Measure G? Again?

Think wrote:

<quoted text>
That did not stop the B people from pushing through their illegal and unconstitutional measure. You didn't seem to have a problem with it then. I think that like much of the Yes on B crowd, you have no problems bending or breaking the law so long as it serves you and not the other guy.

The constitutionality of the state limits was not an issue until the Kelly ruling. It is also not clear what impact the Kelly ruling will have. It is premature to say that the state limits are unconstituional. There is no such ambiguity with Measure G, as you will find out as soon as Judge
Behnke issues a ruling.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
But I am not a judge, appellate judge, supreme court judge, or an attorney for that matter. It is not up to me to determine what is constitutional and what is not. I can only form my own opinion. Perhaps you are a judge?

No, I am not a judge, but you only need fifth grade reading comprehension to figure out that G is unconstitutional.

And you admonish us "never stop asking questions," but you don't seem so good at answereing them.

Once more: "Since you admit that Measure G is illegal, and can't change state law, why do you want the voters to vote on an illegal measure?"

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I am not a judge, but you only need fifth grade reading comprehension to figure out that G is unconstitutional.
And you admonish us "never stop asking questions," but you don't seem so good at answereing them.
Once more: "Since you admit that Measure G is illegal, and can't change state law, why do you want the voters to vote on an illegal measure?"

I have an opinion about measure g, until a court proves me right or wrong, it is still an opinion. Until it is deemed illegal by a court, voters can vote on whatever initiative is on the ballot.

Let the voters vote, and then if you feel necessary, challenge it. Don't take away the right to vote. That is what county council is trying to do. Stop signature gathering.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
I have an opinion about measure g, until a court proves me right or wrong, it is still an opinion. Until it is deemed illegal by a court, voters can vote on whatever initiative is on the ballot.
Let the voters vote, and then if you feel necessary, challenge it. Don't take away the right to vote. That is what county council is trying to do. Stop signature gathering.

The County Counsel believes, based on the state constitution and the Liberty decision, that Measure G is unconstitutional and therefore not a proper subject for an initiative measure.

What purose will be served by allowing the proponents to gather signatures for something that will surely be thrown out? None. That is why Judge Behnke will throw it out now.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
The County Counsel believes, based on the state constitution and the Liberty decision, that Measure G is unconstitutional and therefore not a proper subject for an initiative measure.
What purose will be served by allowing the proponents to gather signatures for something that will surely be thrown out? None. That is why Judge Behnke will throw it out now.

He could have done that Monday, but he didn't. Why do you think that is?

Measure B has similar budgetary authority language as measure G. If G is unconstitutional based on that language, wouldn't B also be unconstitutional as well?

Correction: Merasure B placed limits on patients, which have now been declared unconstitutional. Until there is review of the Kelly decision, voters in Mendocino county voted on an issue that was, according to People v. Kelly, unconstitutional.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
He could have done that Monday, but he didn't. Why do you think that is?
Measure B has similar budgetary authority language as measure G. If G is unconstitutional based on that language, wouldn't B also be unconstitutional as well?

Your credibility gap is showing. Either you never read Measure B or your reading comprehension score is in the single digits.

First you said Measure B required the zip tie program, which you now admit is not true.

Now you claim Measure B has the same budget language as Measure G.

But Measure B does not have ANY budget language, especially none about the budgetary authority of the Board of Supervisors. None.

All Measure B did is repeal Measure G and adopt the state limits. And of course the state limits are up in the air because of the Kelly decision.

Nevertheless, G is repealed and the limits in Mendocino County will be the lowest in the state instead of the highest.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
I have an opinion about measure g, until a court proves me right or wrong, it is still an opinion. Until it is deemed illegal by a court, voters can vote on whatever initiative is on the ballot.
Let the voters vote, and then if you feel necessary, challenge it. Don't take away the right to vote. That is what county council is trying to do. Stop signature gathering.

Hypocrite! Were you not waving your banner when the idiot Patrick Duff and his ship of fools were suing measure to keep it off the ballot! You have lost major credibility with your hypocrisy, The problem is that the emperor has NO clothes!
But today, you wish for the people to vote.....

