![](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/Garcia-Handpicked-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
California\u2019s immediate post-legalization cannabis boom has now gone bust, with small growers hit the hardest. And those who remain in the illicit sector to avoid a perceived bureaucratic burden face continued police repression. In other words, it\u2019s the worst of both worlds.<\/p>\n
In an all too symbolic development, the Garcia Hand Picked<\/a> brand, launched by the family of late Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia in 2020, closed operations<\/a>\u00a0in California at the start of this year.\u00a0<\/p>\n One recent\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0estimated the California cannabis industry\u2019s collective debt at over $600 million. Meanwhile, a new state code shifts the burden for paying cannabis excise taxes from distributors to retailers\u2014the most vulnerable sector, and obviously a critical one. Media reports\u00a0hype<\/a>\u00a0an imminent \u201cextinction event\u201d for the cannabis biz in the state that pioneered that industry in the 1990s.\u00a0<\/p>\n Amid all this, the criminal element is targeting the industry as easy pickings. According to a\u00a0review of state data<\/a>\u00a0in April, losses of products or proceeds due to burglaries, armed robberies and other \u201cwastage\u201d more than doubled in California between 2021 and 2022. Retailers, cultivators and distributors filed 329 loss reports in 2022, compared with 147 the prior year. In the first three months of 2023, the state documented 85 loss reports.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Meanwhile, last October, the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC)\u00a0teamed up<\/a>\u00a0with other state agencies, including Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) and the\u00a0Governor\u2019s Office of Emergency Services, to form a new Unified Cannabis Enforcement Taskforce (UCETF).\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe cannot allow harmful, illicit cannabis operations to lay waste to the environment or threaten our communities,\u201d Mark Ghilarducci, then-Homeland Security Advisor\u00a0to Gov. Gavin Newsom, said. \u201cWe are bringing together the combined law enforcement resources of our state, local and federal agencies in a coordinated enforcement action against these bad actors and criminal organizations.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n In late May, the UCETF\u00a0announced<\/a>\u00a0that it had seized over $52 million in unlicensed cannabis and cannabis products in the first quarter of 2023.<\/p>\n Why do elements of the old prohibitionist dystopia survive even as a new post-legalization dystopia unfolds in the form of a glutted market? These are related phenomena, as restrictions on the legal sector incentivize unlicensed cultivation. Prices may be lower on the illicit market, but there\u2019s no taxation or regulation and no stricture on out-of-state sales\u2014unless you get caught, of course.<\/p>\n Economies of scale on the agribusiness model are better positioned to ride out the glut (which they share a disproportionate blame in), while it is small growers\u2014the legacy producers\u2014who most feel the pinch. And especially in places like Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity\u2014the three counties that makeup Northern California\u2019s legendary Emerald Triangle.<\/p>\n Natalynne DeLapp<\/a> is a former director of the Humboldt County Growers Alliance (HCGA), which was formed after the passage of Proposition 64, California\u2019s 2016 legalization initiative. With a degree in environmental science from Cal Poly Humboldt, she worked with the county in a partnership to develop the first cannabis land-use ordinance, approved by Board of Supervisors in February 2016.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe intent of 64 was to protect small farmers from large-scale operators,\u201d she tells Cannabis Now<\/em>. \u201cVoters thought there would be no farms greater than one acre until after 2023. However, in implementation, they allowed license stacking. There were 100-acre farms across the state from day one, January 1, 2018.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n That was the day the Medicinal & Adult-Use Cannabis Regulatory Safety Act (MAUCRSA) took effect, providing a legal framework for the state\u2019s day-lighted industry. MAUCRSA did limit the number of one-acre grow licenses to one per person or entity\u2014but also allowed an individual to apply for multiple licenses for smaller plots, basically making nonsense of the one-acre limit.\u00a0<\/p>\n The\u00a0new state regulations<\/a>\u00a0that took effect this January phase out that unenforced restriction and, in fact, allow consolidation of \u201cmultiple cultivation licenses\u201d into a single \u201clarge or medium cultivation license.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n But grow operations need county permits as well as state licenses\u2014a double regulatory whammy.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cNow membership of the HCGA is 150 licensed cannabis operators, down from 275 by the end of 2021,\u201d DeLapp continues. \u201cThat\u2019s when the market collapsed for wholesale prices due to overproduction. The state has allowed up to five times more to be cultivated than our state market can consume.\u201d<\/p>\n There were 15,000 grow sites (medical or illicit) in Humboldt in 2015, DeLapp says. \u201cAfter Prop 64, some 2,400 signed up to comply with MAUCRSA and the county land-use ordinance. Now, there are fewer than 800 legal farms in the county, and the sheriff estimates there are fewer than 1,500 illegal grow sites.\u201d Overall, she says there\u2019s been an 85% reduction in cannabis operations.\u00a0<\/p>\n DeLapp blames regulatory overreach for much of this contraction. \u201cThe barriers for entry are too high to overcome for many,\u201d she says. \u201cThe cost of bringing lands into compliance with environmental regulations was more than they could bear. Many people fell out of the system or moved away. The hills are quieter. Businesses are failing.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In her view, this goes to the root of the state\u2019s legalization regimen. \u201cProp 64 was written behind closed doors, and California has become a what-not-to-do for other states. They gave local control to every permitting jurisdiction, they baked in over-regulation and over-taxation. And it can\u2019t be changed by legislation\u2014only by another voter initiative. So, while 60% voted for legalization, 68% of jurisdictions across state don\u2019t provide access for people to purchase safe, legal and tested cannabis products at all.\u201d<\/p>\n DeLapp does see some improvement with the new county ordinance passed in 2017, which she says \u201cfound the right balance.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cHumboldt County still has more licensed farms than any other jurisdiction in the state. Those who remain really want to be here and really want to be cannabis operators.\u201d By way of contrast, she points out that Santa Barbara County has the same amount of square footage under cultivation\u2014but it\u2019s held by just 60 operators.<\/p>\n Now Humboldt and the entire region are feeling economic pain due to the flawed regimen, she says.<\/p>\n \u201cSales taxes and property values throughout the Emerald Triangle, the famed cannabis cultivation area for the United States, are in decline. This is due to the diminishment of cannabis cultivation\u2014not only the crackdown on illegal operations but the suffering of legal operations. This means reduced revenues for schools and so on. And this isn\u2019t happening in other areas of the state that aren\u2019t so dependent on cannabis.\u201d<\/p>\n Arousing strong feelings on either side is a pending Humboldt initiative that\u00a0proponents say<\/a>\u00a0will \u201cprotect the County\u2019s residents and natural resources from harm caused by large-scale cannabis cultivation.\u201d Detractors say it will increase the burden on small growers, and actually represents backsliding toward prohibition.\u00a0<\/p>\n Supporters of the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative (HCRI<\/a>) collected over 7,000 signatures\u2014well above the 5,200 needed to get it on the ballot. It will go before voters in March 2024.\u00a0<\/p>\n March 7 saw heated exchanges at a Board of Supervisors hearing in county seat Eureka, with detractors\u00a0bashing<\/a>\u00a0the HCRI as \u201canti-cannabis\u201d and \u201canti-community,\u201d the work of \u201ceconomic terrorists\u201d and, most sneeringly, \u201cthe Karen Initiative.\u201d\u00a0That same day, the county Planning Department released its \u201cAnalysis & Recommendations<\/a>\u201d on the initiative, warning that if passed, it would have \u201cdire consequences for the cannabis industry in Humboldt County.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Also in March, the HCGA issued an\u00a0open letter<\/a>\u00a0to the HCRI proponents, expressing \u201cour strong opposition\u201d to the initiative. The letter charged that \u201cthe policy proposed\u2014whether intentionally or not\u2014would not support either small farms or environmental sustainability in Humboldt County, and in fact would cause significant harm to both.