The California Attorney General’s Office has released its long-awaited medical marijuana guidelines, and–who knew?–Humboldt County’s own guidelines far exceed them.
While the state suggests limits of eight ounces of dried dank medicine and six mature plants, Humboldt County allows three pounds of the good stuff and up to 100 plants.
Maybe Humboldt County growers patients are just sicker than those living elsewhere in the state?
As an aside, we can understand why the Times-Standard failed to include that comparison in its otherwise groundbreaking story today. The local information was unbelievably hard to find. After an exhaustive search of the internets, we happened upon some obscure site called Google, into which we cleverly entered the phrase humboldt county medical marijuana. Then after that, we had to search through like a billion results until we got to the first one.
But hey. At least the Times-Standard reported the story.
Hello Fourth Street? Anyone home?
Filed under: Humboldt County |
The Humboldt Mirror 
🙂 But what does this MEAN?
Hey – where’s my real avatar? I’m totally signed in!
[…] of the hat to the Humboldt Mirror which pointed me to the Times Standard Article yhat I had overlooked. Possibly related posts: […]
Humboldt County DA Paul G announced several weeks ago that his county no longer has separate limits from the state of California.
Del Norte did the same thing.After the Kelly ruling in May 2008, many liberal counties did away with their limits or theasholds.
IMO this whole thing is about dispensaries.But the state collects their sales tax from them.Go Fish!
100 plants? where did that come from? that is misinformation. the real amount is a TEN BY TEN area or 1500 watts!!! there is no mention of plants, only wattage and square footage…..
100 plants? where did that come from? that is misinformation. the real amount is a TEN BY TEN area or 1500 watts!!! there is no mention of plants, only wattage and square footage…..
Work order: Graphics Dept
Put Gallegos up on the masthead. Dress him in a striped, gingham dress with a small weasel in his arms. I’d suggest a crown of buds, (no not the beer cans) a little Salzman figure on his shoulder, on his knees, hands clasped and whispering “Damn you say it! I do believe in kooks, I do believe in kooks…”
Oh and one more thing; There’s no place like home-grown.
Ok…just an idea
Small dog
I’m afraid I distinctly remember Gallegos addressing the limits for medical marijuana and allowing 99 plants. It was added to my “Why I never should have voted for Paul.”
Nice to see the state FINALLY setting some limits. What I can’t believe is that the word “tax” was actually used.
THAT’S what I want to see. It’s a drug. Regulate it and tax it. I get taxed for my whiskey and Ibuprofen, why shouldn’t pot users?
Legalize it, certainly. But keep limits up. Make growers responsible for the environmental damage they do and the water they use.
And limit its use.
Now that this law is passed, there’s got to be some boundaries with the drug.
That’s my opinion.
I didn’t like the law and voted against it. But it’s here and it’s law.
Read the guidelines, 6:46. Specific plant numbers AND canopy sizes are included. Before calling things “misinformation,” you really should read the source documents and make sure you aren’t the one providing the misinformation.
7:43,
please post a link to the guideline that mentions 100 plants.
They ARE linked to.
5:58,
post the location of said links……..its like pulling teeth with some people….
the link in the post refers to an old prosecution guideline that has not been in effect since 2004. since 2004, the guidelines have said 10×10 area with NO MAXIMUM number of plants.
here are the CURRENT guidelines since 2004:
Click to access BOSAgendaItem.pdf