You are like I have stated previously....Freedom of speech, freedom to vote only applies to LIBERAL WHACKOS in your mind!

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
Your credibility gap is showing. Either you never read Measure B or your reading comprehension score is in the single digits.
First you said Measure B required the zip tie program, which you now admit is not true.
Now you claim Measure B has the same budget language as Measure G.
But Measure B does not have ANY budget language, especially none about the budgetary authority of the Board of Supervisors. None.
All Measure B did is repeal Measure G and adopt the state limits. And of course the state limits are up in the air because of the Kelly decision.
Nevertheless, G is repealed and the limits in Mendocino County will be the lowest in the state instead of the highest.

I posted in error, and immediately made my correction. as for the limits in mendocino county being the lowest, without limits, how can we be the lowest? and we were never the highest of limits. we just didn't have a canopy restriction, which the BOS removed. apparently, having the ability to do something MUST mean we ARE doing something. you have a funny way of thinking.

so real quick im reading all this and wondering why a person with the name mendo local is from san jose, last time i checked that wasn't mendo. i would also like to add my two cents to all this, it is my opinion that we should all have the option to vote on what happens to this community. i personally don't like having that freedom of choice through vote taken away from me.

p.s. the main thing i have seen myself from all the measure B, and measure G debates is a community constantly in a battle with its own residents. we should all be open minded about this. I want the cartels out of here as the next person, but creating measures that prosecute native locals is not the answer. I know that one of the main intentions of measure B is to take down the commercial grows, but the truth is that these people are still going to steal water and grow on national forests unless we unite as a community and show them we want them gone!

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
I posted in error, and immediately made my correction. as for the limits in mendocino county being the lowest, without limits, how can we be the lowest? and we were never the highest of limits. we just didn't have a canopy restriction, which the BOS removed. apparently, having the ability to do something MUST mean we ARE doing something. you have a funny way of thinking.

I must have missed your post correcting your error about B having language about budget authority. Where is it?

We are the lowest because either the state limits of 6 plants are constitutional and that is the limit we adopted with Measure B, or if the state limits are unconstitutional then the limit in Mendocino County and everywhere else, is the amount needed by an individual patient for their personal medical needs. Either way we will be at the lowest limit in the state.

The allowance for 25 mature plants with no canopy restriction meant that a marijuana grower growing in Mendocino County could produce more marijuana here than any other county, assuming the plants had appropriate access to soil, sun, and water.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
I must have missed your post correcting your error about B having language about budget authority. Where is it?
We are the lowest because either the state limits of 6 plants are constitutional and that is the limit we adopted with Measure B, or if the state limits are unconstitutional then the limit in Mendocino County and everywhere else, is the amount needed by an individual patient for their personal medical needs. Either way we will be at the lowest limit in the state.
The allowance for 25 mature plants with no canopy restriction meant that a marijuana grower growing in Mendocino County could produce more marijuana here than any other county, assuming the plants had appropriate access to soil, sun, and water.

Once again, just because we CAN doesn't mean we DO!
and we would not be the lowest county in the state if Kelly is overturned. we would be ONE of the lowest counties.

But, if you live in Ukiah or Willits city limits, you could not produce 2-5 pound plants, as yes on b claims, because you are not allowed to cultivate outdoors.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, just because we CAN doesn't mean we DO!
and we would not be the lowest county in the state if Kelly is overturned. we would be ONE of the lowest counties.
But, if you live in Ukiah or Willits city limits, you could not produce 2-5 pound plants, as yes on b claims, because you are not allowed to cultivate outdoors.

No county will be lower. Doesn't that = lowest? Or at least tied for lowest. My point is that we will not be higher than everyone else, and therefore a magnet for commercial growers, like we were before.

You also can't raise hogs in the city limits.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
No county will be lower. Doesn't that = lowest? Or at least tied for lowest. My point is that we will not be higher than everyone else, and therefore a magnet for commercial growers, like we were before.
You also can't raise hogs in the city limits.

That is what I said, "one of the lowest." I never stated any county would be LOWER.

