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.

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.

— 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.

No, no. It’s not what you may think.

This is a story told by my father about an experience he had while he was in college at UC Davis.

It was 1928 and my grandfather, a dairyman with a small herd near Manchester on the Mendocino Coast at the time, had made arrangements with Professor Mead, head of the UC Davis Dairy Industry Department, to participate in an experiment based on Professor Mead’s theory that cross-eyed bulls produced cows which produced more milk. The experiment required a fairly controlled environment where the milk production of the offspring of a cross-eyed bull could be accurately compared to the output of an ordinary dairy herd. Professor Mead loaned his few cross-eyed bulls to as many dairymen in Northern California as he could to enlarge and validate the experiment.

The experiment involved shipping a prize cross-eyed bull from the UC Davis herd to my grandfather’s Manchester dairy ranch. My father, who was already a UC Davis student, was the obvious choice to get the bull from Davis to Manchester. My father’s expenses would be paid by the University and there would be no stud fees.

The bull was a prize-winning Jersey weighing well above average at almost 2000 pounds. The next time my father went home for a vacation he would drive their ranch truck, a 1920 Day-Elder flatbed with magneto lights, back to UC Davis and use it to transport the bull. The truck ran good but was starting to show its age.

The trip began one late fall morning by loading a large empty crate onto the flatbed. The relatively tame and docile bull (Jersey bulls are known for their unpredictability) was then herded into the crate and the crate was nailed shut and securely roped to the flatbed. Several loose ropes were tied around the bull’s neck to keep the bull near the center of the crate.

It was immediately obvious to my father that the big bull made the truck top-heavy. He realized that if the bull got too far over to one side it might tip over the truck, so he’d have to drive very carefully. A friend and fellow UC Davis student from the Mendocino Coast named Herb who would accompany my father for the trip hopped in and off they went.

The first leg of the trip from Davis to the Coast was more or less uneventful, except for the flat tire. Although putting on the spare wasn’t much of a problem, it took over an hour and a half and threw them off their schedule. As they changed the tire with all that extra weight , they were reminded, if they needed reminding, that the truck was unstable with a big live bull in a crate on the flatbed. They had hoped to make it to Manchester before nightfall. Now that was in doubt.

The route my father chose was through Napa County and Sonoma County and over to the Coast at Jenner because at that time the roads to the Coast in Mendocino County were, shall we say, “unimproved,” (i.e., dirt or gravel) — besides being steep and very twisty. He didn’t think they’d be stable or flat enough to take a 2000-pound bull on the back of a flatbed. But the route was a long one and they were getting worried about making it in one day.

The flat tire and the slower speeds they needed to keep from jostling the bull too much further delayed their arrival in Jenner however. It became obvious that they would have no chance to get home in the daytime.

Anyone familiar with Highway 1 knows that one of the most interesting sections of it is the well known “Jenner Grade,” a series of steep switchbacks that take you from the mouth of the Russian River up to the Coast headlands.

Miraculously, they made it up the switchbacks, although they had to go much slower than they expected 1. to maintain stability, and 2. because the truck wouldn’t make it up the steep slopes in any gear but first — another major time setback.

It was getting dark. The fog was coming in, thick and patchy. And the truck’s old variable magneto lights, which depended on the truck’s speed to operate, weren’t providing much light.

In the 1920s, Highway 1 along the Coast was much steeper and curvier than it is today. Following the rough coastline north required many swings into gulches where there were not only some severe and steep u-turns and s-turns, but whatever little moonlight there was was obstructed by the steep walls surrounding the gulches.

The combined effect of the visibility restrictions meant that for several long sections of Highway 1 Herb had to get out of the truck with an old-fashioned flashlight and guide my father along the road at a walking pace.

Unsurprisingly, the bull was becoming antsy and impatient, making more noise and pulling on his ropes.

Oh, and did I mention that many stretches of the narrow strip of Highway 1 are cut into the steep sheer cliffs of the Coastal headlands? For miles at a time there’s no shoulder and you can stand on the edge of the road and look right down at the rock-and-driftwood-cluttered beaches 100-200 feet or more below.

This wasn’t exactly what my father had bargained for when he signed on to Professor Mead’s goofy experiment.

They slowly and carefully made their way north through the remote outposts of Fort Ross, Salt Point, Horseshoe Cove, Rocky Point, Fisherman Bay, Smuggler’s Cove, Black Point, etc., and finally made it to Gualala a little before midnight where they gassed up and stayed overnight in the famous Gualala Hotel. The bull was assisted out of the crate and into a small corral that a friendly Gualalian kindly offered up for the night. The next morning they re-loaded the bull and finished the trip up to Manchester without further incident.

My father told this story in a matter of fact manner, as if it was just an uninteresting part of a routine cross-eyed cow experiment, and as if he never felt like there was much real danger.

Times were different then.

But I’m still convinced that the trip was anything but routine.

Editor,

Hello friends of the AVA and enemies who love to enquire within. After reading the June 30, AVA, I must wonder how Meredith Lintott received about 38% of the votes? Sure, she has a tough job, but after filing bankruptcy she clearly shows another example of poor management. No wonder the DA’s office needs more money. But really, honestly, how can you live here in Mendocino County and file for bankruptcy when making around a total of around $200,000 a year? Poor thing.

Mr. Eyster, if I could vote, you’d get mine, not because you’re a man — some people may argue that. But I don’t like men in the sexual aspect. You just seem like you have a good work ethic and more than enough qualifications for the job. I hope Matt Finnegan chooses to back you.

As for Judge Brown, he gets stuck between Rocks and Hard Places, damned-if-you-do,-damned-if-you-don’t, situations all the time. I guess it goes with the territory, but he did put more time and consideration into my case than many people would have. For that, I thank you and I give my word to better myself no matter what the results were. I’m doin’ it because a man’s word is his word and should always mean more than the blabber people carelessly vomit from Century 21. (I refer to the rumor mills.)

As for Mr. Rexrode, a felony? Really? Losing his American rights over a sometimes legal/sometimes not organic medicine the county is trying to figure out how to make money off of legally? Grapes are also legal to grow, and sucking up all the water from the rivers that the fish “used” to live in. Then they turn the grapes into booze which causes more deaths than any other drug. You shoulda been a teacher, Mr. Rexrode.

To Freda Moon: I think you’re wonderful, a first-rate journalist, great articles in Sunset. The basis for any aspiring journalist is a good old-fashioned hard-working, down in muck, story-seeking hand. Heck, if detectives were like you, the world would be a better place.

To my family: I love you all. Leo, I owe you a garage, crazy.

Selena, you helped bring me to a place in life that I never thought I’d find. You’re one wonderful human being. I thank you. I love you, honey.

Mindy, you’re just my hero. That’s all I can say about that, ok? Enough emotional stuff. There’s no crying in prison. Haha.

Well, prison is way better than county jail. The food, though nothing compared to Selena’s cooking, is three times better than County Jail. I get to keep my razor so I can shave whenever I want to and we don’t eat breakfast at the Buttcrack Off-down.

Mindy, I know you said I shouldn’t write to the paper. But hey, we’re Ending the Silence. And the shrinks taught me not to hold things inside.

Anyone out there in the AVA world of readers who wishes to vent anything, I’m here to listen. And believe me, I won’t judge you. And I know shame.

And to #6475 on the petition list, we’re here for you. I can and will help you if you wish.

Empowering people one step at a time,

Aaron Vargas #AD5532

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94964

Victim/Survivor/Supporter

* * *

Ed note: The petition list Mr. Vargas refers to is at www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-aaron.

The text of #6475 is:

Jun 19, 2010, Katie Whitney, California — Please stop punishing Aaron for something that has been punishing him and his family for years….These situations that happen people don’t know how to deal with or talk about, I know this because my family is suffering from the same dark tale…I am living through the same situation right know that Aaron and his family are going through….The Fort Bragg Police won’t help us, we are stalked daily, restraining orders don’t work when the abuser manages to stay in the gray area of the law, until he strikes! By then it’s to late for us do anything. The Fort Bragg PD will believe every word from the abuser as the truth….THEREFORE allowing another man to continue to abuse little boys…..It terrifies me, because I am afraid that history will repeat itself…..And there is no help in Mendocino County for those that have been abused, especially if you do not have the “right last name,” or money!!

All eight of Mendocino County’s “bargaining units” are up for negotiation this year.

The “Department Head” bargaining unit, an oxymoronic joke anywhere but Mendocino County, has already agreed to a 10% pay cut. This “bargaining unit” includes all appointed department heads; the elected department heads previously had a 10% pay cut imposed on them without the benefit of “bargaining.”

Elected Department Heads include: The Sheriff, the District Attorney, the Treasurer-Tax Collector, the Assessor-Clerk-Recorder and the County Auditor.

The appointed Department heads include, the Personnel (aka Human Resources) Manager, County Counsel, Water Agency Manager, Ag Commissioner, Probation Director, Health and Human Services Director, Library/Museum Director, Transportation Director, Child Support Services (aka Deadbeat Dad Collections) Director, General Services Director, Planning & Building Director, and the Public Defender, at a minimum. It might also include the Alternate Public Defender and the Library Director herself, but we’re not sure exactly who all’s in this illustrious collection of local executives.

Then there’s the County’s “management bargaining unit” which includes most of the managers and supervisors above first line supervisors. So far, there’s been nothing made public about the status of the manager’s union contract negotiations.

The rest of the Bargaining Units include: the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), easily the largest of the County’s bargaining units); the Deputy Sheriff’s Association (which includes patrol deputies, sergeants, corrections officers, DA investigators, and a few welfare fraud investigators); MCLEMA (Mendocino County Law Enforcement Management Association); Confidential (“‘Confidential employee’ means an employee so designated by the Human Resources Director who, in the course of his/her duties, has access to confidential information relating to the County’s strategy development, position or funding regarding labor negotiations or employer-employee relations activities”); the Probation Officers Association; and MCPAA (Mendocino County Public Attorneys Association). There are a few “unrepresented” employees who are not identified, but who contract with the County individually.

Most interest these days centers around the ongoing Deputy Sheriff’s Association negotiations which have become the focus of an intense and seemingly unresolvable (so far) dispute over how big the pay concessions the County’s line law enforcement officers will take.

