assembly of about 100 north county pot growers, “When we come out and inspect I don't want to see more than 99 plants.”

Presumably Johnson meant 99 plants per parcel, so questions would certainly arise about parcel sizes and ownership of those parcels and how many parcels to a customer.

Johnson also said, “Multiple permits to the same farmer are not permitted but may be reviewed on a case-by-case basis,” whatever the hell that means.

We have been unable to find out which of the various county offices are (were?) responsible for final approval of a pot growing permit under the Urgency Ordinance. The Sheriff, the Planning Department, the Ag Department and the Treasurer-Tax Collector all have a role. But there’s nothing indicating who has final approval and who is supposed to enforce the permit terms.

To qualify to grow green meds under the “urgency ordinance," an applicant had to provide "Proof of prior cultivation,” i.e., “evidence satisfactory to the Sheriff that, no later than May 17, 2016, the registrant or applicant has taken demonstrable steps toward the development of a commercial medical cannabis cultivation site on the parcel…” by providing one of several official documents, or “any similarly reliable documentary evidence satisfactory to the Sheriff that establishes that medical cannabis was planted and grown on the parcel to be registered prior to May 17, 2016.”

These regs are subject to interpretation, and Undersheriff Johnson is the interpreter.

What if the grower's "proof of prior cultivation" is faked, as it clearly has been in a case we are aware of; what if a neighbor disputes what the Sheriff — i.e., Undersheriff Johnson — accepted as proof of prior cultivation? Or disputing the proof that the end user really is “medical”? What if a neighbor thinks that the 99 plant limit is being exceeded? Will the Sheriff/Undersheriff Johnson provide a complaining neighbor with the documents Johnson used to grant the permit?

Enforcement: “The County may abate the violation of this Chapter in accordance with the provisions of County Code Chapter 8.75 or by the prosecution of a civil action, including an action for injunctive relief. The remedy of injunctive relief may take the form of a court order, enforceable through civil contempt proceedings, prohibiting the maintenance of the violation of this Chapter or requiring compliance with other terms.”

Which seems to be no enforcement at all. Are neighbors really expected to take a suspected permit violator to civil court? Would the County do it? What evidence would be required? What rules would apply?

It's obviously a mess. Not only is pot growing legalization a moving target, but the County's regs themselves are a moving target. Are the earlier applicants with some nebulous "proof of prior cultivation" subject to the new improved rules the County is now bragging about working on (as opposed to those "industry friendly" rules the pot growers proposed via Measure AF which went down to near 2-1 defeat)?

If the Sheriff can’t or won’t enforce violations, and if the above “enforcement” section is the only enforcement option for the public, why even have the regulations, old or new?

Mendo is poised to venture into the pot regulation arena with lots of nice sounding pot regulation paperwork — but, like with the wine industry, no real regulation on the ground.

The "green rush" thus appears to be more of a rush to get your permit, then do whatever you want — before the regs kick in, if they ever do kick in.

3 Responses to Mendo’s Murky Pot Rule Enforcement

  1. james marmon Reply

    January 14, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    Personally, I am opposed to the legalization of recreational use of marijuana, and I also believe that medicinal use should be regulated more. With that said, I hope Sessions enforces the laws that are currently on the books as much as possible. In my 62 years I’ve watched this whole mess destroy millions of lives. Enough of the “left coast” bullshit.

    The marijuana lobbyists need to go away. Marijuana is extremely dangerous to our young people and our society as whole.

    “Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee questioned Sessions about the enforcement marijuana law through the lens of federalism.

    Then he added: “One obvious concern is the United States Congress has made the possession in every state and distribution an illegal act”. “So, if you need – if that’s something that’s not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule”.

    “With respect to the marijuana enforcement laws, it is still the policy of the administration, and certainly would be my policy, if confirmed as attorney general, to continue to enforcing the marijuana laws, particularly with respect to the money laundering aspect of it. We should enforce the laws as effectively as we are able”.

    http://vouxmagazine.com/2017/01/14/sessions-vague-on-cannabis-law-enforcement/

    James Marmon MSW
    Former Mendocino County Juvenile Drug Court Counselor/Case Manager

    https://youtu.be/6buRGDZCyJ8

    • james marmon Reply

      January 14, 2017 at 2:00 pm

      Breaking News!

      A new study on marijuana shows pros and cons for health

      “A new study finds marijuana can help in easing chronic pain, but potentially increase the risk of severe mental illness.”

      “It spells out very clearly that marijuana can be toxic and dangerous to children and also, it’s dangerous to the adolescent brain,” Marsh says.

      There’s also evidence linking marijuana to a higher risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses, as well as depression.”

      http://www.kvoa.com/story/34250046/a-new-study-on-marijuana-shows-pros-and-cons-for-health

      Huge marijuana study has major breakthrough

      A major new comprehensive study on marijuana has come to some interesting conclusions about the drug and its use.

      “A massive new study examining 10,000 other studies since 1999 is the first comprehensive review in decades of marijuana as momentum grows for its legalization. And what the assessment found could be very important: that cannabis does indeed have legitimate medicinal benefits for a variety of ailments, but it also may contribute to certain mental health issues and may have some impact as a “gateway” drug.”

      http://www.babwnews.com/2017/01/huge-marijuana-study-has-major-breakthrough/

  2. izzy Reply

    January 17, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    Apparently Mr. Marmon’s experience has led him to believe the use of marijuana is not a good idea. Within limits, and in our current culture, he may be right. But the criminalization of this particular plant, coupled with its long history of human use and still-easy accessibility as a quasi-blackmarket product in huge demand, is what keeps the price artificially (and ridiculously) high, attracting all sorts of undesirable actors. We are, after all, a capitalist society. And so the game goes on, with police and prisons adding to the associated social costs. Even if all he asserts about the negative effects is true, what we’re doing now doesn’t work, and doing more of it will not help.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *