Paul.  And his Axe.  Not sure what they did with Babe.

It would not be the Paul Bunyan Parade without the Kangaroo Kort.  This year, there were children inside saying “Help me, help me”…  WTF?

What amazes me is that there are only four of them.  And they all have their legs.

This is my favorite of the fire engines.  When I was a kid, it was mostly logging trucks I remember driving through town but this year the parade was heavily dominated with rescue vehicles.  I did not see one logging truck today.  But I did hear there was a logging competition yesterday, so their must be trees somewhere.

This car was bitchen.  The little man was like, “Pompa, it’s not on fire- it’s Just Paint!”  Pshaw.

This one’s for you, Diana.  And you, too, Dano.

This poor creature won the Ugly Dog contest earlier in the weekend.  The little man was like, “Mamam, What is wrong with that dog?”

Who doesn’t love goats?  I mean, really?

Another Fort Bragg institution.

There was a rumor that the Coast Guard was going to fly it’s plane over the parade.  It was moving at a pretty fast clip.  If you squint, you can see it!

The Seahawks from the C.V. Starr Aquatic Center.  Pretty kite.

She’s got my vote.  There, I said it.  And a nice lookin’ horse drawn cart if I do say so myself.

These kids were my favorite.  Gangsters.  Notice the carpet rolled up…

…in that carpet, is a body.  With a brick on it.  Why is that funny?  I just can’t say.  But I laughed out loud.

Fort Bragg Cubs football.  And cheerleaders.  And then Wolves.  And their cheerleaders.  And then the Jaguars team.  It was no joke.  We take our football serious in this town.  Dang those helmets look big and heavy on those little bodies.

A wooden trailer?  Yes, we like it.  And not just because wood is better than metal on principle, right?

The Shriners!

A Shriner in action.  Cool van.  Cool hat.

I wonder what they do with these things when they’re not at the Paul Bunyan Parade?

More kick-ass Shriners.

The Lady of the C.V. Starr Center

Mendo Meyhem comin’ up the street.  Roller Derby Queens abound.

Mendo Meyhem’s vehicular support.

Amazing horses.  Amazing riders.

A smaller version.

Project Sanctuary.  Horray for the new graduates of the Volunteer training!

And what we’d waited in the hot hot sun for the whole morning long to see…

The sharpest dressed on in the bunch.

How rad are these guys?

So rad they pull over next to your four year old son who Does Not Like Strangers and…

…let’s him toot their horn.  Epic.

Yeah, it was fun.

My name is Alejandro. I was reading an article from one of your staff writers Mark Scaramella. In regards to how to obtain a pot growers permit in Mendocino County. Well, I read that the minimum parcel size for the exemption is five acres. Does that mean you must have at least five acres to grow marijuana to be consider for the permits? And also, can those five acres be cultivated indoors or outdoors only? The article didn’t really specify. Can you please elaborate more on the subject. I’d appreciate it.

Best regards, Alejandro

* * *

Dear Alejandro,

I’m not an official, a lawyer, or an authority on pot. Nor am I a pot smoker, pot grower, or pot fan. Personally, marijuana makes me ill — plants and smoke. But that’s just me.

All I did was read the rules which are posted on the County’s website (County Code 9.31) and found them to be ridiculously complicated and burdensome — especially for the average stoner.

http://library2.municode.com/default-test/home.htm?infobase=16484&doc_action=whatsnew

(Click on Title 9, then choose 9.31 Medical Marijuana Cultivation Regulations.)

The rules you refer to, I believe, are Mendocino County’s DISPENSARY/COOPERATIVE rules. Not the personal garden rules. The five acre minimum applies to dispensaries and cooperative grows only. There’s a big difference.

I can’t even imagine a five acre indoor grow or a five acre personal grow which would not draw the attention of law enforcement.

The County does not issue permits for personal medical grows, just rules and zip-ties. For information on those rules and how to obtain zip-ties, check the Sheriff’s website, the County Code 9.31, or County Counsel Jeanine Nadel’s office. Frankly, I don’t know what the rules are for personal grows these days. The rules seem to change rather frequently. And people who are busted with personal grows tend to need expensive lawyers who specialize in pot law. There’s also the County’s criminal nuisance laws which the pot brigades have filed suit over alleging unconstitutionality. There’s also asset forfeiture which is even more complicated if the cops take you, your pot, your money, your car or anything else Trooper Cop Officer Hoyle lays eyes on during a compliance check or raid and makes you prove it’s not ill-gotten gains via a civil process separate from the criminal case to get it back.

