CA county sends hundreds of cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed cannabis farms

California’s Humboldt County is taking more steps to crack down on its still-thriving underground marijuana market, having sent about 330 cease-and-desist letters to locals it believes may be growing without the proper permits.

The county Planning and Building Department is mostly targeting growers in areas that have a particularly high impact on the environment and to establish a “level playing field” between licensed cultivators and those growing illegally, according to the local news website Redheaded Blackbelt.

Some recipients of the letters contend they’re not growing illegally, however, while others may be confused about the legal limit for personal cultivation.

County Supervisor Estelle Fennell told Redheaded Blackbelt the aim is to bring small-scale farmers into the regulated system and that any farm with 3,000 square feet of canopy or less can get a “ministerial permit” from the county.

“That is a very easy permit to get,” Fennell noted.

She encouraged any growers with questions to contact the county government to begin the licensing process.

“What’s going to happen as we move forward is that people who really want to grow, who want to be able to support their families growing cannabis, can do so legally, with a permit,” Fennell said. “No one has to grow in the shadows anymore.”

8 comments on “CA county sends hundreds of cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed cannabis farms
  1. Hastings RH on

    “level playing field” now that is laughable and if getting a permit was so easy everybody would have one -county still has work to do

    Reply
  2. Pat on

    “County Supervisor Estelle Fennell told Redheaded Blackbelt the aim is to bring small-scale farmers into the regulated system and that any farm with 3,000 square feet of canopy or less can get a “ministerial permit” from the county.

    “That is a very easy permit to get,” Fennell noted.”

    Reeeely?? What about the state of ca. requirements? Or does the state allow local “ministerial permits” to supersede state agency reqs, that are seemingly required by as many agencies that want a piece of this tax generating revenue pie? If the claim that Fennel is making is true, why aren’t all of these 3000 sqft farmers going gangbusters with this provision and have already gotten permitted?

    A more important question might be: What if the vast majority of rural counties where the temperate zone, soil, water availability is great, were to all grant ministerial permits to these types of outdoor grow sites? Do you think that the state regulators and their oligarch friends would be happy to see this? Would a small farmer have a commensurate decrease in the amount of state regulatory hurdles and associated costs to overcome if this were the case? At this point the state might be ok with it, because they’d be getting paid anyway. Meaning, the state might consider imposing a more “democratic” approach to his notion. Why? They stand a chance of making even more money. However, their oligarch “friends” ( who gave the regulators the inside track on how things “really work” during the promulgation and execution of MACMURSA ) would dislike it very much. They would see their profits slashed now wouldn’t they? But, the state wins either way. The state has got their bets covered a lot more so than the oligarchs. KInd of strikes a parallel of what’s now being revealed between the relationship that Gates and Manafort had with each other ( As one secretly taking advantage of the other, unbeknownst to the other party ). But, one thing seems to stand out: They’re both scumbags.

    Reply
    • George Bianchini on

      .” However, their oligarch “friends” ( who gave the regulators the inside track on how things “really work” during the promulgation and execution of MACMURSA ) would dislike it very much. They would see their profits slashed now wouldn’t they? But, the state wins either way. The state has got their bets covered a lot more so than the oligarchs”

      OK Pat, Your post is sounding like a conspiracy theory.
      MORE PLEASE!

      Reply
  3. Pat on

    George, there isn’t really any more to add. I’ve read your posts, and I do feel your pain. The empirical evidence that’s led up to this point is overwhelming. Just check in with the multitude of individual’s whom have been to the leading assoc. meetings and have been witness/participant to the legislative process at the state capitol and seeing where things are at now. I feel you pain George, and you’re looking for answers. The short answer is, George: You got f**ked at the drive thru.

    Reply
  4. Sarah smith on

    This is all bs because proposition 64 forces Farmers to follow California state laws which are now absolutely ridiculous .. proposition 64 was designed for the corporate takeover of cannabis and to destroy the small farmers . And no one seems to mention that patients have been thrown under the bus with proposition 64 because it allows cities to ban outdoor growing and most patients on disability cannot afford expensive lights

    Reply
    • Pat on

      You’re mighty right, Sarah. The authors of the bills that became state “law” never cared about 215/420. What they cared about, was making money at the public interest’s expense. Totally. The same goes to the regulators of the agencies involved. With the strategy employed to get it to where it’s at now, the main authors of the law very likely wanted to keep the pool of licensed participants ( esp the small farmer ) small, so as to exact a higher price for product therefore enriching the coffers of the regulators, and those that got licensed; and to potentially garner re-election campaign contributions from those licensed to those assembly members that took part in those few businesses whom got licensed as a return for the favor. Just watch.

      A suggestion would be to set up a registry of those type of patients you refer to, whereby growers ( whom were locked out ) that grow where it’s permissible, to simply donate free of charge their excess to these patients you describe.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *