Response to Previous Letter to the Editor, ‘Watch Out for the Humboldt County Cannabis Reform Initiative’
Welcome to our letters to the editor/opinion section. To submit yours for consideration, please send to [email protected]. Please consider including an image to be used–either a photograph of you or something applicable to the letter. However, an image is not necessary for publication.
Remember opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect that of Redheaded Blackbelt nor have we checked the letters for accuracy.
Allison Shore’s April 30, 2022, letter to the editor about the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative repeats several misconceptions and misunderstandings that have been circulating in the community. As the sponsors of the Initiative, we’re hoping we can help clear things up.
Changes to the County’s definition of “Outdoor” cultivation would increase taxes on growers who pull tarps for light deprivation:
The Initiative’s definitions of Outdoor, Mixed-Light, and Indoor cultivation are consistent with California state regulations. Nothing in the Initiative was intended to change how current operations are taxed. The Initiative doesn’t even mention taxation. If the Initiative passes, it would not prevent the Board of Supervisors from either maintaining its current approach to taxes or changing its approach in the future. And, the County has recently shown an inclination to treat growers quite favorably with respect to taxes.Requires onsite visits from county staff before renewing permits:
This is correct. The Initiative mandates at least one annual on-site, in-person inspection as a condition for permit renewal, to ensure compliance with all requirements. This provision was included because the County’s current ordinances have a huge loophole that essentially allows growers to inspect themselves. It’s hard to imagine restaurants or building contractors, for example, being allowed to inspect themselves and self-certify whether they’re complying with health and safety requirements in the County code. The Initiative’s inspection requirement was motivated by considerable public concern about non-compliance by growers, and about the County’s failure to respond to, and to take action on, public complaints about non-compliance.The County can pay for these inspections if it wants to. Other businesses and permit applicants routinely pay fees that cover the costs of inspection, whether for a septic system, a remodel, new home construction, or the like. Of course, the fee would have to be fair, appropriate, and no higher than necessary to cover the County’s costs. Growers often object that fees and taxes are already too high, but this has more to do with the low wholesale price of cannabis than with the fair cost of following the law, as all regulated businesses have to do. We don’t think it’s fair for growers to ask the community as a whole to subsidize a difficult cannabis market by sacrificing enforcement of health, safety, and welfare requirements.
Requires any complaints from neighbors to be dealt with before permit renewals can be granted.
This is correct, and we think it’s appropriate. The current County cannabis ordinance fails to ensure that rural residents who may be affected by a cannabis operation are adequately notified about permit applications. Also, there is no formal process for public input with respect to non-compliance issues or other concerns related to public safety, health, and welfare. The Initiative simply ensures that the people have a right to be heard. Growers complain that the process could be abused, but County inspectors will be able to figure out whether permittees are in compliance or not. Agencies deal with this all the time, and they can sort out meritorious and non-meritorious complaints. Speculation that someone might call in a bogus complaint is no excuse for depriving the whole community of its voice.Requires new permits and Category 4 roads to each new farm or any farm undertaking an “expansion”:
Even without the Initiative, the County’s ordinances already require roads providing access to cannabis cultivation parcels or premises to meet Category 4 road standards (or the same “practical effect”). However, the current ordinances allow the applicant—who may not have any expertise in road design or construction—to provide “self-certification” that the roads meet the Category 4 standard. The Initiative would require a licensed engineer to make the certification instead.The new certification requirement would apply to applications for new or expanded commercial cannabis cultivation permits or applications for expanded commercial cannabis cultivation activities. Not all changes to an existing operation would be “expansions”, though. The Initiative defines an expansion as an increase in the size, intensity, or resource usage of cannabis cultivation operations (including increases in cultivation area, water or energy use, or the size and number of structures). This is important to avoid creating a loophole where growers could continually expand their operations regardless of the Initiative. Changes that reduce water or energy use, or that simply replace structures without enlarging them, however, likely would not be interpreted as expansions.
It’s true that adding new water tanks might be interpreted as an expansion and might require modification of an existing permit. Where an existing farm had previously self-certified that all roads met the Category 4 standard, a new expansion might require an engineer to verify that claim. We think that is appropriate. Poorly designed and maintained roads are a huge environmental and water quality problem. People without adequate expertise shouldn’t be making self-interested judgments about whether their roads meet technical standards.
