New Boulder Creek pot shop tests community will, county law

"They're not allowed," said county Planning Director Tom Burns. "We're not saying you can't do it. We're saying current zoning ordinance doesn't allow for it."

Tom, you are a highly paid government official. Why can you not just say you can't do this instead of trying not to offend anyone? Are you not paid to enforce zoning ordinances? I don't have a strong feeling either way on the subject, but geez you sound like that lawyer, oops I mean supervisor we have.....do all government employees speak in this manner?

Won't anyone think of the children?

First off let me say I have been in these mountains for over 3 decades now.

There are more drugs sold in the park than in the store...and a different kind of crime riddled drug at that and all of us locals know it. I don't think any kid grows up in these mountains without the warnings from parents and friends to avoid pot grows from an early age for their own safety, you hike around at all and you will run into them. If you don't want your kids exposed to pot you must move. Pot has been the #1 crop in these mountains for many decades. If you moved here with the false notion that you were moving to a puritan valley please don't expect us to change for you, just get out.

At the very least the store is easy to watch and control, it will never be some hang out for drug users. They are all in the park across the street and have been since the trees were cleared for the park years ago.

Compassion and "medicine" my foot. These guys, and the applicants in Santa Cruz are nothing more than drug dealers wanting to make millions complete with the protection of local law enforcement to protect them from the gangs and cartels. Just say NO to stray bullets!

The first local got it right. More drugs are sold at the park than in the store.
Think of the children, keep the store open and keep the drugs away from the park.

Its Simple Medicene is bought in stores, Drugs are bought out in the park. One Helps, One Kills you.

"Budding entrepreneur" har,har,har

riiight wrote:

"They're not allowed," said county Planning Director Tom Burns. "We're not saying you can't do it. We're saying current zoning ordinance doesn't allow for it."
Tom, you are a highly paid government official. Why can you not just say you can't do this instead of trying not to offend anyone? Are you not paid to enforce zoning ordinances? I don't have a strong feeling either way on the subject, but geez you sound like that lawyer, oops I mean supervisor we have.....do all government employees speak in this manner?

he gets paid the big bucks because he can talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

Why does it seem that most spokepersons for this cause don't look like professional medical personnel? It would go a long way for the cause to clean yourself up a little so you don't just look like a burner who will be using the "medical" stuff to use in your bong with your friends.

Dope is only for dopes
Medical use is dubious but why should the government have anything to say about a plant. Better shut down the liquor store in Boulder Creek. No more selling beer in Jonnys market

We voted to legalize it, so why now are we making it difficult for people to get their medicine? It shouldn't be more difficult than getting any other medicine a doctor recommends.

And anyway, as others have said, geez, anyone who lives in Boulder Creek had better not be afraid of someone buying some buds. Next they'll be complaining about fog and windy roads and trying to ban chainsaws and dogs wearing bandanas.

I go to rainbows end just about everyday,and didn't even know this was there.I do not smoke pot or never have but if people can chose this over pills go at it.I think you cannot go into to this type of shop unless you are 18 so why would parents be so concerned?My kids have no idea this shop is there and unless you are pointing it out and that is just bad parenting what is the problem.Why would a small child even know what pot is come on get real people.

I was very surprised to find a reporter from The Santa Cruz Sentinel waiting in the parking lot for me when I came to open the shop on Friday. In fact, I had to take several minutes to compose myself and decide if I wanted to speak with Kurtis at all.
In the end, I decided that an article would most likely be published with or without my input and that it would be best to try to have the voice of our Collective heard. Kurtis and I spoke for an hour or more (Kurtis, please correct me if I am wrong) and only a small
portion of our conversation was published. Unfortunately, I feel that the article is unnecessarily inflammatory and misses some of the most important parts of this debate as they apply to the community and the state. I would appreciate an opportunity to
add a few items:
a) The article title,“New Boulder Creek pot shop tests community will, county law” is unnecessarily inflammatory. It is not our intent to test anybody and we are not a “pot shop.” We are a collective of Boulder Creek Residents and it is our intent to operate quietly, efficiently and within the law as we are able to understand it. We hope to be viewed as a valuable community resource, reliable source of assistance and positive contributor to the community. We know this will take time.
b) Kurtis stated that we desire to have a thriving business. This is potential scare mongering. Our vision of a healthy, business is seeing approximately 30 patients a day at our peak possibly more in the summer. This translates to less than four patients an hour on average. To say “thriving” is to imply much larger numbers .
c) Yes, I am an entrepreneur but we, The Boulder Creek Collective, are operating and will continue to operate under a true, not- for- profit, collective model. We had our first Collective meeting this month (12 in attendance) and on February 4th, we will have our second meeting, where we will begin to formally adopt our collective rules of operation and begin the formation of a governing board made up of members of the community who will govern the collective. We invite the Sentinel to have a reporter in attendance.
d) A responsibly run Medical Cannabis Collective will improve the lives of the suffering by providing safe and effective treatment alternatives without forcing the patient or caregiver to travel to Santa Cruz. A responsibly run collective will improve the lives of those who cultivate marijuana (often otherwise law abiding, working poor) by providing a safe and legal way to distribute their product and decriminalizing their actions. A responsibly run collective could eventually decrease the amount of black market activity and crime in the community. A collective run within the spirit of Prop. 215 gives more to the community than it takes.
e) When Kurtis and I discussed how a medical cannabis collective should be zoned, I responded that it appeared logical that these entities are treated the same as pharmacies or retail alcohol outlets. This makes the law consistent. What good is it to make something legal on a compassionate basis and then purposely increase the difficulty of obtaining it?
As long as we in the community continue to “criminalize” and “impede” the evolution of the medical cannabis industry, the longer it stays criminal and effects the community in a negative fashion. Despite our Country’s best efforts, marijuana remains available on the black market. It seems to us to be more logical to “normalize” and “guide” the medical cannabis community in the hopes of aiding the suffering, controlling the access, decriminalizing our neighbors and making our community more prosperous.
We always encourage visits and discussions. Please contact us at any time. Just follow our number one rule: Be Nice.
Thank you for your time,
Marc D. Whitehill ADN
Operating President
Boulder Creek Collective