You might also want to refer to the Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board (MMMAB) on the Coast. They’re trying to keep up with these things. PO Box 2555 Mendocino CA 95460 964-YESS. (email: info@mmmab.net)

Most personal pot growers I know around here do it without a “permit” and keep it low-profile and pretty small and hope that nobody ever looks at it very closely — including possible home invaders and other rip-off artists.

Personally, I’d say if you have to ask a newspaper about pot growing rules, you’re probably not ready to take the risk.

Ordinarily, when dumb exchanges between public officials occur at public meetings, it’s just dumb, and maybe somewhat revealing about the public officials involved. But at the August 17 meeting of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, an exchange, prompted primarily by Fourth District Supervisor Kendall Smith’s extreme arrogance and thin skin, was not only dumb but effectively ruined any chance she may have had to influence a board decision which Smith herself thought was important enough to argue about.

Background: Two Supervisors, Smith and Fifth District Supervisor/Lame Duck David Colfax were on record in strong opposition to the trash privatization contract with Jerry Ward and Solid Waste of Willits. Two other Supervisors, John McCowen and John Pinches, who also did the negotiating with Ward and brought the finished product to the Board for approval, were strongly in favor of the proposal and highly invested in it.

In theory, then, there might have been some chance to convince Board Chair (and First District Supervisor) Carre Brown to vote against the deal.

To have any chance at all to convince Brown (probably not a big chance to begin with since Ms. Brown has generally voted with McCowen and Pinches in the past on trash privatization), Smith should have had a succinct presentation all ready in advance with bullet points and very focused explanations of what was wrong with the deal in her judgment. Instead, the discussion began on a bad note and only got worse.

As follows:

* * *

Smith: Well, Madam Chair, just for the record, I, I kept track of the time that Supervisor McCowen took to take us through this, this  “intro,” [sarcastically], uh, to this issue. He had 21 minutes, from 2:22 to 2:43. I just want to make sure that we each, on the board, get equal time to discuss the issue.

Brown: Um, I… How long did Supervisor Colfax take?

Smith: I didn’t keep… I didn’t keep time.

Brown: Ok. Well.

Smith: 21 would be the highest at this point.

Brown: Well, I don’t think individuals should have that. It should be a shared thing. I know that Supervisor Pinches also took time as well. Please go forward, but I think 21 minutes per person is a very long time and we do have public comment. So please go forward.

Smith: Well, Madam Chair, I don’t, I mean. 21 minutes each? I don’t— I think that that’s— that’s reasonable. I mean we’ve got all the time that we need and we certainly aren’t going to limit the public’s input. I just have a series of questions that I would like to ask of staff and they’re rather lengthy and detailed and I have a number of other pieces I’d like to read into the record so I just want to make sure that we each get our fair share of time. I just don’t want to be cut off.

Brown: Well, I think you’re wasting time. You can have 21 minutes, Ms. Smith.

Smith: Ok. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I would prefer to hear from the public and then, um, I have questions of staff. [Nods, folds her arms. Purses her lips. Sits back. Stifles a yawn. Nods some more at Brown. Waits.]

Brown: No! Please go ahead right now. Because I’m sure the public wants to hear.

Smith: Well!

Brown: Please go forward and you have—

Smith: Madam Chair, I’m sure…

Brown: You have 21 minutes.

Smith: Madam Chair, I’m not ready to speak yet, I’d like—

Brown: Then you won’t get 21 minutes after.

Smith: [Very indignant, haughty.]

Brown: Take your time now.

Smith: Well!

Brown: That way the public can hear exactly what you want to say.

Smith: Well, can you explain to me why I won’t get 21 minutes when we have all the time we need? [Condescending smile.]

Brown: Because we’re talking about an introduction. Supervisor McCowen, as Chair of the ad hoc, gave the introduction. You have your opportunity. Supervisor Colfax has had his opportunity. Supervisor Pinches has had his. Please go forward. Then we’ll hear the public.

Smith: So this is part of my 21 minutes, correct?

Brown: This IS your 21 minutes. Go forward.

Smith: Madam Chair!

Brown: Supervisor!

Smith: Wait a minute! Wait a minute! I think we need to go to the procedure! I certainly would be able to comment publicly after we hear from the boards. So—

Brown: And we will go to Rule 19 at that point for all five supervisors. So please go forward.

Smith: So you’d like me to have the 21 minutes now and we’ll still have the Rule 19 after?

Brown: We will have the Rule 19 after.

Smith: OK. Then maybe the clerk could start keeping track of the time.