And if the roads don’t meet the Category 4 standard, the County’s existing ordinances already provide an alternative process for getting permits approved. The Initiative would not affect this alternative process at all. Furthermore, under the existing alternative process, an engineer’s report considers whether the proposed changes would increase traffic volumes and whether the existing roads can handle the increase. Adding water tanks or replacing generators with solar panels might actually reduce traffic volumes by eliminating the need to haul water and fuel. In other words, there’s no basis for believing that the Initiative precludes growers from adding water storage capacity.
Limits new and expanded permits to outdoor/mixed light less than 10,000 sq ft of cultivation or nursery, excluding the possibility for other types of permits, such as for ecotourism, distribution, etc.
This is false. The Initiative is intended to address only commercial cannabis cultivation permits, not “ecotourism” or distribution permits. The Initiative simply limits total cultivation area—defined as the area actually containing growing cannabis plants—to 10,000 square feet for new and expanded commercial cannabis cultivation. The Initiative doesn’t limit the square footage of structures that aren’t used for cultivation. The Initiative does cap the total number of cultivation permits in the County and prevents issuance of new cultivation permits to applicants who already hold existing, active cultivation permits. But the Initiative is not intended to affect or restrict any type of permit other than commercial cannabis cultivation permits.Mark Thurmond, Elizabeth Watson
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Sounds like a timber harvest plan.
It’s way way more involved and regulated than a Timber Harvest Plan.
Have you ever seen a THP? They are pretty darned extensive.
Yes, for the level of impact and permanent change to environment, the cannabis permitting process is more involved. THP are complex for certain and there are different levels, but for the same area of impact and disturbance cannabis is more restrictive. As I recall, THP have a public noticing, but not one or more public hearings like cannabis. Also the NSO setbacks are more restrictive for cannabis to my knowledge. Please correct me if I’m inaccurate.
The rules for a THP regarding them is fairly extensive. Basically, any owl sighting within 1.3 miles of the proposed harvest triggers a bunch of steps and restrictions. You also need several years of owl survey data within the project area before the plan will be considered. Not to mention you have to survey for any other listed species thought or known to occur in the project area.
Plus, the THP requires multiple in-person site visits by CalFire to make sure the plan fits the site and that you’re following the rules. There is fair bit of public notice required, including notifying any neighbors of the proposal.
A typical THP is 100-500 pages and it can only be written by an RPF. It’s roughly analogous to a CEQA EIS.
I’m not sure what the requirements are for cannabis production since I’ve never been involved with it. I’m just a bit skeptical that cannabis grows require more analysis than THP. They should require more, since it’s a permanent conversion, and this is California where regulations are a bit abundant, but I’m skeptical. The list of FP Rules is some 400 pages long.
All the same as you mentioned for a cannabis permit. 5 years for my permit. Over a1,000 pages long
Then I stand corrected. I am curious, who is responsible for writing the permit plan? A consultant of some kind?
Consultants, Foresters, CDFW,CalFire, HUMCO, Environmental Scientists, Engineers, Cultural Academics, California Water Board, Surveyers, Geologists, Ecologists, Biologists. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
Yet the authors of the bill think we are self-reporting….
Pretty hilarious. Even if you could self report the fines for an incorrect report wouldn’t be worth it. It’s obvious they haven’t read 1.0 or 2.0 of the county cannabis code.
That’s largely the same as for a THP, I meant who is the responsible person for putting it all together like and RPF does for the THP.
With a cannabis permit especially those of us who were involved in the coveted 1.0 version(sarc). It was a working document. There was an interim and provisional permit which allowed you to stay in business as you build the permit. No one really knew how or what to do. Including the county. One grower was held to this standard and the neighbor was held to another. We basically played phone and email tag until either party got aggravated and asked for a meeting. Things were done multiple times, new requirements during process, and entire documents were rejected and exchanged for other versions. We went through 5 different planners so each time you had to bring the ball back to the starting line. Planners would quit, get fired , or demoted. This would cause your permit to sit in a corner gathering dust. We finally started working directly with John Ford and things went smoother. Now we have the 2.0 version and everything must be complete before you can cultivate. The requirements can be compiled by the owner or a consultant and submitted.
