The article is not on the net, pretty much they are saying 12 plants per person per house.
If you have two folks there then 24 (Or perhaps even 6 per person)
That means you need a doctor willing to put an increased plant limit on your doctors rec. A doctors rec supersedes local law.
If you're ever in the bay holler at me. I know a doctor who will up your limit to 60plants.
This would stop actual collectives, actual disabled folk cant grow can they?
If they don't have the right doctor it'd severely limit them.
The main sticking point is you would need 30 acres to be exempt.
lol. ok. That means some big time growers have gotten to your county board of supervisors. This is actually very easy to do. Barely anyone ever goes to their board of supervisors office hours to talk about 215 law, so when someone does that is usually the only source of information the supervisor has on the subject.
If you plan on fighting this the first thing you need to know is how to do it. First off, do NOT think the board of supervisors will be swayed in a public board meeting unless you've already talked to them privately so they've had time to consider what you are saying. Usually this is not where they make decisions. If the board of supervisors is calling a vote on something, that means they have their minds made up already. They are not going to change their opinions based on what you say to them publicly. Public meetings are nothing more than political theater.
What you need to do is attempt to build a consensus privately. Find out when your supervisors have their open office hours. Show up to them with a well thought out argument against the proposal. Having a few signatures would help your cause too, but it's not the end of the world if you don't have that.
While you are talking to them not only should you be trying to inform them, but also you should be finding out their motivations for proposing such a law. Characterize the proposition as strengthening big for profit growers and limiting access for the sick.
After you've done this, regardless of the outcomes, you need to find a couple more people willing to speak out against the new rules. Don't make an argument based on what is fair to the little guy or what is right or just in the world. Make arguments based on what you think will publicly embarrass the board if they vote for this law. Like I said, those meetings are all public theater. The first concern of every politician at all times is looking good publicly. There are very few exceptions to that rule. Play into that. Make political rhetoric based arguments ex- "supporting this law would strengthen (insert unpopular group here), and limit the rights of (insert popular group here).
Make sense?
If I can think of anything else I'll add on to that. If you have any questions let me know.