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n An HCGA\u00a0Policy Analysis<\/a>\u00a0of the initiative states that while existing county cannabis ordinances \u201cwere developed through public process by Humboldt\u2019s Board of Supervisors,\u201d the HCRI \u201cwas not circulated for public comment, review or discussion prior to its introduction, and having been introduced, now cannot be altered prior to appearing on any future ballot.\u201d<\/p>\n The initiative\u2019s\u00a0provisions<\/a>\u00a0prominently include seeming common-sense measures, like limiting new cultivation permits or expanding existing ones to 10,000 square feet and capping the number of permits and acreage per watershed at near the current total number. It would also put the brakes on permit-stacking, barring \u201cmultiple cultivation permits per person\/corporation or per parcel.\u201d<\/p>\n Yet the newly launched\u00a0No HCRI<\/a>\u00a0website asserts that the initiative \u201cwould have devastating effects on cannabis farmers of all sizes in Humboldt, including the very smallest in the county.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n DeLapp emphasizes HCGA\u2019s view that the initiative is inherently undemocratic. \u201cThe HCRI was written by a small group of people behind closed doors and drafted by a San Francisco attorney, with zero public input. It puts brand new language in the county\u2019s General Plan, which was created over the years by a public process. And that new language can\u2019t be changed by the county government, only another voter initiative. If there\u2019s even one poison pill in it, it will poison the well.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n And critics see several such poison pills. They say the initiative\u2019s section CC-P5, which limits each parcel to one permit, and various provisions restricting \u201cexpanded use\u201d of permitted plots, are so worded that they could effectively prevent farmers from functioning.\u00a0<\/p>\n HCGA\u2019s policy director Ross Gordon notes that the text of the initiative defines \u201cexpansion\u201d as an \u201cincrease in number or size of any structure used in connection with cultivation.\u201d Gordon states: \u201cThat could mean a new drying shed, a new nursery room or clone room, putting in a solar facility or water storage to become more environmentally sustainable. Farmers don\u2019t want to outsource clone production or trimming; that\u2019s how you maintain good quality product. This would be restricting the ability of small farmers to survive.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The county Planning Department analysis agrees with him. It states that \u201c[t]he flexibility provided by the [existing cannabis ordinance] in the number of permits was designed to allow farmers to have different types of permits to diversify their source of income.\u201d Whereas the provision in the initiative \u201cis unclear and can be interpreted in different ways,\u201d potentially to \u201cinclude nursery, propagation, drying and trimming.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n DeLapp sees the actual motives behind the initiative as a \u201cNIMBY\u201d (not in my backyard) mentality among local landowners\u2014and even a surviving anti-cannabis stigma. \u201cProhibitionism is still alive and well even in Humboldt County,\u201d she says. \u201cPeople want to smoke weed, but don\u2019t want the production in their neighborhood. Or \u2018neighbor-woods,\u2019 as we say.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n She also sees an element of racism at work, saying she has heard ugly epithets used against a would-be Asian grower.<\/p>\n Riley Morrison of\u00a0Emerald Queen Farms<\/a>\u00a0in Willow Creek is one grower who fears the worst if the initiative passes.\u00a0\u201cThis was advertised as something that would support the small farmers, but in reality, it\u2019s so restrictive that it chokes us out,\u201d he says. \u201cIt doesn\u2019t allow us to grow, evolve and adapt as a small business. We were excluded as stakeholders. No aspect of this initiative works for growers of any size in Humboldt County.<\/p>\n \u201cOur biggest fear is being non-conforming after we\u2019ve spent so much time and effort complying with county regs,\u201d he adds. \u201cThis could jeopardize our livelihoods as owner-operators. We just want to grow and evolve under the law that was created through a public process. This initiative takes that away.