Search

Recent Articles

Recent Comments


« | Main | »

Measure G – attempts to control number of plants patients grow

By Hempology | June 29, 2007

Willits News, CA
27 Jun 2007
Mike A’Dair

DELBAR, WATTENBURGER DISAGREE ON POT PLANT LIMITS

Supervisors Michael Delbar and Jim Wattenburger could not reach agreement Monday on the number of plants to recommend as the maximum permissible in the committee’s draft medical marijuana possession guidelines resolution.

Wattenburger favored setting the limit at 12 mature female plants, and 18 immature female plants.  Delbar said that he wanted to stick to the limits as defined by the state, encoded in its Senate Bill 420, at 6 mature plants and 12 immature plants.

Since the two committee members could not reach agreement, Chairman Wattenburger ordered that the resolution will be sent forward to the full board of supervisors for discussion and possible action on August 7. 

Sheriff Tom Allman was present at the meeting and recommended that the committee adopt the 25 plant limit suggested by Measure G, which was approved by Mendocino County voters in November 2000.

“If we are looking for an out on this, Measure G is our out,” Allman told the committee.

Wattenburger said he could not support Measure G because of numerous conversations he has had with people who told him that, if given the choice to re-vote for Measure G today, they would not do so.  Wattenburger said that he was also opposed to the way that some medical marijuana growers are allegedly using Measure G and the county’s existing policy to derive financial benefit for themselves.

“I’ve had conversations with people who told me that they use ten or twelve plants and then sell the rest to make the money,” Wattenburger said.  “And I want you to know that that bothers me very much.”

However, Wattenburger said that he wanted to adopt a number that would “compassionately look at the needs of legitimate patients.”

Delbar, however, said that he could not support such a high number.  “There problem is we have a problem that is out of control.” Delbar said.  “I am told that a conservative number ( for amount of pot production per plant ) is a pound per plant.  I’ve heard that some growers can regularly get three or four pounds per plant.  With that said, setting the number at six mature plants — that’s six pounds of product.  I don’t see where having six pounds of product is short-changing those people who really need it.”

Delbar then asked Allman for some guidance on a number that he considered to be reasonable or warranted.

“I don’t think it’s up to us,” Allman said.  “I don’t think we can have a law that doctors are going to go against.  If we go for six plants, public safety in this county will not be improved.  Public safety will be diminished.  Let’s make a difference where we can, and let’s not over-extend our resources.”

Allman also asked the two committee members to set their sites a little lower.  “We’re not going to do it all this year,” he said.  “If this year we can differentiate between legal and illegal marijuana, we will have accomplished something.”

After some discussion, Wattenburger attempted to get Delbar to agree on a compromise.  He suggested a plant limit of 12 mature/18 immature for indoor growing, and 6 mature and 12 immature for outdoor growing.  But Delbar wouldn’t agree to his offer.

Wattenburger then ordered that the issue be referred to the full board on the next available date, which was discovered to be August 7.  In January, the board had decided that it would not meet on three Tuesday in the month of July.

Topics: Articles | Comments Off

Comments are closed.