Innuendo uncalled for

Good letter Jan Freeman. Janie Sheppard takes the cake. Her letter was a continuation of the hysteria the pro pot crowd is trying to whip up. Remember all the sick and dieing cancer patients that are going to jail for one plant? Her BS about snitches and a police state fall right in line.

You are right in saying that "snitch" is a word the criminals use to label anyone who reports a crime to the police, which means that she is taking the side of the criminals. But in her effort to create hysteria, she also lied about what was said. The Yes on B Coalition did not ask anyone to report marijuana violations. They did say that if you do report a crime, then let us know so we can monitor it and see what the response is. Did it ever occur to her that Yes on B wants to see Measure B used as a tool against commercial growers which is what we intended?

I think she used to be an attorney but no longer seems to be practicing. Maybe she has found something that pays better. Maybe that is why she was so outspoken in defending Measure G. But if she or anyone else does not want to become a police statistic, all they have to do is follow the law.

I believe it was the spirit of the yes on b campaign, when announcing the hotline, that seemed so, well, mean-spirited. Almost hateful.

Do all of the yes on b supporters really want to fill their time up with complaint tracking? and to know that Selzer realty owns the number, and Dick Selzer himself is on the message, seems that there could be a witch hunt of sorts about to happen. With the Kelly ruling, and B in limbo, it would seem that the limits right now are limits that are reasonable for the patients medical needs. So, a patient could reasonably need 30 pounds of flowers to make oils or tinctures. That would require several more plants than someone who may only need 5 pounds of dried flowers.

How is the "reporter of the crime" supposed to know that?

And to correct the previous poster, the press release stated that you could copy your complaint to them and they (yes on b hotline) would follow up with leo.

By the way, since the election is over, there technically is no more yes and no on b campaigns anymore.

The local pot growers have absolutely nothing to complain about because no matter what the laws say, the pot growers get their way.

And the police do nothing.

When the laws are going in their direction they exploit it with heartless greed and no one does anything about it. And when the laws are going against them they exploit it with heartless greed and no body does anything about it.

And the police do nothing.

If anyone dares to declare that we need to do something about the billions of dollars of pot that’s undermining the educations, health, motivations and futures of literately millions of our children. The pot growers twist this by accusing those who are concerned, of stealing the medicine from cancer and AIDs patients and forcing them to spend their last moments in pain.

And the police do nothing.

The pot growers threaten those of us who are concerned about truth and out kids by saying we are commies that are trying to build a police state.

And the police do nothing.

I know that the vast majority of the pot goes to the highest bidder (mostly kids under 18 years old) rather than sick patients.

And the police still do nothing.

We could get almost all the drugs out of our schools if only the laws that exist were enforced.

And the police still do nothing.

Jan Freeman, you're right about Sheppard's use of scary catch phrases. She's preaching to the converted and insulting the rest of us (very persuasive tactics). Thanks for exercising another citizen responsibility -- contradicting such verbal manipulation -- in a concise and lucid fashion.

pot calling kettle black wrote:

You are right in saying that "snitch" is a word the criminals use to label anyone who reports a crime to the police, which means that she is taking the side of the criminals.

While this definition of "snitch" is accurate, it is also only part of what use of that term includes and implies.

In the wide sense, it describes "telling on" someone that does something the snitch does not like. The motivation may be the hope that the target "will get in trouble". There may be wishful thinking involved in the snitch's belief their target has done something they shouldn't.

"Snitch" as a noun also refers to someone who, Judas like, provides information to "authorities" for financial reward or to lessen or avoid criminal sanctions which they themselves are attempting to work their way out of.

It is an obvious non sequitur for Freeman or "pot" to conclude that Ms. Shephard takes the side of criminals by criticizing 'the snitch line'. One reason would be that most people with an IQ above 85 know that a primary intent of such a phone line is to facilitate gossip and harassment against someone the caller does not like. There is no accountability or credibility requirement for snitches.

Jiminey Ricketts might be an instructive example of someone who lacks credibility and could make accusations against neighbors without bearing any responsibility for the results of that action.

The Snitch Line is a half-step sideways from vigilantism.

Watcher wrote:

We could get almost all the drugs out of our schools if only the laws that exist were enforced.
And the police still do nothing.

If you believe that then you really do live in a fantasy world.