I did my permit myself, but the County, on their own, sent it out to a consultant in Berkeley, and charged me $7,000. All he did was argue with me about the number of tanks, and read me the list of things to do I already had. Each of my neighbors have different conditions, and experiences. I’m the only cultivation permit I’ve heard of that has a parking plan, for instance. There are reports that some say you must have an engineer do for $6,000, but CDFW gave me the outline, and said of course you can do it yourself. It’s all over the place. Of the twelve or so agencies to deal with, the Water Board has been the worst with passive outreach, dysfunctional process, and quick, exorbitant fines. Most other growers I know used consultants. Many don’t know the details of their permit process, and we’re of little help for advice.
How did you do your bio survey and cultural study yourself?
Of course you stand corrected. You are a liberal who’s every solution is government, which explains why you can’t figure out who wrote it and why. You just know that somehow, it’s for the good of the people. You believe CA. is “a bit overregulated” (just a bit huh?) and that the weed business should be? Let me guess, you don’t run a business? Are you a student or have a gov job?
I’m not a liberal or a conservative. I am however willing to admit when I don’t know something because it’s not my area of expertise and ask questions.
Every time I visit or drive by a active logging operation, I see violations that a legal cannabis grower would get fined out of existence for.
No straw or wattles In the rainy season? Logging operations just put in water bars and call it good.
Why No grading permits for logging landings?
Permanent conversion? Just because you grow plants in a clearing does not mean it’s a permanent conversion.
A THP might be 500 pages but the politics are way different.
It’s considered a permanent conversion if you are removing the forest and replacing it with something else like agriculture or a house.
You aren’t allowed to do that for a permitted cultivation site
I understand what a timberland conversion is. The permit is usually a 3 acre conversion.
You said cannabis permits should require more analysis because it involves a conversion.
Not all cannabis farms are a conversion, many are in spots that never had trees.
Technically NSO surveys are always require of timber harvest as they have potential habitat. And most plans in Humboldt only assess NSO within 0.7 miles unless along the eastern parts of the county. Also, NSO data is not required before a plans “consideration”. Plans can be submitted and even approved with NSO data pending. And NSO are pretty much the only listed species surveyed for. All others have potential impacts mitigated through other measures such as retention of wildlife trees, aquatic habitat protections, etc.
Cannabis should be grown in agricultural areas and not disturb the tranquility of our mountains – cheaper cost of production and less disturbance of our environment
That is where we are heading. Say goodbye to our farms.
But…central valley farms ARE already using our water. Trinity, Siskiyou, and Shasta, at least. Central Valley farms are not a great example of environmental stewardship. They exist on over-allocated water from far away, handed to them at taxpayer expense. The Mendota Canal alone collects more dead bodies than all of Humboldt.
I definitely feel you I find it heartbreaking and disgusting when people cut down old growth forest to grow for what sometimes is only a couple of seasons I’m always like “just make sure to put those trees back when you guys are done “ that being said cannabis is a finished product when it is harvested it is not like grapes it cannot be washed. They have spread so much DDT and other chemicals over the years in the central valley and other traditional agriculture areas that if the wind kicks up dust and the dust lands on your plants you won’t be able to pass the testing to be organic and chemical free. A conundrum. I think that’s what happened to Harbourside Inn Monterey Valley
No one is cutting old growth forest for a regulated grow which is what this initiative is targeting. That is not allowed in county, state, SWRCB, and CDFW statutes and regulations. Now, maybe some illegal grows have done this, but remember that this initiative only encourages more illegal grows by making the most highly regulated agricultural activity even more regulated.
Perhaps not old growth, but a review of historic aerial imagery using Google Earth shows a pattern of timber removal & grading for cultivation all over the County. One can clearly see hoop houses where there were once trees. This was particularly egregious around 2014-2016. Green Rushers, I suspect… It would be up to a professional forester to assess what happened and whether the Forest Practice Act was violated in these conversions.
Keep going back in time with the aerial imagery. What do you see happening since the 40s, 60s, 80s? Are those meadows filling in with firs? And right now…Is that a patchwork of clear-cuts between here and Nevada? Are those all class 4 roads leading to them? Did growers subdivide Trinity Pines, or was that a real estate scam that eventually attracted growing?
You are seeing the destruction caused by logging. No they aren’t class 4 roads, they are used for extracting the timber of which the growers are mandated to fix along with the landslides.
DWV said old growth. As for clearing in 2014-16, some got CalFire permits some did not. This was pre regulation. To be permitted now requires all the necessary agency permits. This is why people should be encouraging people to get permitted and not making it even more demanding like this initiative. As I’ve already said, cannabis is the most highly regulated ag activity in CA and I suspect the nation.