The rough parameters of the dispute are already on the record since the Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 last month to cut the Sheriff’s Patrol Unit (roughly half of his approximately $20 million budget) by $2 million. Since the Sheriff says he’s already at minimum staffing for the jail, then the County is pressuring the DSA to absorb something like the $2 million in wage and benefit concessions. Mathematically — and simplistically — that’s $2 million out of the patrol unit’s $10 million budget, or 20%. If it all came out of layoffs of non-jail personnel, that would be 20% of about 90 total remaining staff, or 18 people, including eleven deputies.

Another approach, however, is to look at the base salary cost of the members of the DSA, which we understand is currently in the 150 range.

According to the latest County pay classifications, corrections deputies are paid from $54k to $62k. Patrol deputies get from $45k to $75k per year. And DA investigators get from $57 to $71k per year.

Assuming, then, that the DSA average base salary is in the range of $60k per year (not including overtime and payroll overhead costs), then there would be 150 officers times $60,000, or about $9 million in total base salary for the DSA. The rest of the Sheriff’s budget is in management, vehicles, equipment, contracts, and non-peace officer staff, plus a substantial amount of overhead for pensions, facilities, office expenses, etc.

By these numbers, we see that to get the entire $2 million budget cut out of the DSA (without layoffs, resignations, retirements, etc.) would require more than a 20% reduction in pay. And indeed early numbers leaked out in May to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat indicated that the County was asking the DSA for 20-25% pay cuts.

Obviously, nobody in the DSA will voluntarily accept such huge cuts.

In the last two weeks, we’ve been approached by several of Mendocino County’s law enforcement “community” who volunteered their opinions about the negotiations so far. This is the first time in more than 20 years that anyone from law enforcement has taken the initiative to talk to us about ongoing labor negotiations.

And the picture they paint is, predictably, not pretty.

Law enforcement, by law, cannot strike. Technically, the County can legally impose a “last and final offer” pay cut on the deputies and let the chips fall where they may.

The people who spoke to us say they might be willing to take a 10-12% pay cut. But no more than that. They add that so far the County refuses to offer anything less than a 15% cut, some of which may involve forcing the deputies to pay their entire pension cost, as has recently been proposed in Sonoma County.

Most DSA members are unwilling to accept the County’s 15% or more pay cut offer, and something approaching a “negotiations impasse” looms in the not too distant future. If that happens, the County could impose a sizable pay cut on the DSA and take their chances on what would ensue.

Possibilities of what would ensue include some kind of a “blue flue” organized but short-term unofficial walk-out. (Although we also hear that a lot of deputies don’t like that idea because of the poor PR that might result). More likely, deputies who have had their pay cut by 15% or more will not only experience another blow to their already low morale, but, of course, will start looking for better paying work elsewhere.

If pay is reduced to the point that deputies start to quit, not only will Mendo lose their services with little chance of being replaced (at reduced salaries), but the incentive for corruption will increase.

Let’s quickly add here that we don’t realistically expect that deputies will turn to corruption (under the table pot-money payments come to mind), but historically, when cops are paid too little, there’s always the chance that a few will start looking at other sources of income supplements.

In addition, Mendo could lose $100k-$150k per deputy if (and when) they have to re-recruit and re-train replacements.

It’s quite possible that the County fully intends and expects some law enforcement people to quit by forcing unreasonable salary reductions on them. To the bean counters, that would be gravy on top of the pay cuts. Not only would the County get huge immediate salary savings, but every deputy who quits is a deputy they don’t have to pay, or lay-off with accompanying unemployment payments.

Shortsighted and dumb, you say? Of course — this is Mendocino County.

One other wild card in this dismal equation is asset forfeiture money. Upward of $2 million in seized marijuana-related assets is put into the County coffers each year lately, although as it’s presently allocated less than half of that goes to the Sheriff’s department. Some people think that asset forfeiture money could be used to pay a portion of deputy overtime (and supplement their reduced pay) if that overtime is clearly not part of the “basic operation” of the Sheriff’s Department.

Others close to the issue, however, insist that using asset forfeiture money for any form of deputy pay is clearly illegal and should not even be brought up in any labor discussions. We agree that it’s illegal. But, again, this is Mendocino County.

At an early may Board of Supervisors Budget discussion, County CEO Carmel Angelo reported, ““Not including the jail, the Sheriff’s Office now has 3 captains, 5 lieutenants, 14 sergeants and 42 filled deputy positions, and about 36 clerical and non-sworn.”

Ms. Angelo’s apparent implication was that the Sheriff’s patrol division has too much management and supervision. None of the Supervisors, however, remarked on Ms. Angelo’s law enforcement numbers, nor their implication.

But remember, the Sheriff has an enormous County to cover and even with only 42 patrol deputies, they need a minimum number of experienced location supervisors and shift supervisors the outlying areas including Covelo, Willits, Laytonville, the South Coast, Fort Bragg, and the 24-hour shift coverage in Ukiah.

If we’re going to look at the number of supervisors and managers in the Sheriff’s Department, it would only be fair to look at equivalent numbers on the County’s other departments. But Ms. Angelo has never reported the numbers and ratios in the other County departments even though the Board and Ms. Angelo have repeatedly said they need to look at supervisor-to-staff ratios.

