Upcoming Events

Statement of Purpose

The Humboldt Medical Marijuana Advisory Panel is a community-based nonpartisan policy group created to foster comprehensive approaches to legal marijuana policy, integrating health, safety, economic, and regulatory issues in Humboldt County, California and the United States.

HuMMAP speaks for the interests of legal marijuana growers, patients, caregivers, distributors and support services across Humboldt County. Join us!

Latest Marijuana News

New DRAFT HuMMAP Medical Marijuana Ordinance submitted to Planning Commission staff.

HuMMAP’s latest proposal for a medical marijuana ordinance for Humboldt County can be seen by clicking the link above, below the header image or by clicking here.

This is the draft ordinance that has been submitted  to the Planning Commission staff. The next Planning Commission meeting will be this Thursday, May 12th at 5:30pm in the Supervisors’ Chambers at the courthouse in Eureka. Community input is needed.

Note that due to Planning Commission deadline pressure, this ordinance had to be submitted as-is. It is, as the name says, a draft and a work-in-progress that will be refined by input from the industry, County officials and citizens.  To make this the best ordinance possible, the Planning Commission needs to hear directly from everyone in the industry. There are still many in Humboldt County who will try to keep our main industry from ever gaining the respect and acceptance it deserves, so it is imperative that those who benefit from the marijuana industry make their interests known.

We’d love to hear your comments, so please chime-in here! What do you like or dislike? What needs improvement? Let us know and come to the Planning Commission meeting to give your input and show support for the industry that made Humboldt famous.

11 comments to New DRAFT HuMMAP Medical Marijuana Ordinance submitted to Planning Commission staff.

  • No Hum Grower

    Why limit collective grows to 1,500 sq ft? This will make many legal collective grows following state law illegal in the county. Why have a small farmer permit for 50lbs? Most average growers aren’t going to produce more than 50lbs in 1,500 sq ft anyways. Mendo allows 99 plants. Why would we want to limit ourselves to grow less than mendo? How is that going to help our local economy? Seems like a lot of over regulation. Permits for trimmers? Permits for making hash? Really? I don’t see anyone bothering to get a permit if they are limited to 50 lbs or 1,500 sq ft.

  • No Hum Grower

    When was this draft circulated publicly? When were these “public” meetings held? The last mention of a public meeting on this site is from Jan 14th. Who wrote this proposal? It looks like the type of ordinance that anti-pot law enforcement would write. Why such extreme limits against collective grows? Why give mendo and the big indoors down south the advantage over us?

  • Charley

    Good questions, No Hum Grower. Our conversations continue, but it’s the feds who are talking loudest lately. Their strategy from coast to coast is to attack the biggest ‘profiteers’ of our officially non-profit industry. The HuMMAP draft (and it is a draft for discussion) tries to help our county tune in to evolving regulatory realities.

    We think other county proposals for grows of the size that specifically evoked US Attorney attention in Oakland and in other states are a bad idea here, where our thousands of small growers constitute the economic foundation of our county. Pushing the size envelope while it’s being quashed all around us seems ill-advised at the moment, not to say futile.

    More US Attorney letters about large commercial activities are sent almost every week. We want to assure a future before we push it, and carry our politicians along without threatening them. You’ll remember that public employees have been specifically threatened with criminal liability by feds in their recent letters.

    Please consider coming to the Planning Commission meeting this Thursday at 5 in the Supervisors’ Chambers, and say what you think. Let’s talk, we’re all trying to find our balance. The conversation won’t end there.

  • Bob

    Well said Charley… the Isleton case is a recent example. That alone may cause the BOS to be a little skitish to green light large grows. I think 2011 wont be the wild west show that 2010 was regarding large scale outdoor grows… the Feds are licking their chops this year…. time will tell.

    IMHO HuMMAPs proposal is better than HGA’s more small grower friendly.

    How about some sort of county residency requirement say 2-4 years to be able to move up from more than a personal grow? just a thought

  • I found the findings to be overly focused on maintaining “Humboldt” as an appellation, which may be deserved for outdoor-grown cannabis but not for indoor. Are you claiming that Humboldt halides are superior? C’mon.

    It also bears mention that ANY type of limit on cultivation parcel sizes may not be enforceable, just as the Kelly decision threw out the hard cap on plant numbers found in SB 420. Nothing in Prop. 215 or SB 420 authorizes local governments to act on their own.

    With that said, we turn to the convoluted draft law itself, and it raises as many questions as it answers. Permits for everyone, an 11-member council, and no real teeth to ensure compliance from growers who tend to bend and break the laws anyway. In short, the draft ordinance focuses on the right issues, but it’s all over the map when it comes to solutions. Smaller bites of the apple may be more palatable to everyone involved.

  • Charley

    Thanks for your comments, Bud. We figure that indoor growing will soon go the way of the dodo and the Fukushima power plant, so the appellation language is indeed about branding outdoor, our 40-year marquee crop.

    The thing about Kelly is that the feds don’t care. So we’re looking for a balance between many contending standards and considerations. It ain’t easy and it won’t be straightforward.

    Same goes for the ‘convoluted draft law itself,’ which engages with the complexities of our evolving industry. We’re trying to help the county consider what’s actually out there, but we don’t expect this draft to be the end of the process. I hope you’ll stay with it too, your comments are spot on, and I appreciate getting them.

