Trio attempts to resurrect Measure G

reality checker wrote:

Vote yes!

Mendo Local wrote:

<quoted text>I vote to throw the bum's out!!!!!!!!!!
V O T E N O and take the county's woods, streets and ag-land back from the slimy dope growing commercial criminals!!!!!!!

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
how do you suggest LEO do that? You think changing one law will do it?

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
The mere act of putting Measure B on the ballot changed the dynamics and inspired law enforcement to take a more active approach to eradicating commercial grows.
The passage of Measure B has further changed the dynamics by which we operate. A majority of the public, the District Attorney, the Sheriff and nearly everyone else in law enforcement supported Measure B as a tool to go after commercial growers. Law enforcement is aggressively following through.
This growing season will be a period of transition as growers adjust to the new dynamic. If law enforcement is able to keep up the current level of activity then even the most obstinant commercial growers will become aware that their has been a shift and that the odds of being busted have increased dramatically.
The result will be that next year there will be fewer commercial growers planting fewer plants. It will probably take about two years of concerted effort to see the full benefit of Measure B.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you think the Mexican cartel will listen?

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
Whether they listen or not, as the amount of commercial growing decreases, law enforcement will be better able to direct resources to those that remain. With clear support* from the public we can also expect enhanced coordination between law enforcement, state parks, national forests, private landowners and others who are impacted.
*And even No on B claimed they were against the large trespass grows, so we should have 90% or more public support to go after them, right?

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
Whether they listen or not, as the amount of commercial growing decreases, law enforcement will be better able to direct resources to those that remain. With clear support* from the public we can also expect enhanced coordination between law enforcement, state parks, national forests, private landowners and others who are impacted.
*And even No on B claimed they were against the large trespass grows, so we should have 90% or more public support to go after them, right?

Joe Mendo wrote:

<quoted text>
Your little plan has one big flaw...greed. As law enforcement cracks down, the prices will be driven up. Simple economics. The inflated price will make the lure of quick cash too hard to resist and the cycyle continues. Of course if the MCSO eradicated MJ all together, they would be out of some jobs. There is no money in the cure, only in the treatment.

just asking wrote:

PS: Sorry to break the news to you, but Measure G is clearly unconstitutional and only the judge will be voting on it. He will vote "NO," so don't look for it on the ballot, now or ever.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you think the Mexican cartel will listen?

Sensible wrote:

Get real. We in Mendocino should abide by California state laws just like the millions of others who live in the state.
We simply don't need a special set of laws for growing pot in Mendocino County.

still illegal wrote:

under federal law. GO CAMP!!!
Pot makes you stupid and dumbs you down.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, did you ever stop to think that MCC 9.31 conflicts with SB 420?
SB 420 states a patient can have what is reasonable amount related to their condition.(state law)
MCC 9.31 makes patients only allowed to cultivate no more than 25 plants per parcel.
This would mean that anyone with a doctor who recommends a greater amount would be denied their recommended amount of medicine.

DdC wrote:

The only reason for SB 420 was Rednecks and DEAth wishers needed an amount they could count without taking their jackboots off...