Nor has one supervisor ever asked for a report of staffing/supervisor ratios by department, even though they frequently insist that they have looked at them time and again.

The law enforcement people we’ve talked to also are quick to point out that it looks real bad for County management to have taken a 10% cut when, at the same time, they’re asking the deputies to take 15%, 20% or 25% cuts. And two Supervisors — David Colfax and Kendall Smith — have yet to even take the 10% voluntary time off that their three confederates have taken.

Before highly trained public safety officers are asked to take big pay cuts, the Board better do a lot better job in convincing them — and the public — that they’ve done everything they can to fairly examine and cut other departments, and especially management and senior staff.

But so far, it’s pretty obvious to the public and their own deputies, that nothing like that has been done.

The backdrop for all of this is the county’s and the state’s ever-worsening revenue declines. California’s budget situation is the worst in the nation. The State is already talking about another round of IOUs in a few weeks instead of paychecks for state workers. Mendocino County’s general fund revenues (mostly sales taxes and property taxes) continue to decline as well. Nobody’s even considering any form of tax increases or proposals at any level of government.

So even if the DSA gives up a significant portion of their pay, the problem will only be postponed. The first draft of the deficit budget for next fiscal year, July 2011 to June 2012, is supposed to be presented to the Board of Supervisors in August. And, even in the best-case scenario, by that time, the DSA will have already given up all they’re going to give up.

Of course the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010″ which will be on the ballot in November will not be called “Proposition 420.” But whatever number it ends up with in November, it’s likely that it will 1. pass, 2. Complicate marijuana law in California more than it is now, 3. look a lot like Mendocino County’s current pot regulation monstrosity, 4. look something like alcoholic beverage control but without the good parts, 5. not produce the revenue its giddy proponents expect, and 6. not end the charade.

And what is the charade?

Let’s turn that question over to KGO weekend talk show host Pat Thurston who discussed the subject a couple of Saturdays ago (at 5 in the morning — you can be excused if you missed it. We only heard it because we snagged it from the KGO archive.)

* * *

[Thurston's opening churn]:

Let’s talk about marijuana. I recently read an article in the Los Angeles Times with the headline, “Time to end the marijuana charade.” It really is a charade. It’s a ridiculous situation in the state of California. Californians voted for compassionate use of marijuana. But at this point in time, does anyone really believe that these marijuana dispensaries are dispensing only to sick people? Isn’t this one of the biggest pink elephants ever to emerge?

It’s not that I begrudge people the use of marijuana when they are sick. I don’t care if people use marijuana recreationally. But once again, when it comes to regulation, when it comes to California policy, we are in the midst of something that is completely dishonest. And in its dishonesty, it is completely idiotic.

This is a policy where hundreds, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands  of people get their weed at a small number of outlets that are not like drugstores; they are more like recreation halls. People go in, they bring their video equipment, they sit around, they smoke weed, get high with people, have fun.

By the way, the number of shops, the number of these dispensaries seems to be getting smaller. So there are fewer of them available. The ones that are available are doing more and more business.

The neighborhoods they are in are suffering. In some neighborhoods, neighbors at first said they thought they were going to be very mellow. It was just going to be people who were stoned. But unfortunately, they are vandalizing neighborhoods, they are loitering in neighborhoods, they are breaking into people’s homes, people’s cars. It’s hurting these neighbors and it is hurting the state.

There is a ballot initiative coming up in November. I hope this initiative does something to fix the problem. I have not seen the specific text of it yet. I certainly want to take a look at it. But I think it’s time for us in the state of California to stop the charade. Stop looking at marijuana as this great evil weed. Stop looking at marijuana and the compassionate medical use of marijuana and thinking we have resolved some sort of problem here — and we haven’t.

If it’s a drug that sick people need, if it’s a drug that some people need for medicinal purposes, then it needs to be dispensed through a drugstore with a physician’s prescription. It should not be dispensed in a recreation hall or over countertops set up in people’s houses.

The people who are growing marijuana because they have a personal use or because they are sick, I think that’s fine. But there are people who are growing it to sell to these dispensaries.

Do you know that these dispensaries mark up the stuff up a lot? They really lowball the growers, and then they mark this stuff up so much, ostensibly to cover overhead, but the overhead includes their salaries. There are people making pretty good money off of this. But guess who isn’t? The state of California isn’t. Local jurisdictions are not. Nobody else is making any money off of this.

So there is a huge huge demand for this. If we are going to provide this for medicinal purposes, let’s make it medicine and dispense it through a dispensary as medicine.

But if we are going to accept that this is something that should also be available for recreational purposes, then it needs to be made widely available to adults. It needs to be controlled for quality and it needs to be taxed — a nice big old tax. A tax that will go into state coffers. This is doable.

The crime rate that is associated with the marijuana trade now is really bad. And it’s getting worse. It encompasses our state, neighboring states, Mexico. It’s violent. There are marijuana farms that are being set up in national parks. Marijuana farms are being set up in isolated areas that are remote and removed from any scrutiny or control. And they are dangerous. People are using automatic weapons to protect them. They have IEDs around some of these places to protect them. This is ludicrous.