\u201d<\/p>\n HCGA policy director Gordon is even more forthright. \u201cThe HCRI is the single biggest threat to cannabis cultivation in Humboldt County. It\u2019s not an attempt to help small farmers. It will make compliance by small farmers unviable. If you can\u2019t create a viable regulatory framework, you\u2019re reinstating prohibition. The goal of this initiative is to strangle the cannabis industry in Humboldt County.\u201d<\/p>\n He points to other provisions he considers onerous. For instance, under section CC-P8, any farm over 3,000 square feet requires a \u201cdiscretionary process,\u201d meaning public hearings, as opposed to a permit being issued \u201cby right\u201d on any land zoned agricultural. Under the\u00a0current county code<\/a>, the requirement for such a process only kicks in at 10,000 square feet.<\/p>\n Another is section CC-P13, which requires all new or expanded farms to be on a verified \u201cCategory 4\u201d road, or a higher standard\u2014wide enough for vehicles to pass and with culverts for drainage. \u201cThis would impact most legacy farmers in the county, who are in remote rural areas,\u201d Gordon says.<\/p>\n Paradoxically, he even thinks the initiative could serve the opposite of its stated intention. \u201cThis could be the dream of large corporate cultivators because it cuts out the competition by squeezing out small growers in Humboldt County.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf their aim was really to keep corporate cultivation out of Humboldt County, this initiative could have been written on a postcard\u2014no new cultivation over 10,000 square feet. It\u2019s the other 38 pages that are the problem.\u201d<\/p>\n Genine Coleman of both the Mendocino Appellations Project<\/a> and the\u00a0Origins Council<\/a>, a statewide advocacy organization for legacy growers, also weighs in on the pending initiative in her neighboring county.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf this Humboldt initiative passes, a handful of people will have threatened the entire existing system at a time when Northern California\u2019s economy is collapsing,\u201d she says. \u201cWe\u2019ve extracted what we\u2019re gonna extract from logging, fishing is shut down, and COVID hit us hard. Pardon my French, but it\u2019s no time to f*ck around. It\u2019s dangerous for the entire community. We\u2019re hanging by a thread.\u201d<\/p>\n A key proponent of the HCRI is Elizabeth Watson. Her activist bona fides<\/em> are certainly intact. With a degree in social ecology from Rutgers University, she served as a \u201cthird-party neutral\u201d brokering dialogue during what is locally known as the \u201ctimber wars\u201d\u2014when radical environmentalists faced off with the logging companies in both Humboldt and Mendocino counties in the 1990s.\u00a0<\/p>\n In her view, irrational land use in the cannabis sector is a holdover from prohibition\u2014and needs to be corrected. \u201cThere\u2019s a coastal plain that\u2019s suitable for agriculture, but Humboldt is basically good for growing trees,\u201d she says. \u201cWith prohibition, everyone was growing in the woods. It started with carving a little plot out of the woods. But on a large scale, it\u2019s pretty damaging.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n She points out that a 10,000 square-foot cap is already in place in Mendocino, whereas Humboldt has grows of nine acres, or nearly 40,000 square feet. Expansions must be approved by the Planning Commission, and the fees go up with the size\u2014but there\u2019s no total cap of square footage.<\/p>\n As for the provision concerning Category 4 roads, she says that existing county code already calls for grow sites to be on such roads\u2014the initiative would only require a certified engineer\u2019s verification.<\/p>\n \u201cA lot of growers are on old logging roads that aren\u2019t even mapped,\u201d Watson says. \u201cYet they\u2019re bringing in diesel tanker trucks to run generators for lights and electricity at grow sites. If one of them wipes out, we could have diesel all over the woods.\u201d<\/p>\n Watson elaborates on the ecological imperatives she sees behind her effort: \u201cI live on a coho-bearing stream that now goes dry every summer because there are three grows above me, using lots of water and digging new wells. Wells are going dry all over the hills. We\u2019re trying to make cannabis growing appropriate to the environment.\u201d<\/p>\n She says that many grows are now in designated timber production zones (TPZs). \u201cThere isn\u2019t a lot of topsoil up there, it\u2019s inappropriate to growing anything other than trees. They\u2019re hauling in soil in trucks, then it gets dumped when it\u2019s spent and gets into the streams and we find pearlite in our salmon.