Brown: I’m keeping track of your time. We’ve been on this for four minutes now. So.

Smith: Mr. Sweeney, I have some questions of you, please.

* * *

Smith then expressed her “concerns,” saying “something has gone terribly terribly wrong. The process was wrong.” And on and on ad infinitum, scattered, disjointed, picky. Then she had an extremely prissy exchange about the existing contract details with County Solid Waste maven Mike Sweeney who is about as tedious and picky as Smith is. Maybe moreso. But even Sweeney got snippy with Smith, asking at one point after a long, disjointed ramble from Smith, “Was that a question?”

Here’s a typical Smith question: “So you’re talking about a downward trend with respect to those rates and I believe that’s the contract that expires in 2013, I said that… you said that, the County would be, in other words, otherwise in a position the tre— if the trend’s going downward to be in a negotiating position if this did not go forward today to possibly save consumers in the South Coast in this case, money.”

Sweeney had no idea what Smith was talking about. After a long pause, Sweeney said, “I’m sorry. Could you repeat that?” Then he laughed, something Sweeney almost never does.

Then Smith laughed a bit too as if it was funny that Sweeney was laughing. Smith backed up and tried to break her question up into prissy little yes or no questions about the existing trash-hauling contracts.

But it was all a big waste of time because Smith had already succeeded in pissing Supervisor Brown off, the only faint hope she had of getting the trash hauling contracts changed, put off, or withdrawn.

But Smith had no idea how irritating she was being, choosing instead to proceed no matter how irritating she was, oblivious to how she was coming across.

At the end of the meeting, Pinches, McCowen and Brown voted to approve the Caspar-less privatization of the five small county-operated transfer stations and Smith didn’t even bother to ask what would happen at Caspar which, at least for now, will still be a joint county-Fort Bragg operation right on her doorstep in the Fourth District.

And I haven’t even mentioned the more than $3,000 of travel money she stole and won’t give back. Nor have I mentioned that she won’t take a voluntary pay cut like almost all (Supervisor Colfax, of course, the exception) her fellow mucky-mucks have taken.

If you could design the perfect ineffectual overpaid local politician like a Ms. Potatohead doll, you’d get Kendall Smith.

It is not uncommon for those of us who have lived for over half a century to nostalgicize a Mom’s-apple-pie-in-the-sky America of the late Fifties and early Six­ties that was kinder and gentler than it is today. Which just goes to show the truly corrosive effect of time on memory, or perhaps it’s just a cleansing of the psyche of an entire generation of children who spent a significant portion of their formative years crouched beneath their student desks with their heads between their knees, repeatedly reminded of the fact that the thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at those heads were controlled by a fat, balding, blubber-lipped, spittle-spewing Com­mie troll named Nikita who displayed the unsavory habit of driving home points of debate with the heel of his shoe.

However, amid all the death and esoteric wonderings- the little man and I have managed to have quite a few adventures.

1) We went tide pooling at Glass Beach:

2) We built a Michelin Man costume:

(I don’t know how he became so enamored with the Michelin Man, but I suspect he’s seen as yet another awesome Super Hero.  I went with it and he did not seem to mind that it wasn’t white.)

3) We hiked down from the top of Russian Gulch State Park to the waterfall.  And found a smiling log covered in moss:

4) We spent most Sundays out at my parents house in Albion where the little man enjoyed his favorite pass-time which is of course, playing with his Pompa:

5) And do you remember those 4 days of sun we had?  Well, we enjoyed them a great deal and on this particular day at Big River Beach, we built a castle with a huge moat and the little man got a good work out chasing the Seagulls away from our snacks:

So, August has come and almost gone.  September beckons.  A chill is in the air.  The winds of change are upon us.  Here’s to the veggies growing fat in the garden, to a few more dry hikes before the rains start and holding your loved ones close and dear.

California is in the slo-mo process of merging wine and marijuana into two branches of the same Intoxication industry.

The merger is still in its early stages, but the outlines of it are starting to appear, especially with Proposition 19, California’s “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010,” looking like it will pass in November. One recent poll by SurveyUSA says that it looks like 50% for, 40% against and 10% undecided.

Proposition 19 says that it will regulate marijuana like alcohol. It won’t (because it turns regulation over to California’s 50 counties to make up their own rules — alcohol is regulated by a state agency, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission. Nothing like that is proposed by Proposition 19.)

Nevertheless, there are still parallels between post prohibition alcohol and post-prohibition marijuana. (Of course, marijuana remains illegal for the foreseeable future at the federal level.)