In Mendocino County we know there are vast marijuana farms. You can smell them when you drive to Mendocino County at harvest time. You can smell it there quite easily right in public places. So we know that it’s happening.

But the state is not getting any cut of this thing.

So we have yet another policy that is a charade.

We could decide as a state that we are going to go back in time and make it completely unavailable. But we all know that’s ridiculous. We know prohibition doesn’t work. We know that prohibition of alcohol or marijuana ultimately leads to crime. Organized crime. We are funding criminal activities. It becomes a big fundraiser, a big moneymaker for horrible violent criminals. Take it away from them. They should not have the control of this. There is no reason for them to have the control of this.

If we had marijuana farms which were grown legitimately in the state of California and it did not have to be hidden, we would do away with the farms that are being set up in our national parks. We would do away with people setting up IEDs to keep people out of their illicit farms. Farms would be legal. We would do away with the need for these criminals to come into our state and set up this activity because there’s this demand. There is a demand and they create a supply for us. We don’t need them to do it for us. We can do it ourselves. But we have to be able to do it legitimately. We have to do it within the law. Everybody benefits. Don’t they?

. . .

On yelp.com people rate their dispensaries online. And when they do this they do not talk about how sick they are or about their illnesses. Nobody’s talking about how this is a solution to their symptoms. They are talking about the quality of their weed, and they give various types of weed ratings.

. . .

Caller: There are delivery services now, hundreds of them. If you want to tell a doctor you have a headache and get a recommendation, then go over and sign yourself up on the Internet at a mobile dispensary and give your phone number. People call you and arrange to deliver the marijuana at a Starbucks or something. You can do that right now.

. . .

Thurston: As we get closer to November you are going to start seeing ads that are funded by the pharmaceutical industry and the alcohol industry because legal marijuana will compete with both of those. If recreational marijuana is allowed it will reduce alcohol consumption. And good! Because people get mean when they drink alcohol. When you smoke pot you get hungry. You get the munchies. You tend to be more mellow. If people pick a fight with you you’re more likely to laugh at them than anything else and offer them a sandwich.

Pharmaceuticals don’t like the idea because you can grow your own. You don’t have to go through a pharmaceutical company. It’s not something that has to be manufactured in some laboratory and converted into a little pill form for you. In fact Marinol does not work as well as smoking pot when it comes to using it for medicinal purposes.

So you can grow it yourself. So that will face resistance from the pharmaceutical industry and the alcohol industry.

We need to stop this fake marijuana policy. Charade is the best word I can think of. It’s exactly what it is. It’s dishonest.

Let’s embrace recreational marijuana for adults and tax it — big high taxes on it. Let’s do it. It will increase the coffers in the state of California and I don’t think anyone will suffer. Don’t fight it. Make it something you can use legitimately and the state can benefit from it. If the state benefits from it, you and I benefit from it.

. . .

Caller Ron in San Jose: The State of Utah faced this problem back in 1932 right after Prohibition. Because of the Mormon church, they didn’t know what to do. So they did the smart thing. The state of Utah took control of the liquor industry and the liquor stores. To this day the state of Utah owns the liquor stores. So why doesn’t the state of California own and control the marijuana business? They can franchise it. Anybody who wants a dispensary can go to the state of California and buy a franchise to grow for a dispensary. There would be statewide specific rules. There would be a Department of Marijuana Regulation.  The state of California would simply hire people to operate the marijuana stores and sell it under proper management and keep all the profit for the state. You don’t have to keep just the tax. If you legalize and tax pot, how the hell do you collect the tax? You need a structure to make sure you get paid. But it would be almost impossible to collect a marijuana tax through the Franchise Tax Board. How can they make sure they’re taxing it? How can they make sure people are reporting what they sell? There is a lot of stuff that goes on at these dispensaries that are not legitimate. I don’t trust that they would pay taxes properly.

. . .

Thurston: I have lived in states where they have specific alcohol stores to buy alcohol. It’s a very sterile environment, not fun, no flashing neon signs. On the way out there is a turnstile and a person who looks official who is a state employee. You have to show identification. The state reaps all the money. You are is absolutely right. I like that idea.

. . .

Ron: There is absolute control. They can tell exactly what people are doing and the state has direct control over all the outlets and who buys it.

. . .

Thurston: And the prices would all be the same so there would be consistency in pricing. They would all provide pretty much the same thing and the cost would be standardized. You would have to show identification and it would be a good way to control it. I like the idea.

I have not seen the ballot measure that’s going to appear in November. I don’t know how they are going to collect the tax. We need to look at that. I doubt that they have any real good way to collect the tax. I think your proposal would be a good way to keep control. If you have a mind altering substance you have to maintain control over it.

. . .

Ron: And the crime element. That would go away. When the state of Utah took control of the liquor stores, the black market couldn’t compete against it. So the black market pretty much dried up. So you get rid of the crime element. There is always a little bit of a black market, but you could get rid of most of it and it would be much more manageable. People can start worrying about something else for a change.

* * *

Unlike Ms. Thurston, we have reviewed the text of the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010″ and have found it wanting in several important areas.