Great investigating, tell me how you determined if the tree removal was done by a logging operation or a cannabis grower?
You should see what PG&E has done!
Not sure about how much old growth forest has been cut down to grow weed. That might be a convenient fantasy. In my experience, people grew under an oak canopy to elude aircraft. Otherwise crops were grown in irrigated open space already there. Now, if you want to talk about clear-cutting and deforestation, we can look at the timber industry (yes, I use lumber) and for destruction of umpteen acres of old-growth biologically rich oak forests, we can look to the grape/wine industry (yes, I drink wine.
it’s a sticky issue.
“…in Eureka”? That would have been good advice to Albert Etter too.
AG zones are all over the county including the mountains
You mean like Sunvalley’s Arcata Bottoms plan?
No people living the mountains anymore either.
People should all just live in the city, less impact on the environment tranquility for the animals.
Everyone should get a one day pass to visit the mountains
Cheaper cost of delivering food to everyone.
Please do everyone a favor and move to the city
Good luck down there. Hope you are happy!
Voting ? NO! They’re trying to kill the Craft Cannabis market in Humboldt. The question is are these people wolves in sheep’s clothing?? Are they actually working for BIG Cannabis and trying to help the Salinas & Santa Barbara mega farms ? by killing our Legacy Craft Market?? The demands are ridiculous.
Killing the Legacy craft market, Get a grip. The fun and games are over so suck it up, start paying your income taxes like everyone else, follow all the regulations just like a timber harvest plan, and stop complaining. Madrone would agree, which is quite ironic to say the least considering your pick for supervisor. Go ask him.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Because timber harvest plans are always followed.
And all businesses always pay their fair share of income taxes
It’s amazing you even believe the things you write.
Do some research
That’s what small permitted farms are already doing. In fact, they are paying significantly more in taxes than any other businesses or business owners.
This initiative would just pile on an already over regulated industry to satisfy the spitefullness of a few nimbys. Macro economic pressures are doing more to satisfy these peoples desires than their poorly conceived reforms
It sounds like you are in favor of THP’s. The very thing that led to the destruction and added fire danger to our forests. Also the very thing that led to so many parcels raped of timber then sold for cheap to the growers. Most were cleared and provide firebreaks and are no longer logged. Not to mention the income it brought to every citizen in this county. And the taxes, do you feel it’s better that the controll of taxes gets to pick and choose who gets allocated the money, or the money flowing to every orifice without bureaucratic loss. All we needed was a simple environmental plan to keep these sites in check both logging and cannabis which are often the same. Look back 6 years and tell me if the local economy was doing worse.
Duh. What is fair is fair. You regulate timber to near extinction, the same will and shall go for weed. It is really that simple. What is ironic is the people against logging all these decades were the same people blowing up grows on timber parcels. Ultimate irony that has come back to bite them in the butt.No sympathy, no tears, don’t like a bureaucratic quagmire, I suggest voting out the current government in California because there is always a disconnect between what the voters desire and then they turnaround and vote against their own interests. The government is not your friend, consider them to be an aquaintance and you will better off. Dumbfounding.
So folks are upset that the government screwed things up again. Now why would anyone want these bureaucrat slags running their healthcare? Is there one logical answer? No. They cannot properly regulate a plant or tree so what gives? Gov healthcare leads to unneeded harm and poor outcomes but half the country is willing to give that power to the government. It’s called Natural Selection and some people do not realize the government does not care about you as an individual, it cares about maintaining power by any means necessary and if you get in the way you will be mowed down and crushed like an ant.
Voting YES! They are not trying to kill the Craft Cannabis market. We are trying to save the craft of SMALL growers, and save the environment! -working for big cannabis…yeah, right. Signing off now.
Anyone not operating a farm and saying they are here to save the farms is misguided or worse. This is how a wolf shows up in sheep’s clothes.
Cheryl, if this proposal was going to save small farmers you would have their support. No where on your page is there a single cannabis representative in support. Farmer/consultant/Distributor/Storefront.. no one but you thinks this is for the small farmer. Not even Betsy or Mark.
A few of us are growers, use local product, or are storefronts, yes, but we haven’t made anyone a “representative”.
Cheryl, you are claiming to operate a licensed cultivation facility that would be subject to the changes proposed by the initiative?
“Changes that reduce water or energy use, or that simply replace structures without enlarging them, however, LIKELY would not be interpreted as expansions.”