Since marijuana is considered to be a “recreational drug” by its proponents/users, just like wine, then we expect that in a few years we’ll see: Marijuana tasting rooms, marijuana appreciation classes, marijuana growing being taught at UC Davis, marijuana-food pairings, marijuana tasting lingo, “marijuana country” politicians, marijuana processing facilities (what’s the pot equivalent of a winery? A marijuanery?), boutique marijuaneries, marijuana appelations, and a marijuana committee in the state senate.

For example, we recently ran across a bill sponsored by State Senator Pat Wiggins (who’s widely known to be suffering from senile dementia, not that that disqualifies anyone from being a state senator — or president for that matter). The bill’s text refers to wine, of course. But we suspect that it won’t be long until we see similar bills for marijuana.

So, simply substituting marijuana lingo for wine puffery in Ms. Wiggins bill (and adding a little imagination), we might soon see the following introduced as Official State Law:

* * *

SB 1101 clarifies that roachmakers who participate in instructional events or “meet the roachmaker dinners,” held at a retailer’s licensed premises for stoners, may offer minimal samples of tokes from “bongs.” Specifically, this measure:

1. Modifies an existing provision of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 which allows roachmakers participating in instructional events for tokers at a dispensary’s premises to offer samples of marijuana from bongs or community roaches to also allow for pot samples (no more than three good sized tokes per toker) at the event from “bongs” of pot provided by the roachmaker.

2. Provides that minimal amounts of the samples or tokes provided at the instructional event do not constitute a thing of value.

3. Stipulates that any unused marijuana provided by the roachmaker for the instructional event must be removed from the retailer’s premises by the roachmaker.

Existing law separates the marijuana industry into three component parts, or tiers, of manufacturer (including trimming facilities, marijuaneries and toke-houses), wholesaler, and retailer/dispensary (both on-sale and off-sale).

These laws generally prohibit any marijuana grower, processer, trimmer, greenhouse, importer, wholesaler or testing facility from holding any interest in the business of a retailer of marijuana products or dispensary, or to give anything of value to a licensed retailer or dispensary of marijuana products. Licensees are also prohibited from giving away any gift, premium or free goods in connection with the sale or distribution of marijuana in any form.

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 permits an on-sale retail licensee of marijuana or brownies to conduct “instructional” stoner “how-to” tokes on the licensed retail premises provided the following conditions are met: (1) no more than two tokes are offered in one toking session; (2) no more than one commercial roach sample of not more than 1/16 gram is offered in one toking; and, (3) no more than three tokes are offered to an stoner in one day. An instruction may include the history, nature, values and characteristics of the marijuana on sale, the famous people who campaigned for the legalization of marijuana, and the methods of presenting and serving the bud.

Existing law permits a licensed pot grower, manufacturer, importer, or wholesaler to provide samples of the marijuana which are authorized to be sold by the licensee in accordance with rules prescribed by the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. A retail licensee, however, is not authorized to provide any free tokes. Moreover, Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 regulations provide that samples of non-inhaled marijuana may only be given away to licensees or employees of licensees who are not actually ingesting the marijuana. For example, pot retailers may rub not more than one handful of marijuana balm or poultice on their stoners as long as those stoners are 1. of the same gender as the rubber, and 2. clothed in garments that cover all erogenous zones. Free marijuana brownies may be offered as long as the brownies are consumed on premises by the person who receives them from the retailers. Sharing marijuana brownies is explicitly prohibited.

As a limited exception to the general three-tier rule, existing law permits pot growers and their agents, including pot importers, to conduct and participate in instructional events and dinners held at a pot seller’s premises featuring the pot grower’s own marijuana, provided certain conditions are met. Although no marijuana can be given away at the events, minimal amounts of pot, taken from bongs, pockets, bags, papers or ovens may be sample toked. Any pot retailer or dispensary that mixes tobacco or other non-cannabis leaves or smoke in their product or their smoking rooms with the express intent of taking advantage of unwary stoners will be guilty of pot-fraud, a crime which was added to the California Penal Code by previous legislation.

Current law allows pot growers to conduct and participate in, and serve marijuana at, instructional events and “meet the pot grower dinners” held at a retailer dispensaries featuring pot produced by or for the pot grower or, imported by the pot importer, provided the pot samples are taken from “bongs” or from “community roaches.” This measure would simply clarify that pot growers and processers participating in such events may also offer samples of pot (not more than three tokes) from bongs.

Arguments in Support: Proponents note that this measure “responds to the practical aspects of how ‘meet the pot grower’ dinners are conducted.” Proponents also emphasize that “the tokes, which are strictly instructional, will conform to existing law on the number and size of tokes allowed during a dinner.”

Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 licensees are generally prohibited from giving away any gift, premium or free goods in connection with the sale or distribution of marijuana. Previous legislation has already been introduced to clarify existing law and allow pot growers, pot product retailers and importers, to advertise and promote pot grower dinners and tokings featuring specific pot of a specific marijuanery.

The events addressed by the previous legislation were commonly known and advertised as “pot grower dinners” or “meet the pot grower events.” Such events were intended to offer stoners an educational opportunity to learn more about food and pot pairing and a bit of the pot’s unique history. At that particular time, the activities encompassed were commonplace however the Department of Pot Control (DPC) had expressed concern that such activities might violate the prohibition against licensees giving away things of value. That law was introduced on behalf of the Pot Institute and the Family Pot Growers of California so that the ability of pot growers and retailers to advertise and participate in such events would not be constrained.

Prior legislation provided that an adult resident of California may apply for a permit to receive, under specified conditions, a shipment of pot (not more than two pounds in any calendar month) from another state that allows adult residents of that state to receive shipments of pot from California. It also deleted the requirement that pot taken from baggies or bongs, and sampled at pot grower dinners, be the same pot used to blend the finished roaches featured at the dinners.

* * *

If you think I’m kidding about the level of detail here, I suggest you look up Ms. Wiggins’ silly bill (and you thought our legislators were working on the state budget?) and see for yourself how ridiculous this all has become.

It won’t be long before someone proposes that pot simply become part of the Alcoholic Beverage and Marijuana Control Commission. Then we’ll start seeing stings being set up where minors dressed up to look like adult tokers (or are we being redundant here?) go into marijuana dispensaries and try to entrap the pot growers into selling their intoxicant to a minor.

I had a high school counselor give me some unappreciated and unsolicited insight once.  He said, “Jes, if you hang out in the deep end of the pool long enough, you’ll drown.”  And ultimately, I think he was right.  At sixteen, however, he just seemed vapid.

But back to my sick friend.

I met her a while ago.  She and I were both attending to another mutual friend who was, herself, in the process of dying.  Later, we both happened to step into a certain spiritual community around the same time.  So there was a familiarity and an ease of continuity that just grew stronger over the years.

She was in my wedding.  She gave me craniosacral treatments when I was pregnant.  She held my heart dear as I told her my stories.  She made me tea.  I felt like no matter what, she implicitly understood me.  So we were kin in that sense.  The sense of implicit understanding.  And it was beautiful.

She isn’t young anymore.  She isn’t old, either.  But she’s well past 40 and 50 and even 60.  Old enough.  But not old.  When things got bad with her illness they told her she could apply for new parts but she waived her hand and was like, “I am not going to take those from people who can Use them.”  Her kids were grown.  Her career had come and gone.  It was earlier than perhaps she’d planned, but she wasn’t going to keep perfectly good parts for herself while there were people who as she saw it, needed said parts more than she did.

So she’s at home in a hospital bed.  Getting ready to die.  Maybe dying right now.

And my heart is breaking because even though I know this is what she wanted and she is as comfortable as she can be, selfishly, I will miss her.  Just like the holes in the rock where the glaciers once stood in Yosemite.  The shape of her will be left on all of us who knew her.  And so she will live on, like the rocks of Yosemite.  Weathering the storms of our lives as we hold dear the ones who have gone and are going on before us.  Because without them, what have we to guide our path?

The sunlight coming in on our first morning out there.  Roughly 7am.  I was yawning but as always, he was up an at em bright and early.

After getting everyone organized (Ha!), we headed over to Puppy Dome for some rappelling, some climbing and some chilly-ass river-swimming.

New buddies.  Each waiting for a turn on the crack.  And in a few moments, after I charge my way up, my little boy ties in.  Makes a mom proud.

He listens intently to the story our friend tells him how in Europe, climbers climb in pairs and are always there for each other to give them a lift.

The photo I did not upload is one I did not take but shows myself piled atop our guide with my boy standing on my back and another friend of ours trying to convince the little man that the crack is totally do-able.  He had other ideas.  Such as, “No way.” and “Get me off this thing!”

Then we spent the remainder of the afternoon lounging in the sun on the beautiful granite boulders near a loud and crystalline waterfall.  Never mind that the water was in fact, liquid nitrogen.  Our limbs thawed out eventually.

Later, we all trekked down the road to Olmsted point for some Mate, some coffee and some more hiking, this time without ropes. Unfortunately you cannot see that Half Dome is actually directly behind me.  You’ll just have to trust me.  You trust me, right?