Turning over the regulation, control and taxation of Cannabis to individual counties is downright stupid. Do counties control alcoholic beverages? No. The state does.

The proposition states: “There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more.”

How do they know that this proposition will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues?

The proposition says the state should “regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.”

But the regulatory scheme in the proposition is nothing like the alcoholic beverage regulatory scheme.

“The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.”

No it wouldn’t. Especially not if they can sell large quantities out of state.

“Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts…”

So it’s going to be illegal in some cities and counties and legal in others? Probably.

“Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.”

Pure speculation.

“Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.”

Why is this in there? “Allow the Legislature”? Why not simply call for statewide legalization and taxation?

How much could you legally grow if it passes?

“…in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.”

Need we even bother to enumerate how many holes this particular porous provision contains?

The proposition legalizes (with licenses) “retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale.”

“Not for resale”?

What if the rules aren’t followed?

Counties and cities can “prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully.”

This is completely unworkable.

What does the proposition say specifically about taxation?

“Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees

“(a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.

“(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.”

Notice that they don’t even mention the words “sales tax.” Most of the other taxes mentioned require separate area-based ballot initiatives, not simple majorities of elected officials. The amount of work required to even put one of these kinds of special taxes on the ballot will make it nearly impossible to implement. And most forms of these tax proposals require two-thirds majorities to pass.

Why didn’t they simply use the term “sales tax”? Don’t they trust the sellers?

And then there’s this lovely provision:

“In a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.”

I know potheads in Mendocino County who can use literally pounds of pot per day if you include all the wondrous forms of “consumption” — inhalants, salves, food additives, poultices, ointments, tinctures, balms, etc. We’d be thoroughly entertained by a Mendo-style pot-grower/user defendant who came to court ready to roll out the full monty of “personal consumption.”

Bring it on!

But don’t tell us that this will end the charade.

Only something like Ron-In-San-Jose’s state-owned pot store idea will produce anything like the results the proponents of the proposition hope for. But that’s not what they proposed.

We’ve only scratched the surface of the problems which would be generated by “Proposition 420.”

To compile your own list of problems, read the full text of the proposed pot legalization initiative at:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Complete_text_of_The_Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010_(California)

The Mendocino County Grand Jury gets extra credit for persistence, if not effectiveness.

For the fourth year in a row, the Grand Jury has concluded that Fourth District Supervisor Kendall Smith is a thief, and this time they seem to be saying that she should be removed from office.

I hesitate to bore readers with yet another recitation of the particulars of Ms. Smith’s petty criminality because it’s been hashed out in all its excruciating glory in several previous Grand Jury reports and in several stories the Anderson Valley Advertiser.

Basically, the Grand Jury determined that Ms. Smith claimed travel reimbursement to and from Fort Bragg when she hadn’t traveled, but stayed at friend’s house in Ukiah. There was more, but the Grand Jury, in an overabundance of caution, gave Ms. Smith the benefit of the doubt and only asked her to pay back the most completely documented and clear amount. (There were other amounts that were less obvious due to the County Auditor’s and the Supervisors’ self-serving “interpretations” of the travel reimbursement policy that the Supes themselves wrote for themselves.)

So even after trimming back the amount to the bare minimum that Smith clearly owed, Smith first said she’d repay it, then reneged on that promised and refused. One of her more outrageous reimbursement claims was for “pet care” of her pet while she was at “work” in Ukiah.

The Supes get $68,000 per year plus perks which bring it up to the range of $90-$110k depending on the Supervisor District. One of those perks is a monthly travel stipend which reimburses the Supervisors for commuting to work. The amount of the stipend is tied to the distance the individual Supervisors travel to Ukiah. (One is forced to wonder what will happen when Dan Hamburg or Wendy Roberts is elected Supervisor in January. Hamburg lives very near Ukiah, much closer than Colfax; Roberts lives on the Coast, much farther than Colfax. Will the reimbursement “policy” be revised based on who is Supervisor? Don’t ask.)

When the Grand Jury first looked at the Supervisors’ travel reimbursements back in 2007, they concluded that “some Supervisors have a casual and loosely defined understanding of what is considered to be ‘official County business,’ resulting in substantive travel policy abuse.”

Those Supervisors were John Pinches, David Colfax and Kendall Smith. To his credit, Supervisor Pinches didn’t quibble over what the Grand Jury said were overpayments to him and he quickly paid it back.

But Supervisors Colfax and Smith, instead of paying back the rather small amount given their generous public salaries, angrily denounced the Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury reviewed Colfax’s reimbursement claims and concluded that he had been reimbursed for attending social gatherings and other “meetings” that only Colfax thought were “county business.” Colfax simply turned over this Daytimer and said that proved he was on County business. Colfax never said what the “County business” was, but we suspect some of it was evaluating the quality of the wine certain of his constituents were producing. But, since Colfax never forked over what the “meetings” were, the Grand Jury couldn’t come up with a dollar amount, and Colfax skated.

Colfax is a lame duck now. Apparently, the Grand Jury has given up on him.

But Kendall Smith had clearly proven overpayments in the amount of $3,087 that she fraudulently claimed and received for travel that never happened.

