Saturday, March 07, 2015

Epic Hoopa Meeting on Cannabis March 10th!

There is an open public meeting on “Cannabis Agricultural Planning” being held at the Hoopa Community Center on March 10th at 6pm. It will have a Pot Luck for everyone in the valley.  Some of the topics will cover California’s 215 laws, Humboldt County current cannabis regulations and proposed new permit ordinance, National trends, Best practices and how to address environmental concerns and potentially establishing a Cannabis Collective.
But the hot button topic should be the Repeal of Title 34 Campaign.  
In 1999 the Hoopa tribe created an ordinance called Title 34 which banned; “The open and notorious cultivation of marijuana within the exterior boundaries of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation under the guise of permissive use in light of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is unacceptable and endangers the general welfare, health, and safety of residents of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation.”
With the Department of Justice decision to allow tribes to farm Cannabis with the blessing of the Feds, this is a great time for the Hoopa Community to take advantage of situation where cannabis is legitimized and the positive medical affects can be actualized.
 It should be a very interesting meeting nonetheless.


LMOB aka Liberal Jon said...

Richard - I can't find timely postings of the Harbor Commission on Humboldt Access. Do you have any advise. I'm interested in watching the last meeting specifically and I can't find it.


Also...Why, exactly, have you become Weed Inc.'s Richard? You were paid for a while right? but not now? Do you anticipate being paid in the future? Is there a link or a post where we can keep up with the latest b/c you really should be up front on this - publicly.

samoasoftball said...

You would have to contact Humboldt Access for that information. Why were you interested in our last meeting? The one before that was standing room only with US Mines as the topic. (They are no longer pursuing that project.)

As far as the next question. Why do you keep using the "Weed Inc" reference? Seems condescending to me. I was hired as a consultant by California Cannabis Voice Humboldt (CCVH) back in June. I was on retainer and ran out of hours around October. The organization was young and had a great idea of creating an ordinance to legalize cannabis farming for people using Best Management Practices. They were against trespass grows, water diversions, illegal grading and illegal pesticide use. All things that I felt needed to be addressed but were somehow ignored by most. At first I helped organize "neighborhood" meetings of cultivators who wanted to become legitimate. I organized events such as a "Stakeholders Summitt" and meetings with local agencies to help the process move forward. All of this with great success and we are close to finalizing language on the "Land Use Ordinance" and then will start the march to collect signatures for a "Ballott Initiative" in case the BOS do not like our Ordinance. Then the voters of Humboldt will vote on the Ordinance in Nov 2015 Special District Elections.

In December the CCVH had some internal issues that they were asking me to resolve. They were about $30,000 in debt even though there were multi hundreds of people involved at some volunteer level. So during the past Emerald Cup in Santa Rosa I met with the founders of the original organization and pleaded for the creation of a non profit "Social Welfare" 501(C)(4) Organization. They made up a big list of potential board members and then I executed the formation. I was asked to be the interim Executive Director, and since the organiztion was upside down, they asked me to work pro bono. And I have. The organization has paid off all debt and is now in the safely in the black and healthy. I have not sought a paid ED position, but I might in the future. It is alot of work.

I totally believe in the cause and have been honored to have another organizing challenge. I do have other work I am doing for pay and feel blessed to get to pick and choose what I do.

Liberal Man On Bike said...

Sorry RM, not meant to be condescending, I am tired of having to pull interests out of you though.

Thank you for providing them in detail, b/c they help to answer the question you posed about our press "Richard Marks biased for Weed Inc.?"

And, yes, you are. And yes, it helps your ultimate cause to disclose your interests if you do have a cause worth fighting for.

This "Then the voters of Humboldt will vote on the Ordinance in Nov 2015 Special District Elections." will be a nightmare. You must not have much faith in your cause if you have to do this during what will be a low-turn out election. That and the faux-urgency that you will no-doubt argue is the reason.

I don't know why a Democrat would be against a state-wide decision. Such a decision, with almost 2/3rds of legislators Democrats and a Democratic Governor and Attorney General and much skepticism from social conservatives should allow this industry to be well taxed, well regulated and more environmentally responsible. Any local provisions are ultimately and obviously geared to minimize all of the above. Is that opposition to your position what you take as condescension?

Who knows, but thank you for being clear about your income and your bias as it relates to Weed Inc. Please keep us updated to your income from this lobbyist group as I think this is important to know as you are an elected official.

All the best in continuing to be able to pick and choose what you do.

Cheers, Jon Y. (LMOB)