Measure S isn’t about the medicine |

Measure S isn’t about the medicine

Let’s revisit the discussion that started the process to obtain some structure to medical marijuana growing.

At the very start, we acknowledged that Prop. 215 was the law of the land. We have lately been hearing that the sheriff and I made up the abusive growers who set up shop on Annie Drive near the Alta Sierra Elementary School.

That would be news to folks on Annie Drive, who still have to look at environmental destruction and junk every time they drive by.

The “Yes on S” crew would have you believe that according to their top 10 reasons to vote for Measure S that “medical marijuana cultivators do not cause environmental damage” — in spite of all the evidence to the contrary like Annie Drive.

Judge Dowling and the State Supreme Court have validated 2349. There is bipartisan county opposition to Measure S. Protect your kids and neighborhoods, vote No on Measure S.

County Ordinance 2349 was intended to protect neighborhoods from the negatives of commercial grows: crime, unsavory traffic, reduced property values and so on. To a large extent it has achieved its goal. In Alta Sierra, the number of complaints have dropped dramatically, and while we have some slightly out of compliance grows, they don’t bother their neighbors and coexist peacefully. Everyone knows that the neighborhoods now have recourse to deal with an abusive grower and they like it that way, which is a balance of everyone’s rights as intended.

Literally every day I work at headquarters, I hear the horror stories about suffering neighborhoods where abusive growers have gone away under 2349.

Many of those types of growers have moved on or back to where they came from. If Measure S passes we will be a magnet for profiteering growers from the neighboring counties that have rules tougher than S.

Some believe that “S” was willfully designed to be unenforceable.

It has no definitions, enforcement section nor due process or civil rights to appeal.

It is not so much an ordinance but a list of suggestions that would take us back to the bad old days of the wild west of weed. The reality is that the growers want to hide these facts by trying to have a conversation about dying babies and legalization, when the issue is a simple land use/nuisance ordinance.

No commercial grows in residential neighborhoods are acceptable and S would bring them back in a big way.

You see they lump RA (residential agriculture) in with Ag zones so the Alta Sierra and LOP Ranchos could house massive grows in residential areas as in other parts of the county.

Not to mention the list of zoning areas that are currently totally restricted that would suddenly have no restrictions of any kind! But they do not want to discuss those pesky facts.

The reality is they want no restrictions on their plainly commercial activity in residential areas.

These are the folks that want you to believe that someone is going to die because they cannot get their medicine.

Does anyone really believe there is a shortage of weed? It is reliably reported that the street price of weed has actually gone down since 2349 went into effect.

The ASA is just paying lip service when they talk about the protections for property owners. If you can’t enforce, then where are the protections? Let’s be frank, they don’t follow Prop. 215 and try to evade 2349 now. This crew has no intention of following any rules and will tell you it’s about the patients not profits. If it was about the poor sick patients then where were all the recommendations for the sick kids? There were none because it’s all about profits.

This attitude extends to the ASA’s whole “Yes on S” operation. Campaigns are required by law to provide transparency by declaring all donations and expenses above $100. The mandatory report due by July 31 has yet to be filed. What are they hiding from the voters? Could it be they do not want Nevada County to know who is coming in from out of the area to change our way of life like the labor Union UFCW that wants to unionize pot workers?

Judge Dowling and the State Supreme Court have validated 2349. There is bipartisan county opposition to Measure S. Protect your kids and neighborhoods, vote No on Measure S.

Don Bessee lives in Alta Sierra.

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Grass Valley and Nevada County make The Union’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User


Pride of Ownership


Pride of ownership is a psychological benefit most often reflected in well-maintained property. A price cannot be attached to this subjective value, and its importance will vary from person to person. Google

See more