After the Grand Jury report came out, Supervisor Smith went on local public radio KZYX and made a series of demonstrably false assertions — unchallenged by somnolescent KZYX interviewer Paul Hansen, of course — in pseudo-response to Hansen’s lob-ball questions on the matter.

Smith said that:

• The Grand Jury “ignored” the Clerk of Board memo on the subject of her overcharges.

(The Clerk of the Board’s letter concerning her boss’s travel claims was posted on the Grand Jury’s website and was specifically disagreed with in the report.)

• The Grand Jury “ignored” the District Attorney’s decision not to file criminal charges.

(The DA’s contorted refusal was posted on the Grand Jury’s website and was also specifically disagreed with in the report. The Grand Jury also included a quote from the state Penal Code which specifically states: “…the grand jury may order the District Attorney of the county to institute suit to recover any money that, in the judgment of the grand jury, may from any cause be due the county.” The District Attorney refused an order from the Grand Jury! If Ms. Smith has a defense, let her present it in court.)

• The report contained nothing new.

(Of course it did — Ms. Smith didn’t pay back the money, for example.)

• The Grand Jury is not neutral, not balanced.

(In the opinion of the accused.)

• It’s not “appropriate” for the Grand Jury to look into these things because they don’t have the technical expertise or support staff.

(They are required by law to look into such things.)

• It’s all political because Grand Jurors are self-selected and Smith was up for re-election.

(There were more jurors from Smith’s District on the Grand Jury than ever before and three different Grand Juries came to the same conclusion.)

When Smith reneged on her promise to pay the $3,087 back, the Grand Jury referred the case to the District Attorney.

District Attorney Meredith Lintott said she had the discretion to decide not to pursue the case because in Lintott’s personal opinion she couldn’t prove intent to defraud to a jury. Lintott added that if the Grand Jury wanted to get the money back the Grand Jury could file a claim in Small Claims Court — a preposterous suggestion.

This year the Grand Jury has again complained about Smith’s failure to pay back the $3,087 she fraudulently received. And the Grand Jury added the DA herself to their complaint, saying she has no discretion to refuse an order from the Grand Jury. This year’s Grand Jury has boldly asked for an opinion from the State Attorney General on the subject of whether the DA has such discretion.

Trouble is, they have already asked the Attorney General this question before. They also asked the San Francisco DA’s office if the DA has discretion. Both said no — although they didn’t go so far as to put their answers in a formal “Attorney General Opinion.” But that doesn’t change the answer. Given this history, asking for a formal Attorney General’s Opinion will not force the DA to pursue the case either.

“The 2009-2010 Grand Jury agrees with the three previous Grand Juries which questioned the refusal of the Mendocino County District Attorney (MCDA) to enforce California Penal Code §932. For the past four years the GJ has investigated and pursued the reimbursement of monies owed the money-strapped County by Mendocino County Supervisors. The amount pursued may seem insignificant; however, this is an elected official who apparently ignored the law. The MCDA refused to uphold the California Penal Code §932, which gave the office full authority to order repayment of funds, citing prosecutorial discretion. One supervisor [Pinches] repaid travel reimbursement overcharges in full. Another supervisor [Smith] agreed to repay the wrongfully claimed travel reimbursement, but reneged on the agreement. The debt to the county remains unpaid by one Supervisor [Smith],” wrote Grand Jury Foreperson Kathy Wylie in the report summary.

This year’s Grand Jury repeats that the District Attorney has no discretion not to prosecute cases stemming from Grand Jury referrals.

“Government Code §3063 states: ‘The District Attorney shall have a copy of the accusation served upon the defendant, and by notice in writing shall require the accused to appear before the superior court of the county, at a time stated in the notice, and answer the accusation. Appearance shall not be required in less than 10 days from the service of the notice. After service, the original accusation shall be filed with the clerk of the court’.”

Continuing: “The only remedy if an elected official is found guilty on Government codes 3060-63, is removal from office.”

Smith and Colfax are also the only two supervisors who haven’t agreed to take a voluntary pay cut like every other County employee. They still get their full $68k. Plus generous perks. The Grand Jury also points this out.

Not that it will go anywhere.

Unfortunately, nothing is likely to come to any of this. Most of the time, Grand Jury findings and recommendations go nowhere. In 20 years of closely following Mendocino County Grand Jury reports, we have never seen anything change for the better as a result of a Grand Jury report.

A typical response is, “The [agency involved] agrees with this finding.” Then, as in the case of the Grand Jury’s simple finding a few years ago calling for flow gages on water pumping in the Russian River watershed, nothing happens — even though the Board of Supervisors replied to the Grand Jury, “The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding.”

All the Supervisors had to do was ask their County Counsel to draft a “gaging ordinance.” The rest would have been done by the various water boards and districts and would have been phased in so that nobody was inconvenienced. With these gages the districts and their customers would have been able to avoid a lot of bureaucratic hassle they’ve encountered from the State Water Board.

But such rationality is nothing more than an irrelevant digression here.

The other typical reply is, “The [agency involved] disagrees with this finding.” End of finding.

Now we have an individual County official who still won’t return the money she stole as four different Grand Juries have demanded. And a District Attorney who won’t follow a Grand Jury lawful instruction to try to get the money back.

