Posted by: sweeneyblog | July 3, 2013

City Council Bans Marijuana Stores in Bellingham

On Monday night, with little warning and zero public input, the Bellingham City Council voted 7-0 to ban all growing, processing and retailing of recreation marijuana within the city limits of Bellingham. This emergency moratorium was proposed by the assistant city attorney, Alan Marriner in response to two entrepreneurs applying for business licenses to become fully legal marijuana businesses.  The city, which has been waiting for the State to finish their rulemaking on the issue, decided to push for an emergency moratorium on all marijuana business licenses for the next year.

Asst City Attorney Alan Marriner

Asst City Attorney Alan Marriner

When asked why this measure needed to be passed in the dead of night with zero public input, the legal department responded that they did not want to let people know that they could apply for licenses, it was better to just ban them before anyone figured it out so that nobody gets in “under the wire.” Marriner stated that these moratoriums just “preserve the status quo until the state finishes their rulemaking.” The status quo was done away with in November 2012 and no amount of foot dragging is going to stop this progress.  Several issues here that I want to address.

First, the city was waiting for guidance from the state on the zoning requirements, yet the law that we passed (by 66% in the City of Bellingham) is pretty explicit about much of the requirements (1,000 feet from any parks, schools, hospitals, transit centers, daycares etc, no signs beyond a certain size and dimension, the list goes on). Obviously there is more to zoning laws than was listed in the law, but the city could not start making its own preparations? Especially considering that the state is releasing its final draft rules next week – which should provide an excellent template for local guidelines. To think that our legal department got caught unaware by this issue is disappointing. Were they unaware that the citizens of Bellingham might capitalize on this business opportunity?

Second, correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the city have the ability to approve, deny or delay business licenses at the permit desk? Isn’t that the number one complaint about the permit desk, that it is slow and frequently denies things over frivolous reasons? It seems to me that a much better response would have been for the permitting desk to just hold all licenses until the legal department completes its homework – saying that the rulemaking is still in progress and we aren’t processing any applications yet but when we do, we will do so in the order they are received. This would allow entrepreneurs to continue to move forward in preparing their businesses. I understand the concern about vesting applications but the moratorium seems a drastic overreaction to this potential problem.

Lilliquist clarifies his vote

Lilliquist clarifies his vote

Third, this is a huge money making opportunity, for the free market and for the city through tax revenue. Does the city really want to delay our businesses till July next year while those in Ferndale and Blaine can open their doors as soon as the state flips the switch in January 2014?  It appears to be a pretty clear example of the city shooting its business community in the foot right before they run a marathon. At best this seem reactionary, at worst it looks like thwarting the will of the voters of Bellingham (and the state at large). I reached out to some of our city council and gathered some more responses to this.

Michael Lilliquist said that he “appreciated these being brought forward” but stated that it is the city council’s intention to lift the moratorium as soon as the legal department has “finished doing their homework.” He reiterated that it is not their intention to stop anyone from opening a business, just to make sure that they are not “grandfathered in” with something that does not comply with future zoning requirements.

Cathy Lehman noted that they did take a rare break to reread and consider the moratorium since they were not provided copies of it in advance CLARIFICATION: They received copies earlier that day. Lehman stated that, “Whatever the case, (the ban) is temporary, hopefully even more temporary than we set forth.” She said her concerns were, ” there are a number of potentially (and maybe unforeseen) bad consequences to going ahead in this vacuum.”

Gene Knutson pointed out that they will be holding a public hearing on August 12th to discuss the moratorium. However, Marriner has already stated that “the council would hear from the public but we don’t plan on deviating from the moratorium until we have finished the planning process.” Knutson raised the specter of rule making around Lake Whatcom, “Remember when the county did not do (pass a moratorium on building) on Lake Whatcom property and 1,100 applications were filed.”

I understand their concerns but the real test will be how quickly this moratorium is repealed. Setting up a business takes quite a bit of time and if our entrepreneurs are going to be competitive with our neighboring communities, they need to be able to open their doors January 2014. I would hate for this response by the city to handicap our efforts. Especially considering that retail businesses need something to sell in January and that agricultural product is not going to just drop out of the sky. It needs to be grown first and that takes time.

UPDATE: John Servais, publisher of NWCitizen, weighed in on the irony of this situation over at his site. Check it out, it is worth the read.



  1. If quoted accurately, the justifications offered in support of the covertly enacted ban are pure sophistry. The surreptitious fashion in which the vote was conducted is shameful. I see no reflection of voter will or public interest in this action. Regretfully, the entire affair is reflective of the new direction of American politics, one which serves a well-defined interest group, be it that of a corporate special interest, a theological/ideological agenda or even just the more mundane and self-serving career aspirations of the politician.

    • All quotes are accurate. You can watch the video at City of Bellingham website (it starts around 109:00) and the other quotes are from emails with elected officials.

      • Kelli Linville supported the initiative to legalize recreational use of marijuana without a moment’s hesitation. She was listed on the 502 website. I believe the entire city council gladly supported it and most were also listed on the website. This isn’t about an agenda or a special interest, this is making sure we’ve got zoning in place for these new businesses so that it works for everyone. Including people who have an expectation of privacy. We don’t have rules yet and we need to figure them out quickly so that a new group of business people can apply for their licenses.

        The draft rules were just released on July 3rd. There are some things in there that the city and the public need to think about. 24-hour surveillance cameras are required to film 20′ from every exit or entrance. Are we so casual about privacy that we would allow such a business to go in next to someone’s home? I wouldn’t want that. In neighborhoods with a mix of residential and light industrial or commercial we need to develop thoughtful rules that ensure privacy for others.

        I plan to offer up my ideas on August 12th.