Mendo Local wrote:

<quoted text>
Hypocrite! Were you not waving your banner when the idiot Patrick Duff and his ship of fools were suing measure to keep it off the ballot! You have lost major credibility with your hypocrisy, The problem is that the emperor has NO clothes!
But today, you wish for the people to vote.....
You are like I have stated previously....Freedom of speech, freedom to vote only applies to LIBERAL WHACKOS in your mind!

Easy there, Mendo Local! I don't think liberal is the right pejorative. I think the problem in this case is with DOPE GROWING DRUG DEALING WHACKOS. Isn't that what you meant? These people argue every side of the argument and make it all benefit them. Chronic marijuana use seems to impede their ability to tell the truth or think farther than their next joint. If you follow their argument, they wind up contradicting everything they say. They are not compassionate caregivers they are nothing but selfish dope growers and dealers.

trezy wrote:

so real quick im reading all this and wondering why a person with the name mendo local is from san jose, last time i checked that wasn't mendo. i would also like to add my two cents to all this, it is my opinion that we should all have the option to vote on what happens to this community. i personally don't like having that freedom of choice through vote taken away from me.
p.s. the main thing i have seen myself from all the measure B, and measure G debates is a community constantly in a battle with its own residents. we should all be open minded about this. I want the cartels out of here as the next person, but creating measures that prosecute native locals is not the answer. I know that one of the main intentions of measure B is to take down the commercial grows, but the truth is that these people are still going to steal water and grow on national forests unless we unite as a community and show them we want them gone!

FYI-the city is where your internet provider is, not necessarily where you are.

I like the right to vote also, but we just did that. Respect the will of the voters, right no on b? Thank you for recognizing that going after the big growers is the purpose of Measure B. No on B lied about that non-stop and instead of working to make Measure B work, they are doing law suits and more initiatives to try and undo it. What is there real motivation? Protection of their criminal dope growing enterprise, that is what. Yes, lets unite and get rid of the big growers.

lawnorder wrote-
"FYI-the city is where your internet provider is, not necessarily where you are. "

Thank you for clearing that up im not a computer wiz, i didn't want to sound like i was talking trash, if thats how it came across im sorry. I was just curious

I have noticed more arrests and raids on the big growers since b passed, and for that i am glad. But the problem is that not everyone growing in this county is working for the mob. the majority of people that grow actually do grow for medicinal purposes, for example a person that suffers from Parkinson's can medicate using marijuana instead of harmful chemicals in a pill form that just slow down the condition as aposed to stoping the disease from progressing further as with marijuana. We need to notice and realize that B just made criminals out of our neighbors. The actual criminals were still breaking the law before B came along. We don't need measure B to prosecute the people with 4,000 plant gardens, thats obviously not a medical grow and can easily be taken down with measure G

vote yes on "repeal measure b"

trezy wrote:

I have noticed more arrests and raids on the big growers since b passed, and for that i am glad. But the problem is that not everyone growing in this county is working for the mob. the majority of people that grow actually do grow for medicinal purposes, for example a person that suffers from Parkinson's can medicate using marijuana instead of harmful chemicals in a pill form that just slow down the condition as aposed to stoping the disease from progressing further as with marijuana. We need to notice and realize that B just made criminals out of our neighbors. The actual criminals were still breaking the law before B came along. We don't need measure B to prosecute the people with 4,000 plant gardens, thats obviously not a medical grow and can easily be taken down with measure G

It is not a coincidence that there are more raids on the big growers and it started as soon as Measure B was on the ballot. Law enforcement only needed to know that the shackles were off. And it is also only possible because we have a new DA. Thank you Meredith Lintott!

As for your friends and neighbors who are growers, if they are not in compliance with the law and are doing it for commercial purposes then they have some reason to be nervous. But law enforcement is not going to focus on the small grows.

Measure G was an impediment to prosecuting the large growers because G essentially gave approval to commercial growing. It was also illegal and unconstitutional, as we will all know as soon as the judge rules.

reality checker wrote:

vote yes on "repeal measure b"

We just voted and now you want to vote again? You are just a bunch of criminal dope growing hypocrites. Here is proof.

From the no on B website:

"Vote No on B. Preserve the Will of the Voters!"

But only if the will of the voters lets us grow and sell as much dope as we want.