You know what my definition of stupidity is? Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. I'd say this pretty much sums up our current way of dealing with drugs as well as your approach to the issue.

The existing drug laws ARE enforced, but unfortunately they do not work, have not worked for the last 40 years, and never will work. Stop repeating propaganda and actually think for once.

Think
You just dont want to loose all the profits you get from selling drugs to kids.

"You know what my definition of stupidity is? Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. I'd say this pretty much sums up our current way of dealing with drugs as well as your approach to the issue."

While you may be right it's actually the definition of insanity.

Watcher wrote:

Think
You just dont want to loose all the profits you get from selling drugs to kids.

For once can't you have an intelligent response? Of course I must sell drugs to kids because I disagree with you. It's like arguing with a 5 year old...

All you do is sling mud at everyone from the cops to the cancer patients and made wild irrational claims. You do realize that it is people like you who help put drugs in kids hands don't you?

Hey I just had an insight - maybe you're the one selling kids to drugs or on drugs yourself. It would explain the total break from reality, the undirected rage, as well as the complete lack of rationality, common sense, and intelligence.

Just the facts wrote:

<quoted text>
While this definition of "snitch" is accurate, it is also only part of what use of that term includes and implies.
In the wide sense, it describes "telling on" someone that does something the snitch does not like. The motivation may be the hope that the target "will get in trouble". There may be wishful thinking involved in the snitch's belief their target has done something they shouldn't.
"Snitch" as a noun also refers to someone who, Judas like, provides information to "authorities" for financial reward or to lessen or avoid criminal sanctions which they themselves are attempting to work their way out of.
It is an obvious non sequitur for Freeman or "pot" to conclude that Ms. Shephard takes the side of criminals by criticizing 'the snitch line'. One reason would be that most people with an IQ above 85 know that a primary intent of such a phone line is to facilitate gossip and harassment against someone the caller does not like. There is no accountability or credibility requirement for snitches.
Jiminey Ricketts might be an instructive example of someone who lacks credibility and could make accusations against neighbors without bearing any responsibility for the results of that action.
The Snitch Line is a half-step sideways from vigilantism.

The request was for those people who choose to make a complaint to copy the info to Yes on B so that they can monitor how the law is being implemented.

Both sides say they want to see the large commercial growers targeted. How do you know that unless you monitor how the law is being applied.

Calling it a snitch line just perpetuates the fear and hysteria that was the lynchpin of the No on B campaign. No on B should be ashamed for waging a campaign based on the fear that cancer patients would be put in prison if Measure B passed.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
The request was for those people who choose to make a complaint to copy the info to Yes on B so that they can monitor how the law is being implemented.
Both sides say they want to see the large commercial growers targeted. How do you know that unless you monitor how the law is being applied.
Calling it a snitch line just perpetuates the fear and hysteria that was the lynchpin of the No on B campaign. No on B should be ashamed for waging a campaign based on the fear that cancer patients would be put in prison if Measure B passed.

It still remains to be seen how effective this tip line will be. It could be abused, as some have feared, to harass neighbors and medical patients. It could also prove to be a big waste of law enforcement resources if they keep getting called out for 10 plants or for legit medical grows.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
The request was for those people who choose to make a complaint to copy the info to Yes on B so that they can monitor how the law is being implemented.
Both sides say they want to see the large commercial growers targeted. How do you know that unless you monitor how the law is being applied.
Calling it a snitch line just perpetuates the fear and hysteria that was the lynchpin of the No on B campaign. No on B should be ashamed for waging a campaign based on the fear that cancer patients would be put in prison if Measure B passed.

according to the county code, nuisance complaints require a code enforcement officer to go to the alleged violators house, assess, then direct homeowner what needs to be done to abate the complaint. Criminal punishment is not the first step. There are procedures they have to go through. But your hotline fails to provide that information.

Think wrote:

<quoted text>
It still remains to be seen how effective this tip line will be. It could be abused, as some have feared, to harass neighbors and medical patients. It could also prove to be a big waste of law enforcement resources if they keep getting called out for 10 plants or for legit medical grows.

No, the original call goes to the Sheriff's office who will decide what response they want to make. No one intends that Measure B will be used to go after the ten plant grower. That is your fantasy.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
according to the county code, nuisance complaints require a code enforcement officer to go to the alleged violators house, assess, then direct homeowner what needs to be done to abate the complaint. Criminal punishment is not the first step. There are procedures they have to go through. But your hotline fails to provide that information.