Perhaps a new District Attorney will be elected in November and perhaps that new DA will do something about Supervisor Smith’s well-documented theft.

What does this sad tale tell us about Official Mendocino County?

Oh, and did we mention that Supervisor Smith cruised to comfortable re-election in 2008 soon after the Grand Jury report came out?

There were some interesting things about Tuesday’s very preliminary election results which should not go unnoticed.

Only about 12,800 of Tuesday’s votes have been counted. There are more than 10,000 votes uncounted, mostly absentee ballots turned in on Election Day. So these early results could easily change by the time the rest of the votes are counted in a few weeks.

If the November election gets just a conservative 55% turnout of registered voters, that translates to 3,000 to 4,000 more votes countywide in November than were cast on Tuesday. That means that in the close elections, people who didn’t vote in the primary may well decide the outcome of the two closest local races: District Attorney and Third District Supervisor. (And, if any of the candidates engage in a serious get-out-the-vote effort, there could be even more new votes in November.)

In the DA’s race, we note that newcomer Matt Finnegan got a surprisingly respectable 30% or about 3500 of the 11,700 votes for DA on Tuesday. (About 1100 voters didn’t even bother to vote for District Attorney.) So the questions regarding the District Attorney race in November will be:

How many of Finnegan’s 3500 votes will go to Lintott and how many to Eyster? (Contrary to some observers, we suspect the majority will go to Lintott because Finnegan ran as a tough on crime DA and Eyster is probably perceived by Finnegan voters as a DA who won’t file as many cases — that is, unless Eyster recasts his opposition to Lintott and convinces Finnegan voters that his promised “gatekeeper” role will produce more public safety, not just fewer charges filed.) But the bigger question may be how many of the several thousand additional November voters will Eyster get? Recent history tends to indicate that the challenger will get more of them. But lots of things could change between now and November.

Then we have the semi-squeaker race for Third District Supervisor. Based on the limited number of votes counted so far, incumbent John Pinches is only three (3) votes short of winning over Willits City Councilwoman Holly Madrigal and Brooktrails Community District Board member Tony Orth outright — a disappointing and unimpressive percentage for an incumbent Supervisor. (Mr. Pinches got 1517 of the 3038 votes cast in the Third District. Half of 3038 is 1519 — Pinches was only three votes short.) But there are more than 1800 Third District ballots still uncounted, primarily the absentee votes that were turned in on election day, June 8. This Third District race has the potential of becoming unusually tight and contentious before it even reaches the general election — if it ever does. If Pinches’ outright-win margin after all the votes are in is still only a few votes, will there be a recount? Alternatively, if Pinches is only a few votes short of an outright win (as he is now), will there be a recount? As far as we know, recounts are only required if the difference between candidates is below a certain amount. Are recounts required if the results are very close to the 50%+1 threshold in a primary for one of the candidates? Who knows? Presumably, supporters of Pinches and Madrigal are looking into this. And who pays? If a recount is mandated by the Elections Code, the County will have to find the money to do it. Otherwise the candidates might have to pony up if they want a recount.

Some local readers may remember the very close Fourth District race between Liz Henry and Heather Drum in the early 90s. As we recall, Ms. Henry ended up winning by a margin in the single digits. Among the small but significant questions back then when they did the County’s last recount were some voters whose district residency was not clear — a few Fourth District voters had residences in both the Fifth (in Mendocino) and the Fourth (Fort Bragg). Which district could they legally vote in? A few were registered in the wrong district, having moved since they last registered. A few were registered in Mendocino County, but actually lived elsewhere in the state. Other small questions involved a lack of clarity about who the voter meant to vote for, if anyone, on a few ballots; and, I think, a few simple counting errors.

For now, all we can say is that we expect most of Mr. Orth’s votes to be gathered up by Ms. Madrigal in the general election (if there is one) since Orth and Madrigal are both, more or less, “liberals,” whereas Pinches is a libertarian Republican. So if this Third District race goes to a run-off in November, Ms. Madrigal could make it interesting. If Pinches doesn’t win outright in the primary after all the votes are counted in a few weeks, that means that he may be more vulnerable than he thought.

In the Fifth District, the numbers went pretty much as we predicted, although Mastin appears to have received some votes we thought would go to Hamburg — but there are still almost 2,000 Fifth District votes uncounted. We predicted Hamburg 40%; Roberts 32%; Mastin 16%; de Vall 14%. So far it’s Hamburg 34%, Roberts 30%, Mastin 21% and de Vall 14%. That’s still pretty much what we expected. Ms. Roberts will probably still go into the run-off by the time the remaining votes are counted, but it’s hard to imagine her getting more than the standard conservative allocation of around 40% in the Fifth District come November.

A few other minor preliminary notes: Although almost 12,800 Mendo votes have been counted so far, those running unopposed didn’t get anywhere near that number of people checking them off even though they were the only choice. Sheriff Allman got 10,293, or about 80% of the votes so far. County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor Susan Ranochak got 9,351 or about 73%. Auditor Meredith Ford got 9,217 or about 72%. And County School Superintendent Paul Tichinin got a niggardly 9212 or about 72%.