We were sitting there at Olmsted, drinking coffee and Mate and then there was this amazing slab in front of us.  I thought I’d be content to chill but instead we climbed to the top.  The little guy did great.  Who knew his frog boots would be so great on granite.  FYI.

The next day my climbing buddies went here and I opted to sit that one out, agreeing that taking my boy to Tenaya Lake was a better use of our time in Yosemite together.  We built sand castles and had a picnic and enjoyed the sun and the perfect weather.

I want to go back there.

Our last morning there, he has me build him a little friend out of sticks and pine cones.  He was excited that he placed all the teeth in his new buddies mouth.  Very thoughtful, as always.

And after wrapping up our tent, packing up all our gear, we hit the Lake one last time on our way home.  This is the little man and his new friend, chillin in the water.

There is still time to see Yosemite this season so if you have never been, consider it.  More than consider it.  Go.  There is no place like it and the High Country is truly majestic.  There are huge gaps where the Glaciers used to be.  You can see their absence, hanging in the sky like some unspoken truth.

According to Nicole Kench, EcoMotion event promoter and founder, city manager Linda Ruffing (who has not returned my call) blamed the fiasco on bureaucratic ineptitude, sighting sloppy accounting, lack of documentation proving claims, and faulty procedure.

After the cancellation, Ruffing was initially unwilling to give Kench her deposit money back, which, as Kench understood, would be used to fund police services during the event. Since the block party did not take place, Kench wanted her money back. But Ruffing said the city needed to keep the money for costs incurred—$4,431.41 worth of city police time in planning.

That’s when Kench hired an attorney, Cliff Paulin, and appealed Fort Bragg City Council’s decision. They were supposed to argue their case Monday at the city council meeting. Instead, Kench received a phone call from Ruffing saying the city decided to settle.

Kench believes that now, “the city has been exposed.” She went on to say that “One first must be able to take responsibility for their participation in such circumstances rather than place blame on bureaucratic ineptitude.”

Kench is now searching for friendlier confines, and is “choosing the path of least resistance by moving EcoMotion to Venice Beach.”

The block party fundraiser, which was supposed to take place October 10th, was to include music, sustainable educational booths, craft vendors, and carnival games that taught children how to compost and recycle. The event would have raised money for local schools. Kench estimated up to 10,000 people may have attended.

— text of Proposition 19

“…marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue [for the entire United States] of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.”

— Libertarian Harvard Economic Professor Jeffrey Miron (the most-often cited authority on pot economics):

“Will big business and corporate interests — specifically, Fortune 500 alcohol and tobacco companies — now put small growers out of business?”

— John Sakowicz

“…pot billionaires and hemp empires are expected to be forged after legalization. There will likely emerge a Robert Mondavi of the marijuana business. Agriculture companies will race to build marijuana harvesters, tractors and seeders. New pot-specific fertilizers and pesticides will be sought. Commercial development catering to hemp outfitters and smoke shops, like those in Amsterdam, will break ground and revitalize infrastructure. Counties will immediately see the benefits of increased tourism, which industry experts expect to surge in the region.

— Zoltan Istvan, “Marijuana crop could bring cash to California’s next Napa”

“To put the icing on the cake, just imagine what could happen if the public votes to legalize recreational marijuana—a measure, sponsored by one of Oakland’s own, that will appear on the November ballot. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron has estimated that cannabis prohibition costs the nation $7 billion in potential tax revenue; Oakland City Council member Rebecca Kaplan has said the revenue already being generated by the current tax will help save libraries, parks, and other public services. If that’s the case, advocates contend, doesn’t a taxation measure make simple economic sense? “People are no longer outraged by the idea of legalization,” former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown told San Francisco Chronicle last year. “And truth be told, there is just too much money to be made both by the people who grow marijuana and the cities and counties that would be able to tax it.” If Oakland has anything to do with it, it’s high time the rest of California sees just that.”

— Newsweek Magazine

“To the extent that a commercial marijuana industry developed in the state, however, we estimate that the state and local governments could eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenues.”

— California Legislative Analyst on Proposition 19

* * *

It’s been almost 30 years since Mendocino County’s then-Ag Commissioner Ted Erickson was fired for writing the obvious in the County’s annual crop report — that marijuana was Mendocino County’s number one cash export crop.

Nowadays, Mendo Mellow is growing nearly everywhere in the County from residential neighborhoods to remote mountaintops.

