Concerning the 9/20/14 RB ballot measures article and Daniel McLeans 9/23/14 letter: I want to first thank the Record Bee for making the effort to inform folks on the measures coming on the very important November ballot. I also want to thank the RB for printing the correction , (Record-Bee 9/23/14 page 2,For the record), concerning how Measure P deals with neighbor complaints. I feel it important though, to address and further clarify the paragraph of the article that might have left readers with the impression that somehow Measure P has no environmental protections and would allow for unlimited amounts of cannabis to be grown by home gardeners. Please understand that such is simply not the case. In fact the opposite is true, Measure P protects and allows for no harm to the environmental whatsoever, no matter how close or far away from bodies of water etc. Measure P also protects against any health risk no mater how close or far away from schools etc. All health risk and or environment related complaints would be mitigated at the direction of the county Environmental Health Department, and any home gardener in violation is responsible for the expenses of said mitigation. As to limits, the measure only allows for your own needs (not for sale etc). The limit is based on needs because people have different personal needs depending on a multitude of factors/variables. It is arbitrary, discriminatory and fundamentally impractical to pretend everyone has the same identical needs. In regards to Daniel McLeans apparent quote I support its intention to protect citizens from GMOs, but thats a separate issue,, this position is either of convenience or ignorance. Either way, it attempts to divert voters from understanding that under the wing of your restored human rights, Measure P protects the natural plants of our food chain from corporations like Monsanto and their intent that only genetically engineered patented plants have legal standing and protections under law, therefor keeping the natural plants of our food chain vulnerable to being supplanted by GMOs and total privatization. Part of that gradual process is to begin restricting heirloom seed access as Pennsylvania has now done. The FDA is now making noise about walnuts needing to be regulated because they might be to good for you etc. There are to many examples to list as to why Measure P is needed now more then ever. This brings me to my response to Mr. McLeans letter from 9/23 and the claim that somehow Measure O is a reasonable middle ground compromise and implying that somehow Measure P is an extreme etc. To make an honest objective assessment of which measure is the compromise, I feel it important to understand what motivates the bringing of each measure. In my experience with the folks who brought us Measure N, it has been plainly apparent that such comes from fear based hatred which in turn motivates discrimination. If such discrimination is not honestly addressed by response, (not honestly address by the no on N campaign), then discrimination ends up instituted into law as Measure N. Of course there is a whole other aspect of Measure N motivation which employs the discriminatory measure as a tool in effort to cleanse the county in preparation for a wine industry take over. Measure N and its campaign, in my opinion, has the exact qualifications of an extreme position. Based on my knowledge of the narrowly focused Measure O, including the literature and presentations etc., Measure O is simply motivated by the prospect of a few folks making lots of money. In my opinion Measure O is using Measure N discrimination as leverage to capitalize on the moment and install its own brand of discrimination for short term high monetary gain, and is apparently willing to sacrifice your human rights in the process. Though coming from slightly different motivations, in my opinion Measure O qualifies like Measure N does as an extreme position. The honest compromise is found in Measure P which is simply motivated by restoring the human rights and responsibilities of all citizens as it ends discrimination against home gardeners, protects the environment, assures equal protection for neighbors rights, is a firewall against privatization of the plants we all depend on, and is a nail in the coffin of organized crime profiting from unjust laws concerning natural plants. Ron Kiczenski, Lucerne
Posted on: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 16:22:03 +0000