We are not talking about nuisance complaints, but criminal violations by commercial growers. That is the focus.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
We are not talking about nuisance complaints, but criminal violations by commercial growers. That is the focus.

So, how would you know that it is a patient, and not a commercial grower? Commercial growing, according to measure b, would be anyone without a 215 recommendation, to be criminal. Now, how will you know if they have a 215 recommendation PRIOR to calling?

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
No, the original call goes to the Sheriff's office who will decide what response they want to make. No one intends that Measure B will be used to go after the ten plant grower. That is your fantasy.

Which call, the nuisance call, or the alleged criminal call? How will you determine which is legal and which is not?

Section 9.31.110 Enforcement.
(a) The County may abate the violation of this ordinance by the prosecution
of a civil action including an action for injunctive relief. The remedy of injunctive
relief may take the form of a court order, enforceable through civil contempt
proceedings, prohibiting the maintenance of the violation of this ordinance or
requiring compliance with other terms.
(b) The County may also seek enforcement by abatement as a nuisance
pursuant to Mendocino County Code Section 8.75 et. seq.(Nuisance
Abatement). All sections set forth in said sections shall be applicable to abating
any nuisance caused by the “cultivation” of marijuana, including procedures, time
limits and fee and fine schedules. Such proceedings may include seeking
warrants from the Mendocino County Superior Court to inspect property and for
nuisance abatement by eradicating marijuana cultivated in violation of this
ordinance. Nuisance abatement may, at the County’s election, be commenced in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Mendocino County Code (MCC).

Nowhere is there criminal penalites for more than 25 plants, so why would you contact law enforcement? Its a civil nuisance, not criminal.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
So, how would you know that it is a patient, and not a commercial grower? Commercial growing, according to measure b, would be anyone without a 215 recommendation, to be criminal. Now, how will you know if they have a 215 recommendation PRIOR to calling?

Any citizen who suspects they have knowledge of a commercial grow can make a call to report their suspicions.

Depending on other pending calls and available personnel, the dispatcher will decide the priority of the response. A responding deputy will exercise their judgement about whether or not the grow is in violation or not.

Things that might indicate a commercial grow include the number of plants involved; the number, frequency and short term stay of "visitors"; large purchases made in cash; high living by people with no apparent source of income; and so forth. Nasty barking dogs and strong odors are also more likely to provoke the neighbors into making that initial call.

Those "patients" who have a valid medical card or doctor's recommendation and who are growing a small number of plants (no more than six to be safe) should not have any problem. The more plants you have over that number, the more likely the deputy is to develop probable cause that you are a commercial grower.

If you have a few plants and do not have a recommendation, but there are no indicators of commercial cultivation or sales then the deputy is probably going to treat you the same as he would have prior to Measure B. Again, the fewer plants the less likely the deputy will develop probable cause that you are a commercial grower.

A lot of it is just common sense. Even Americans for Safe Access, a marijuana advocacy group, advises everyone to follow the rules. They even advise staying a little under the rules.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
Any citizen who suspects they have knowledge of a commercial grow can make a call to report their suspicions.
Depending on other pending calls and available personnel, the dispatcher will decide the priority of the response. A responding deputy will exercise their judgement about whether or not the grow is in violation or not.
Things that might indicate a commercial grow include the number of plants involved; the number, frequency and short term stay of "visitors"; large purchases made in cash; high living by people with no apparent source of income; and so forth. Nasty barking dogs and strong odors are also more likely to provoke the neighbors into making that initial call.
Those "patients" who have a valid medical card or doctor's recommendation and who are growing a small number of plants (no more than six to be safe) should not have any problem. The more plants you have over that number, the more likely the deputy is to develop probable cause that you are a commercial grower.
If you have a few plants and do not have a recommendation, but there are no indicators of commercial cultivation or sales then the deputy is probably going to treat you the same as he would have prior to Measure B. Again, the fewer plants the less likely the deputy will develop probable cause that you are a commercial grower.

My neighbor does not grow pot, but has nasty barking dogs. having more than 6 plants because my doctor says I need it doesn't prevent false claims, does it? and where is the leo personnel to come from to investigate the false claim? And why would LEO's be investigating nuisance claims? its a civil matter.