Every so often a local official suggests that the Ag Commissioner try to estimate the value of Mendocino County’s pot crop; the last time was in late 2007. But since Erickson, it has never gone past the suggestion stage so nobody in an official position has tried. Perhaps the memory of what happened to Ted Erickson still lingers.

But how would you estimate the commercial value of Mendo Mellow? What do you count? Plants? Processed bud? It’s a bit like counting grains of sand on the beach.

Back in 2007, before he retired, Dave Bengston, the long-serving Ag Commissioner who took office after Erickson was fired, nevertheless gave some thought to the question on the off chance that the Board of Supervisors would officially direct him to begin assaying weed, so to speak. Besides contacting local, state and federal law enforcement agencies for their input, Bengston said he would talk to what he calls “the marijuana support industry” — the local suppliers of fertilizers, plastic baggies, large generators or diesel pumps. Bengston said he knew a retired forester who was “very good at estimating acreage from the air” who could take the Commissioner aloft for a fly-over or “pot-cruise.”

With conventional ag crops simple grower surveys are used. But an (anonymous) pot survey might not get much response, much less be even remotely accurate. Even a partial response from pot growers would be difficult to base an reasonable estimate on since there’s no way to know how representative it would be. Surveys would also have to be bi-lingual given the many, large illegal grows by, well, illegals.

Over the years attempts have been made to guesstimate Mendo’s pot crop value, but they all rely on speculative assumptions, beginning with the law enforcement’s plant seizure reports. But those numbers are never explained. How many were mature plants? How much had already been harvested when the garden was raided? How much bud did the plants produce? How big were the plants? How much would have been lost due to animals, weather, and so on. The variables are numerous.

Pot value guessers assume a certain amount of processed bud per plant. Multiply that dubious figure by the number of plants seized, jack that up by a factor of 10, or 20 or more (to represent the uncounted and unseized), apply the assumed wholesale price and like magic you’ve got a wholesale pot crop value estimate — usually in the billions.

Yeah, sure, dude.

Since Mendo’s seizure numbers are so large these days, any assumption about processed bud per plant or cost per pound can produce wildly varying results. We’ve seen estimates as low as several hundred million dollars to well into the billions, just for Mendocino County alone.

Mendocino Supervisor John Pinches said a couple of years ago that a “consultant” hired by the County had estimated that the marijuana industry in Mendocino County represented two-thirds of the county’s economy. Since the County’s total conventional ag crop value is typically in the range of $225 million, that would translate to around $450 million worth of pot — large, but much less than the inflated estimates derived from seizures.

Seizures have gone up dramatically in recent years, probably because so much more pot is being grown, and grown in boldly large gardens, some of which number in the thousands of plants. Obviously illegal, therefore not voluntarily surveyable, assessable or taxable.

Depending on what source you use (state numbers or County Eradication Team numbers) seizures have gone up by two or three or four times just in the last few years.

The County’s pot team says they eradicated almost 450,000 plants in 2009. They claimed to have ripped out about 320,000 plants in 2007. In 2004 they said they eradicated 92,000.

Already this year, still early in the season, the pot eradication people say they’ve snagged almost 100,000 plants.

Could the total number of pot plants have gone up as much as these seizure numbers indicate?

The only reasonable way we know of to approach a pot crop estimate would be to try to break it down by category and geography and build from there.

The pot crop breaks down to registered Prop 215 medical personal use growers, unregistered Prop 215 personal use growers, Prop 215 caregivers (registered and unregistered, some of them “dispensaries”), non-medical personal use growers — which, taken together probably don’t represent much by volume or price. Then add large “medical” and non-medical (illegal) commercial growers, plus Mexican or drug trafficking organization cartel growers.

There’s also the additional problem of how much is grown indoors.

You’d have to apply different prices to different categories of pot depending on how processed it is and whether it’s sold retail or wholesale.

Since the cops focus primarily on large commercial trespass grows and illegal public land grows, they probably seize a higher percentage of those crops since they tend to be visible from the air. For the other categories, you might try to get the number of Prop 215 cards and the number of patrol deputy or police seizures by supervisorial district and you’d probably start to get a rough handle on the crop size and perhaps some estimate of value.

Factor in that fact that most large grows and many of the smaller grows in Mendocino County are not sold in the County nor are they sold by County residents and therefore don’t contribute to the local economy at all. Then factor in that in some areas of the County pot is a form of currency used for barter and is not converted to cash. (“Hey dude, I’ll give you this bag of bud for that old motorbike over there.”)

