Publisher's Editorial
A response to a letter from Regina Stehly Nunez.
A story which appeared in the Ventura Star a few weeks ago has raised the hackles among some Fillmore residents. A remark attributed to Fillmore City Manager David Rolands may be the source of some confusion.

The vote (city council on taxing marijuana) "tells me the community is open to the possibility of cultivation and taxation of marijuana...the thing with Proposition 64 is it has to do with recreational use. They're saying they are comfortable with the medical side, but they do have concerns about the recreational side."

A couple of facts should guide us through this discussion and quiet the alarm bells. First, the City of Fillmore does not want marijuana within its boundaries. The City was the only municipality in Ventura County to vote NO on Proposition 64 which permitted recreational marijuana throughout the State of California.

City groups were formed on short notice before the election for the purpose of saying no to Prop 64. But Prop. 64 passed, subjecting Fillmore to a plague of new issues and challenges.

Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten sent a four-page letter to city leaders two days after California voters approved Prop. 64. He stated "I write to encourage your city council to enact coordinated, uniform regulations preventing the marijuana industry from bringing harm to our communities,". His purpose was to encourage our leaders to enact comprehensive regulations "to prohibit the operation of commercial marijuana enterprises in our county". Totten further warns of the enticement "by the promise of substantial tax revenue from commercial marijuana interests. Experience has shown this promise to be illusory." In other words, the marijuana market is a cash market which easily escapes proper taxation - and the cost of controlling crime can exceed any expected tax revenues. The cost of physical and psychological injury can be huge, and damage to our youth incalculable.

Fillmore approved two local measures Nov. 8 that could tax marijuana sales and commercial cultivation operations, should the city ever allow them. The approval of these two measures is causing the current, unnecessary, uproar. The council could appear to be lying-in-wait, as it were, to approve commercial activities at a later date
I received this response to my inquiry from our city manager: "We took the proactive approach and placed these issues on the ballot this year rather than wait till 2018, which is the next time we could have done it. We did no campaigning nor did we talk about it outside my one article in the paper and both passed with 60%+ of the vote. In order to tax we would need to overturn our bans. Before anything is done we would have a community dialogue. Once again Fillmore was in the forefront on this issue. It's important to remember the residents, not city council, voted and passed taxing marijuana by an overwhelming number.” - David W. Rowlands.

However, if the time came and the city council decided to permit and tax the commercial marijuana industry, nothing could be done without a public hearing. I don't believe that there is an agenda in city hall to permit the marijuana industry in our city now or in the future. If there were such an agenda why wouldn't an attempt be made to implement it today? But, since there seems to be some doubt about this issue now is a good time to ask our council members in person at the next council meeting.

The passage of Proposition 64 is simply another example of what California has become during the past 30 years. It has been taken over completely by the far Left-Progressive-Democrats. Republicans now have only one third of Sacramento government. Governor Brown and his henchman Gavin Newsom, have secured complete control, making California a staging place for every foolish, idiotic, immoral, and ungodly idea conceived of during the past 100 years.

Want a multi-billion dollar bullet train to nowhere, which no one will use? you will find it here. Want a sanctuary STATE for illegals? it's here now. Partial birth abortions? step right up. How about drivers licenses for illegal aliens? we have them. Get out of jail free for felons? we're OK with that as well. California has become absolutely toxic for traditional conservative values under Democratic rule.

So, it was only to be expected that Proposition 64 would flood the state with marijuana; it's the kind of suicidal culture Sacramento encourages.

Maybe if President-Elect Trump cuts-off all federal largess to California it can be tamed.

***

I salute Regina Stehly Nunez for her energetic and persistent opposition to marijuana in Fillmore, as expressed in her letter. She correctly outlines many of marijuana's deadly attributes. Hers' is a great example of good citizenship. I also share her hatred of marijuana, and every other illegal drug. But I disagree with her worry about a council agenda threatening our town. It's time for our council to again speak out clearly on this issue.

***

By the way, I mislabeled Proposition 64 as Prop. 65 last week. It's one thing to grow old - quite another to grow old and be in a hurry. Well, at least I came close.

Martin Farrell
Publisher
The Fillmore Gazette

www.gofundme.com/MonicaHernandez

Carnales MC East County's Toy Giveaway for the Children of Piru Saturday December 10th at 3:30pm in the Piru Square.

Toy donations were received from:
-Members of Carnales MC
-IBEW Union Local 11
-Ventura County Fire Departments Piru Substation
-Residents of both Fillmore and Piru As well as several other Motorcycle clubs from Southern California

Publisher's Editorial:
During the past week the Gazette has received several letters to the editor about the city's preparations to handle the coming of marijuana. The passage of Proposition 64 will permit recreational use of this drug statewide. Californians age 21 and older can now legally possess, transport, buy and use up to one ounce of marijuana for recreational purposes. One ounce of marijuana is sufficient to produce about 40 "cigarettes". Prop. 64 also permits individuals to grow as many as six plants and allows non-medical marijuana to be sold by state-licensed businesses. State licenses to recreational marijuana retailers will be issued on Jan. 1, 2018.

Fillmore was the only city in Ventura County to reject Proposition 64. 52 percent of Fillmore voters voted against Prop. 64.

Fillmore City Manager David Rowlands has been unfairly criticized for his recent statements reported in the Ventura County Star. The report reads, "...But voters approved two measures on the local ballot that will tax marijuana sales and commercial cultivation operations, should the city ever allow them" "Rowlands replied: "It tells me the community is open to the possibility of cultivation and taxation of marijuana. The thing with Proposition 64 is it has to do with recreational use. They're saying they're comfortable with the medical side, but they do have concerns about the recreational side." The letter with the harshest criticism of Rowlands was withdrawn at the last minute. But its sentiments remain in the media elsewhere so this response will remain until the letter is resubmitted next week.

Fillmore passed an emergency ordinance in October requiring recreational home-growers to get a city permit and follow other regulations, including a plan for odor control. Rowlands stated that the city council would decide how much to charge for permits early next year.

Fillmore City Manager David Rowlands is not promoting marijuana use, nor welcoming the weed to Fillmore. He is simply stating the facts of state law following the passage of Prop. 64, and our city's preparations to handle the expected marijuana onslaught; it's his job to plan for the best possible outcome.

Fillmore has firmly rejected the marijuana industry and its million dollar enticements. But it must prepare to deal with the aftermath of Prop. 64 approval within the state. As has happened everywhere that marijuana has been legalized, crime and health issues will rise significantly.

I am among those who strongly reject anything which promotes or accepts marijuana. I've made my opinion on this issue clear and often. But the City of Fillmore cannot avoid the ramifications of state law. In the future, we may have no better choice than to strongly tax and regulate the private sale and use of this gateway drug - if only to cover the new heavy costs involved in dealing with the crime and health consequences, which are well known.

***

For my response to a hostile letter addressed to me, see "Letters to the Editor" section.