Do they really think people will read this and be OK with it? I read it as “reducing water use WILL possibly be interpreted as expansion.”
The authors arguments are weak and clearly they are struggling to respond to criticism of their initiative. Anyone who claims to be helping and industry/business/person who is NOT one of them is a sheep in wolves clothes.
This initiative is very well thought out and much needed . The county has been overwhelmed by environmental destruction fostered by the same sort of greed and ignorance I witnessed forty years ago by timber gobblers. It will be better for all of us when huge grows are curbed. Unlike many detractors, I will sign my real name.
Larry, news flash: your comments will be judged for their ideas and merit, not because of who said it. You can sign your name if you like, but you’re no John Hancock.
Why do they want to increase taxes on non lit tarp pulls? They don’t understand light DEP, and are trying to learn from the misinterpreted definition The State used. Only the newbie green rushers at the bar in palm springs think you have to light then dep EVERYTHING. Most people doing it paid the double tax. I pull unlit deps to spread out harvests on what amounts to a single run on any given foot. This allows me to use a smaller drying facility, less water, no employees, smaller nursery, and to beat the fall rains. I grow less weed than if I just let the whole thing go big full term, but the result is actually a lower impact grow. Pulling tarps alone has very little impact on neighbors, it’s the generator to run lights to try and pull three or four runs throughout shitty weather. These guys are lucky that it’s weed up here and not hog or poultry lease scams like in the South East, or Washington. I dare you: drive North on 395 outside of Pasco, and roll down your window. The roads issue…very few roads to the worst places are new. They were there for logging and ranching, and never addressed when the Good ol Boys we’re selling them off to growers. It’s socially capricious to say folks could make money logging, or ranching, or in real estate, but…this other ag product that is perfectly legal? No way Jose! I can’t help but wonder how the crafters of this petition made their money. Tell us about your low impact socially virtuous income stream. Maybe we could try that instead of weed.
As Jerry advocates for economic failure, the rest of us are trying to help turn it around.
Seems like more bueracracy then is necessary. The road thing is hilarious it should read when is the county makes AP road category 4 then they can restrict the cannabis farms to the standard. Otherwise don’t make legal farms comply with rules the county doesn’t even follow.
“Growers often object that fees and taxes are already too high, but this has more to do with the low wholesale price of cannabis than with the fair cost of following the law, as all regulated businesses have to do.”
No. Cannabis is taxed exorbitantly. No other agricultural project is even close.
Kraft cannabis should not require generators, or plastic greenhouse glazing and black tarp.
I disagree. Appellation cannabis doesn’t allow for a plastic sheeting, but craft sure does. It’s important in rainy and cold environments. Craft is more about scale of operation and not the materials.
Absolutely. Try growing your craft or appellation “cannabis” outside on a day like today. You’ll end up with some unhappy ladies
“Growers often object that fees and taxes are already too high, but this has more to do with the low wholesale price of cannabis than with the fair cost of following the law, as all regulated businesses have to do.”
The author has no clue how expensive the permitting is. The majority of state (SWRCB, CDFW Attach E, and DCC/CDFA license) fees costs cover enforcement on other unregulated grows. Original NCRWQCB discharge permit was a flat $2500 and most of it went to enforcement within the entire region. These are not structured fees like a building permit.
Even when cannabis prices were higher the fees were still too high. Same goes for the canopy sq ft tax. With regulation all agencies saw a chance to grab some money.
Please vote no.
The writing is on the wall. Our cannabis industry is in its death throws.
How many farmers will make it through another year of zero profits?
Even less with the passing of this initiative.
The authors of this proposition continue to demonstrate that they have no idea how current regulations operate and don’t know or care how their proposals would impact the industry locally.
It’s clear that they have a neighbor or neighbors that they have a problem with and they have created a list of “fixes” that they think would solve their problems with their neighbors with absolutely no consideration of the impacts on the rest of the county.
We do need reform to the regulated cannabis market, locally it has more to do with small town corruption while the major problems are coming from the state.
If Mark and Elizabeth actually want to accomplish anything useful they should take the time to understand the way the regulatory system works so that they can make thoughtful proposals that have a chance of actually impacting their goals instead of just hurting the very people they claim to be helping.
Insults don’t help anything. You’re giving Supervisor Madrone bad PR and he doesn’t deserve that.