“I’m not going to do a marijuana crop estimate on my own, arbitrarily,” Bengston told me a few months before he retired last year. “It’s a can of worms and it can become very politically charged. Some people might think that estimating it is adding legitimacy to it. Others might say it’s so pervasive that it should be legalized.”

Looking at marijuana growing from a purely agricultural perspective, Bengston also points out a significant likely outcome of legalization that is frequently overlooked: If you legalize it, above-ground companies will start growing it in the central valley or the midwest where they can grow high volumes in row crops causing a dramatic price drop. If that happened — and it might soon, given that there’s a legalization initiative on the November state ballot — a year or two later there could be a dramatic reduction in marijuana growing of any kind in Mendocino County. Some people say the pot industry would adapt by emulating the wine industry and that small, boutique pot farms would spring up, selling specialty marijuana out of tasting rooms — a nightmare scenario on several levels.

In other words, pot could go the way of wine and all that goes with it: Proposition 19 (on the November ballot) says that pot would be taxed and regulated like alcohol (while simultaneously saying that each city or county would develop its own taxes and regulations — an obvious contradiction.)

So if you like the wine industry is taxed and regulated, you’ll love this the November pot initiative.

There’s also some serious speculation in the real estate world about what would happen to local land values if pot is legalized. Put marijuana and/or hemp on the list of possible legal ag crops and what would happen to land values? Would it become like vineyards? Probably not, because while pot requires less development cost per acre, the water demand and availability could put a limit on it.

“There’s no reliable or accurate way to estimate the value of the pot crop,” said Bengston. “What good is a number if it’s just somebody’s wild guess?”

And if there’s no reliable way to estimate the value of marijuana crop when it’s illegal, think how much harder it would be to estimate the value after legalization. Would it include the additional taxes on property of pot-growing raised assessed property values?

A whole new range of guesses would be have to be made.

But that hasn’t stopped some “economists” from trying.

Libertarian (and pro-legalization) Harvard-based Jeffrey Miron is an oft-cited economist because a in 2005 he issued a “report” entitled “Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States.”

(http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html)

“The first step in determining the tax revenue under legalization is to estimate current expenditure on marijuana,” says Mr. Miron who then goes on to cite the 2000 $10.5 billion estimate by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. “This estimate relies on a range of assumptions about the marijuana market, and modification of these assumptions might produce a higher or lower estimate,” admits Miron. “There is no obvious reason, however, why alternative assumptions would imply a dramatically different estimate of current expenditure on marijuana. This report therefore uses the $10.5 billion figure as the starting point for the revenue estimates.”

There you go. Take a dubious — but official — number and assume it to be true. Then extrapolate and apply academic factors to your heart’s content.

Nobody really knows how a legal marijuana marketplace would operate. What percentage of total marijuana transactions would continue in the black market and involve people who grow, purchase or barter cannabis rather than buying it in stores? What percentage of transactions would involve extra excise taxes like cigarettes or alcohol? How many marijuana transactions would be subject to taxation and regulation at all? What unpredictable fiscal impacts would legalization lead to?

Oh, and did we mention this additional factor: “The Marijuana Policy Project provided funding for the research discussed in [Miron’s] report.”

In other words, give me some funding and I’ll produce a report supporting your position.

Most of the “reports” on the value and possible tax revenue of marijuana are similarly funded with conclusions tending to support the political position of the funder.

We’ve seen estimates of the value of just Mendocino’s pot crop as high as $20 billion. (500,000 plants seized x 1 pound per plant x $2,000 per pound x 20 unseized plants).

Or perhaps $5 billion (500,000 plants seized x 1 pound per plant x $1,000 per pound x 10 unseized plants.)

Mr. Miron nevertheless ends up with a $7 billion pot value estimate for the entire US (presumably the retail value, but even that’s not clear.)

If California represents one third of that then there would be maybe $2.3 billion in California. And if Mendo represents maybe one-fifth of that, then Mendo’s crop could be upwards $500 million, roughly comparable to the questionable Mendo estimate.

Then you can guess how much of that might be taxable in Mendocino County (retail only?), and how much of that taxable amount could actually be collected. We doubt that much of those Mendo Mellow Millions would produce real tax revenue for the County or the state.

These vagaries will never stop people from making self-serving guesses about the value of marijuana and the potential tax windfall that might result.

As a general rule however, and as hinted at here, the lower the guess, the better.

Before anyone votes for a measure that presumes to solve local or state tax budget problems by taxing marijuana, they should at least realize that all the revenue numbers being tossed around are just wild guesses and that local and state budgets ills will not be cured by marijuana taxes any more than marijuana will cure my headache at trying to examine all of this.