The Measure Gives Local Governments The Right To Ban Outdoor Marijuana Gardens, But Beyond That Partly As A Compromise To Maintain Support From Marijuana Activists While Warding Off Opposition From Cities Wary Of The Measure It Offers Few Details As To How Far Cities And Counties Can Go In Regulating Personal Gardens.

64 is deliberately vague. The measure gives local governments the right to ban outdoor marijuana gardens, but beyond that partly as a compromise to maintain support from marijuana activists while warding off opposition from cities wary of the measure it offers few details as to how far cities and counties can go in regulating personal gardens. The one firm rule is that local governments cant completely prohibit adults from growing six indoor plants. Richard Miadich, a Sacramento attorney who helped draft Prop. 64, says local governments have a right to control personal cultivation by crafting regulations that they feel will protect the well-being of all residents. But he also says cities and counties invite legal challenges if they pass regulations so onerous that they result in a de facto ban, such as requiring residents to pay massive fees. Abouriali argues his citys $411 fee is exactly that. He says it puts the concept of growing pot out of reach for some residents, and adds that he believes other http://www.californiamedicalmarijuana.biz elements of Fontanas permit program are intended to discourage some people from complying. I dont like the fact that you have to give up your privacy and say the city can come in and inspect your home in order to do what state law says you have the right to do, he said. Its a very slippery slope, in my opinion. Given the vague language in Prop.

To read more visit http://www.pe.com/articles/city-825849-cities-marijuana.html?page=1

Comments are closed.