The authors don’t appear to understand what they have written- They lose all credibility when they whine about self-certification on legal farms in Humboldt County…. It shows they have no clue.
I didn’t support Prop. 64 because I knew our greedy government would tax and regulate everyone out of existence…I grow my 6 authorized by California law and never have issues, just a variety of great medicinal flavors.
This stems from a few folks up on kneeland who got freaked about that mega grow that wanted to use lots of water storage. The issue is that this will severely impact an industry that our county relies on, and that is already struggling. Of course there are bad actors in the industry, name me one economic area where that isn’t the case. But this will punish lots and lots of good hard working folks, trying to do the right thing and just make a living…this is a terrible,terrible initiative for Humboldt, and will forever cement our reputation as a place for wealthy old white folks to set their standard upon everything..please vote this down!
I opposed Prop 64 in 2015 for various reasons, including the fact that it would corporatize the largely mom&pop multibillion $ canna-industry. And, it already has… Like many micro-level (less than half an acre) farmers, it was deregulation, not pseudo-“legalization” (actually neoprohibition) that was needed.
While this initiative may be well meaning, this letter makes clear that it adds even MORE regulatory processes that corporate farms will usually get around, while the relatively few remaining mom&pops will suffer even more than the current overweening regime. Please vote NO!
I think this is hilarious- all this whining. Ha ha ha!! When the corporate “legalization” passed those who had made mega-cash during that 5 year historic drought by grabbing all the water they could and blowing up the hugest scenes began to get permits. When John Ford introduced the abatement program he explicitly stated that anytime a permit got granted he would draw concentric circles around that permitted farm and start abating the neighbors closest to it. Then that is exactly what he did. Did that slow anybody’s roll to get permits? No. Was there ANY pushback or opposition from you guys? No. Y’all gave zero fucks about your community or your neighbors…as you rushed to become a gazillionaire. Ha Ha Ha!! Now…wah wah wah is all you have to say. I’ve collected over 200 signatures for this petition and I am collecting more daily. Nearly everybody that signed knows what you “good players” and #sameteam posers did to everybody else. And…They Don’t Like You. Why should they? Paybacks are a bitch and y’all are getting yours. Go sniff your own farts and talk about “legacy” or “appellation” or your “special curating” and why you are so awesome. But we know who you are…and what you did. And now you are being crushed, just like your neighbors before you. Kind of like karma
Your bitterness at how this has all turned out is palpable. I don’t know anyone who likes the abatement program and I still feel the unregulated grows did not meaningfully impact the downturn in the regulated market. The state system was never designed to benefit the legacy farms, nor really any of the triangle farms.
The urban and city voters approved Prop 64 and there was nothing we could do to stop this. It was a great run. Times change and the 2016 was the beginning of the end. Even if not a single person sought a local permit, enforcement was coming. Maybe even more if Humboldt didn’t develop a regulatory structure.
The current wholesale price drop was foreseeable. How could it not happen as supply increases and cannabis could be grown elsewhere in CA and OR, OK, etc. This could not have gone down any other way and you’re opening bragging about making it worse. Shame on you.
@farce Amen !!!
Kinda wild you’re so against cannabis when you authored cannabis books. Aren’t you the guy who profited off cannabis literature while weed was illegal??
Google search Jorge. He’s profited off the cannabis industry for decades and especially when it was illegal to grow
Haha it’s not really Jorge (which is not the famous authors real name I believe).
You’re hilarious! I never heard John make any statements like that. Maybe you interpreted it wrong. 200 sigs huh, let’s see them!
Damn Farce you got bitter. Let go of the hate bro. It’s poison and will kill your soul. Got to move forward. So you missed the legal gravey train. No big deal. Life goes on. I provide services for the cannabis industry, but I’m no longer a farmer besides my 6 plants. I’m 100% for our local craft growers and will do my best to keep the Humboldt tradition alive. We have lots of good people in Humboldt that are good cannabis cultivators and environmental stewards. Got to support our fellow citizens. The people still in the legal craft game need to be commended for overcoming so many obstacles and surviving. We need unity not decisiveness.
The authors of this initiative have a lot of faith in the county when the county doesn’t have the people power to make this happen (such as in-person inspections for every permit).
How many engineers does it take to screw over a lightbulb?
Haha it is such a shit show anymore.
Lmfao at self inspections, I’ll tell the county I did that next time they call! Nobody voting for this piss off