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n And she emphasizes that the initiative would only affect new permits. \u201cThe only thing that will affect people who are now licensed is their ability to expand. If you have a licensed grow under 10,000 square feet, you can go up to that. But if you\u2019re already at 10,000 square feet, you can\u2019t expand. They can move to Santa Barbara or to Lake County, which is just down the road from us, where there are 100-acre operations. Under our initiative, it\u2019s going to be one cultivation permit per person and one per property.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n She also points to provisions that encourage outdoor cultivation and discourage energy-intensive indoor. \u201cIf this passes, there will be no new inside grows, although the old ones will be grandfathered in no matter how much light they use. For new ones, lights can only be used for propagation, and then limited to six watts per plant.\u201d Propagation typically lasts six weeks.<\/p>\n Contrary to the portrayal of seeking to limit multiple activities on a single parcel, she says: \u201cWe encourage vertical integration\u2014processing, a B&B for tourism, retail sale on the property. The initiative is silent on anything other than cultivation. Some people are letting the HCGA do their thinking for them, and they\u2019d be surprised if they actually read the text.\u201d<\/p>\n Another HCRI co-sponsor is Mark Thurmond, a professor at the UC Davis veterinary school, now retired to Humboldt County, where he grew up.\u00a0<\/p>\n Thurmond sees the requirement for public hearings on new permits of 3,000 square feet or more as a matter of transparency and democracy. \u201cGrowers get around public hearings by stacking smaller permits. Eventually, you have quite a large operation underway that\u2019s never gone through a hearing. So the public doesn\u2019t have a say. The county hasn\u2019t allowed us to voice our opinion on how this is going to impact public health and welfare, and the environment.\u201d<\/p>\n Thurmond also says a creek on his property now dries up in the summer for the first time over recent years, which he believes is due to new grows upstream. \u201cYes, there\u2019s a drought. But the county isn\u2019t checking to see if growers have put in wells, legally or not, that are affecting the aquifer.\u201d<\/p>\n He raises similar concerns in defense of the provision concerning road quality. \u201cIn order to protect creeks and fish-spawning areas, we need to know that we\u2019re dealing with roads that aren\u2019t gong to erode and cave in. We also need decent roads to deal with fire suppression\u2014which is more and more of a concern, as we have more fires every year.\u201d<\/p>\n He also points to the\u00a0official response<\/a>\u00a0to the critical Planning Department analysis that was written up for the HCRI proponents by attorney Kevin Bundy. Among various \u201cerrors\u201d in the analysis that Bundy\u2019s letter delineates, it states: \u201cThe Initiative does not require any existing cultivators to upgrade their roads to Category 4 standards. The Initiative makes only one road-related change: when a permit applicant claims a road meets Category 4 standards, the applicant must provide a licensed engineer\u2019s report to back up that claim. The Initiative does not change anything else in the existing ordinance governing road standards or applicable exceptions.\u201d<\/p>\n Watson also feels the initiative proponents are being scapegoated. \u201cThe dream of meeting the county budget with cannabis taxes has collapsed. Hundreds of growers aren\u2019t planting this year. It\u2019s really hitting young people who came from back east for the green rush and paid big prices for their land. They\u2019re getting hit hard, and they need someone to be upset about, and we\u2019re very convenient.\u201d<\/p>\n As for the charges of an undemocratic process, she retorts: \u201cThis is California; we have an initiative process. And this represents not just the people who drafted this\u2014it\u2019s the 7,558 who signed. And that was just from four seniors going out to every public event last summer; it wasn\u2019t hard to get people to sign it. We don\u2019t want to elect new supervisors in five years and have them turn this around, we want them to have them to go back to the people.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis initiative will protect us from another green rush,\u201d she sums up. \u201cWhen the feds legalize, it\u2019s gonna make us very unattractive to the Marlboro man or Budweiser. It protects the little guy.