  • No Hum Grower

    This latest draft is worse than the last. Now you guys want to allow 1,500 sq ft of plant canopy indoors? That is 93.75 lights. Are you a bunch of diesel growers? Is that what your plan is? Shut down outdoor grows to permit your monster indoors? You want to limit outdoor grows to 1500 sq ft and license indoor grows that will produce 400-600 lbs per year? You guys are idiots.
    No one can grow more than 1500 sq ft outdoors but if you have a parcel with five residences on it you can get five small farmer permits? If I am a grower I can’t trim my own pot? I can’t bag my own pot? I can’t make hash? You have shown that you are not qualified to be making these decisions for the county. We can only hope to god the county thinks you guys are crack pots and doesn’t listen to you.
    Who is Hummap? What makes you knuckleheads qualified to be making these decisions? Who is your board? Who is writing this crap? When are these public meetings? I have talked with several people who have given money to Hummap and have never been invited to a meeting or even knew that Hummap has turned in a draft to the county. Hummap should be disbanded before the county starts taking any of your crap seriously and you do any more serious damage to what could be a thriving medical industry.
    Who the hell are you guys? Show yourselves!!! Either you are giant indoor growers or you are not involved in the industry enough to know the damage you will cause with this ordinance.

  • Charley

    Good points, NoHum. Our first draft only introduces complexities, it doesn’t solve them. Most of us agree with most of what you said, just so you know. You’ll see the next draft correct the problems with restricting activities and indefensible limits.

    We haven’t had more public meetings up north because we don’t have folks from the Humboldt Bay area who can backstop organizing them. We can’t do it all from down here. Please drop a line to the contact email and we’ll plug you into the conversations, and hope for your help in spreading them up North.

    The 1500 square foot number will rise. How high? Depends on responses to what we’ve put out so far. All in all, we knuckleheads need more help to work more effectively, and we hope you’ll join us.

  • Admin


    There are very good reasons for not ever making rough drafts or works-in-progress of anything public, whether art, film or ordinances. Mainly, there will always be people who don’t understand how dramatically something can change and will vehemently shoot the proposal down, hurling curses and epithets at the writers, when what is needed and asked-for is constructive criticism and new ideas.

    But that is the risk one runs in a democracy, no? We’d rather have it that way, keeping with SoHum traditions and values, than the less savory alternatives of letting the County officials run things or playing the standard political game and buying politicians and making backroom deals.

    As to HuMMAP meetings being open, let us know if you’d like to bring your ideas to a meeting and we’ll let you know when the next one is. They are generally small and informal.

    As to us being qualified, we’ll be the first to say that we’re not! This is why we set up this site and have been soliciting input from the public from the very start. We need help to work out a small-farmer-friendly version to counter the un-friendly ordinance the County came up with. We are the only group who is actively soliciting public input, so we expect criticism. There are also considerable differences of opinion among us that have yet to be worked out, as anyone who has been to a meeting should certainly know.

    We’d be surprised if anyone who cared was actually unaware that we’d turned in a draft to the County Planning Staff, given that we post it here and we post it on the HuMMAP Facebook page—always, I may add, asking for more input and comments. (We even allow anonymous people to comment.) I think the fact that we submitted a proposal was also reported on KMUD. I guess this just means we need better outreach, huh?

    Regarding the indoor size: it was a sloppy error that indoor got in there at any size. (It now has a strikeout through it.) Most of us in SoHum feel that indoor should only be for personal medical use, at about the same size as the Eureka city ordinance (up to 100ft/sq) but we need to have more input from NoHum, where more people grow indoors.

    I can also say that many of us are not in agreement about the limits on number of licenses as written. That is definitely going to change, for exactly the reasons you mention. As the marijuana economy (medical or possibly recreational in 2012) transforms rapidly, everyone in the industry will need to have as much freedom as possible to creatively adapt and find their niche in the larger economic ecosystem. So, for example, a grower could also open a medical marijuana “dispensary” of sorts in the form of a “bud and breakfast,” sell edibles made from their trim, conduct local guided tours for clients and so on.

    At the same time, the challenge is to try to prevent giant outside corporations from monopolizing the industry and to head-off the formation of a homegrown good-old-boys network who, through their crony networks, end up controlling all the dispensaries and nurseries in Humboldt, overproduce “Humboldt-branded” medical marijuana and gobble up most of the dispensary contracts in the urban centers for Humboldt-branded outdoor pot. This would leave most mom-and-pop growers completely out of the loop.

    Is it possible to strike such a balance, between preventing monopoly and promoting a democratic marketplace on the one hand and stifling creativity, competition and opportunity on the other? I personally don’t know and it has been the subject of many heated discussions.

    We’d love to hear anyone’s input.

  • Joe Blow

    #l3. Since when is outdoor organic marijuana preferred and wanted. You can’t give it away these days. Who made up these stupid comments?

  • izzy

    I believe some of the things most out of focus in this draft are the following:

    1. Limiting Indoor growing to anything more stringent then the scaling limits in trinity county, would dis advantage hum county with out just cause. (http://www.trinitycounty.org/Departments/Planning/PDF/Medical%20Marijuana%20Moratorium%20Fact%20Sheet%20&%20Complaint%20Form.pdf)

    2. limiting the amount grown for some and space of grow for others is ripe for abuse for example a collective allowed 1500sqft of out door grow could grow off season crops of auto flowering plants in heated green houses, wile the farmer limited by weight would not have that option.

    3. by trying to permit everyone and everything involved you will destroy access to the jobs wile creating massive application and enforcement costs. a farm hand doesn’t need to get a permit, why should a trimmer?

You must be logged in to post a comment.