Marc, thank you for posting. Your explanation is good and clear, and I agree that the article was slanted. Not only was it slanted, but I believe it to be slanted in direct conflict with prevailing public opinion in Boulder Creek.

Junction Park should cleaned up before anyone throws stones at a legal business.

I am against the Pot shop being located in downtown BC near the Elementary School and businesses which my family and children patronize.
I hope that this dispensary finds another location.

marc whitehill wrote:

I was very surprised to find a reporter from The Santa Cruz Sentinel waiting in the parking lot for me when I came to open the shop on Friday. In fact, I had to take several minutes to compose myself and decide if I wanted to speak with Kurtis at all.
In the end, I decided that an article would most likely be published with or without my input and that it would be best to try to have the voice of our Collective heard. Kurtis and I spoke for an hour or more (Kurtis, please correct me if I am wrong) and only a small
portion of our conversation was published. Unfortunately, I feel that the article is unnecessarily inflammatory and misses some of the most important parts of this debate as they apply to the community and the state. I would appreciate an opportunity to
add a few items:
a) The article title,“New Boulder Creek pot shop tests community will, county law” is unnecessarily inflammatory. It is not our intent to test anybody and we are not a “pot shop.” We are a collective of Boulder Creek Residents and it is our intent to operate quietly, efficiently and within the law as we are able to understand it. We hope to be viewed as a valuable community resource, reliable source of assistance and positive contributor to the community. We know this will take time.
b) Kurtis stated that we desire to have a thriving business. This is potential scare mongering. Our vision of a healthy, business is seeing approximately 30 patients a day at our peak possibly more in the summer. This translates to less than four patients an hour on average. To say “thriving” is to imply much larger numbers .
c) Yes, I am an entrepreneur but we, The Boulder Creek Collective, are operating and will continue to operate under a true, not- for- profit, collective model. We had our first Collective meeting this month (12 in attendance) and on February 4th, we will have our second meeting, where we will begin to formally adopt our collective rules of operation and begin the formation of a governing board made up of members of the community who will govern the collective. We invite the Sentinel to have a reporter in attendance.
d) A responsibly run Medical Cannabis Collective will improve the lives of the suffering by providing safe and effective treatment alternatives without forcing the patient or caregiver to travel to Santa Cruz. A responsibly run collective will improve the lives of those who cultivate marijuana (often otherwise law abiding, working poor) by providing a safe and legal way to distribute their product and decriminalizing their actions. A responsibly run collective could eventually decrease the amount of black market activity and crime in the community. A collective run within the spirit of Prop. 215 gives more to the community than it takes.
e) When Kurtis and I discussed how a medical cannabis collective should be zoned, I responded that it appeared logical that these entities are treated the same as pharmacies or retail alcohol outlets. This makes the law consistent. What good is it to make something legal on a compassionate basis and then purposely increase the difficulty of obtaining it?
As long as we in the community continue to “criminalize” and “impede” the evolution of the medical cannabis industry, the longer it stays criminal and effects the community in a negative fashion. Despite our Country’s best efforts, marijuana remains available on the black market. It seems to us to be more logical to “normalize” and “guide” the medical cannabis community in the hopes of aiding the suffering, controlling the access, decriminalizing our neighbors and making our community more prosperous.
We always encourage visits and discussions. Please contact us at any time. Just follow our number one rule: Be Nice.
Thank you for your time,
Marc D. Whitehill ADN
Operating President
Boulder Creek Collective

Set it up somewhere else!

Yes, set it up somewhere else!

We don't want it or you here.

That's the truth.

I want and value them being there! Why do you care if they are in Boulder Creek if you yourself are in Ben Lomond?

There are a lot of people in Boulder Creek that support this collective. I'd be willing to be far more than those who feel it should not be there.

I would think that true residents of Boulder Creek would be more concerned by random tweekers and users of controlled substances freely walking the streets at all hours cruising to use these DRUGS like Meth that lead to much of the crime that we face in the valley.

ILoveBoulderCreek wrote:

I want and value them being there! Why do you care if they are in Boulder Creek if you yourself are in Ben Lomond?
There are a lot of people in Boulder Creek that support this collective. I'd be willing to be far more than those who feel it should not be there.
I would think that true residents of Boulder Creek would be more concerned by random tweekers and users of controlled substances freely walking the streets at all hours cruising to use these DRUGS like Meth that lead to much of the crime that we face in the valley.

I shop in BC, my kids attend school in BC, I use the library in BC, I attend dance class in BC, I get my haircut in BC, I am resident of the San Lorenzo Valley and I oppose them setting up shop in downtown BC, get it!