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Robert Sutherland, a Southern Humboldt grower and longtime environmental activist, speaks for the Humboldt-Mendocino Marijuana Advocacy Project (HuMMAP). This group\u00a0plugs itself<\/a>\u00a0as a body of the counties\u2019 OG growers\u2014the original hippie pioneers who came in with the back-to-the-land wave of the late \u201860s and \u201870s.<\/p>\n \u201cHuMMAP was the first pro-marijuana group to form here in Humboldt County, back in the \u201890s,\u201d Sutherland says, emphasizing the group\u2019s ecological ethic. \u201cWe\u2019re in favor of growing it in the sun, organic and small-scale.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Representing some 65 growers, HuMMAP is admittedly smaller than the HCGA, but Sutherland portrays it as more grassroots as well as of greater provenance. \u201cNobody pays dues in our group, and nobody gets a salary,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n HuMMAP\u00a0reached a settlement<\/a>\u00a0with Humboldt County in 2016 after bringing suit charging that the new county cultivation ordinance violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)\u2014for instance, allowing noise pollution from generators, and grows too close to spotted-owl habitat. Under the settlement, the county agreed to conduct an environmental impact review for any further changes to the ordinance.\u00a0<\/p>\n And HUMMAP voted last year to support the Initiative. Sutherland is harshly critical of the existing county policy.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission had dollar signs in their eyes,\u201d he says. \u201cThey were under the spell of the money when they drafted the marijuana ordinances. They don\u2019t have their eye on the ball for the future of our county. That\u2019s what the initiative is about.\u201d<\/p>\n Sutherland fears that a decline in standards as old-school methods are abandoned could kill the proverbial goose. \u201cThere\u2019s no meaningful future for a marijuana industry in Humboldt County if our reputation, which was built on quality product, becomes one of mass-produced junk. We have always stood for the quality of the marijuana.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n And he frankly views the HCGA as complicit. \u201cGroups such as HCGA pretend to represent everyone, and they have plenty of small growers in their group, who I honor,\u201d he says. \u201cBut they\u2019re actually advocating for the big growers. The small ones are there for window dressing in my opinion.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Sutherland admits the initiative is controversial. \u201cIt isn\u2019t perfect. But I\u2019m behind it,\u201d he says. \u201cThe only way we\u2019re going be able to maintain our reputation is by honoring those same ecological values and cleaning up the industry here.\u201d<\/p>\n The post California\u2019s Persisting Cannabis Dystopia: Part 1<\/a> appeared first on Cannabis Now<\/a>.<\/p>\n
California\u2019s immediate post-legalization cannabis boom has now gone bust, with small growers hit the hardest. And those who remain in the illicit sector to avoid a perceived bureaucratic burden face continued police repression. In other words, it\u2019s the worst of both worlds. Is the Industry Facing Extinction? In an allContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":190,"featured_media":66647,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[148,50,17287,17288,100,1222,17289,780,17290,12855,5153,2111,17291],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66646"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/190"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66646"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66646\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":66648,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66646\/revisions\/66648"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/66647"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/Garcia-Handpicked.jpg\")
<\/a>Hard Times in Humboldt County\u00a0<\/h4>\n
![\"Humboldt](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/humboldt-grow-indoor-greenhouse.jpg\")
<\/a>Whither Humboldt County Cannabis Initiative?\u00a0<\/h4>\n
![\"Northern](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/Emerald-Queen-Farms.jpg\")
<\/a>Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative Proponents Speak\u00a0<\/h4>\n
![\"Humboldt](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/humboldtlegends.jpg\")
<\/a>OG Hippie Growers Speak<\/h4>\n
\n
\nRead More: California\u2019s Persisting Cannabis Dystopia: Part 1<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"