  2. Now when they start selling’ it, and we walk past a person using it, and we say hi, they will say, “How did you guess?” If you didn’t get this, then you must be ‘high’ right now! Cheers!

  3. Local government is historically the most mischievous (petty tyranny is the worst tyranny of all)…State & Fed gov is at least premised upon checks & balances, and there is some protection of the minority built in, i.e, filibuster & a ‘no’ vote which if combined properly can halt legislation, as well as other mechanisms insisted upon by the small States in 1787…there is a tendency to act “In Council” on increasingly important matters, as in Ferndale when our second-largest-ever capital project & taxpayer debt occurred with a vote of 5 people in a city of 11,000.

    In short, a simple majority of a small governing board is running the show, which is a system that was discredited by the Romans when they replaced Greek democracy with a Republic…As a Ferndale resident, I’m good with taking the advantage this ruling gives my small city…more & more as Bellingham does odd things, the tail(s) up here in the North are wagging the dog…

  4. Hey Riley, just to be clear… I actually said, “We even took a rare break to reread (emphasis on REread) the proposed drafts and think further about it before voting.” The way you have it in the article sounds like we hadn’t seen it or read it before the meeting. Also you added the part about not receiving copies in advance. I didn’t say that, because we did receive them earlier that day…

    • I’m very sorry for that and I will immediately clarify.

  5. One small bit of background, Riley. The administration has been looking into this for some time. I have talked with the mayor about this several times. In fact, back in March I made a motion, unanimously supported by the city council, to request the administration work on creating zoning ordinances and regulations necessary to respond to the changes in state law on marijuana.

    In other words, the city is certainly very much aware of this issue and has been making preparations for months (starting long before my official request in March). The problem is, this is a moving target. We can’t finalize anything until the state does.

    I have not seen any working drafts, and so I do not know how far along the city’s legal department has progressed. I would hope that the project is pretty far along, and I fully expect that we will be able to replace the interim prohibition with final rules to allow these now-legal activities by the end of this year or early next year.

    I see at least two major aspects to the new marijuana rules. The first is the easier of the two: zoning. As you point out, state law provides for a 1000 foot rule, so that marijuana operations cannot be located near school, parks, day care centers, etc. I’d like to see us enact that law right now, since that part is not up in the air. There may be other complications, however; I don’t know.

    The other major aspect is the rules of business operations for commercially growing (not for personal use), processing, and retailing marijuana. This part is very much up in the air, and this is where some of the greatest pitfalls lie. The city could get into a mess with business license applications.

    Contrary to your assumption, the city does not have freedom to approve, delay, or deny business applications. In general, we approve every application, since our job is not to question anyone’s business activity. If it sounds like a legal business, you get a license. In fact, the cat of delaying or denying an application could be the grounds for a serious complaint against the city. That would be a capricious abuse of power, with no authority or justification. We’re in a limbo: selling marijuana is a legal business, and people are in fact setting up businesses and making plans, even though operations cannot actually begin until Dec 1 at the earliest. My understanding (which may not be accurate) is that the city would be in a very awkward and risky situation if people applied for marijuana business licenses or building remodeling permits. The emergency ordinance gives the city the undoubted legal authority to deny such applications for the interim.

    To me, this is all about being cautious, very cautious, to avoid what could be some very serious headaches, which could drain public dollars and resources. Better just to put everything on hold until the state finalizes its rules. Then the plan — or at least what I would urge to happen — is to be ready to lift the interim rules right away or as soon as practical.

    • I appreciate the caution showed on this issue but the message being sent is that the City is banning marijuana after the voters approved it 66%, and they are doing so without public input. Thank you for sharing your thoughts here and I look forward towards the August 12th meeting.

      • And, in turn, the City Council is conveying a message to the voters. I am conjecturing that the Council has arrogated to itself an “in loco parentis” role, assuming the voters have somehow made a mistake by endorsing majrijuana and the Council will rectify it…for the public good, naturally. And all this is accomplished when the public won’t be unduly troubled by the vote (after hours and without debate). Opposing a clear voter sentiment and inviting reciprocal legal action (wasting time and taxpayer money) seems to be a consistent theme of both the City Council and its County counterpart.

      • Sweeney is right on this point. This is exactly how it looks and I will never support a local politician who so foolishly and rashly knee jerks. Putting a formal ban on place, even temporarily, is an unnecessary hindrance to legal start-ups and is clearly against the will of the people, legally expressed and implemented. Way to make Bellingham look stupid, way to make it look regressive. That’s exactly the image we want. Boo to you for letting a lawyer scare you into a foolish action. We’re supposed to be better than that.

    • 1. If the administration has been looking into this for sometime why was this not made public and why was the vote taken after hours?
      2. You say above “my understand which may not be accurate”, do you feel it is appropriate to be making decisions on behalf of your constituents based on information which may not be accurate? Why not take the time to find accurate information?

    • Removing all of the excuses and political two-stepping, the running theme of this ban seems to be predicated on uncertainty. “I don’t know” is not an answer, nor is it an excuse. Legalization was passed in 2012. I understand that preparing for something like this takes time, which is why it is not being enacted until 2014. The City has had over six months to figure this out thus far, and to respond by implementing a ban behind closed doors is simply unacceptable.

      Thomas Jefferson once said, “Every government degenerates when entrusted to the rulers of the people alone.” This reaction (the ban) to our own governing body’s lack of action up to this point is nothing short of a complete embodiment of that statement. Instead of coming up with weak excuses to justify passing this ban, take some responsibility and rectify the situation. I cannot say I speak for all, but I can say I speak for at least 66% of Bellingham’s citizens when I say: we may not like that you sat on your hands, knowing these laws were going into place, but accept your fault in the matter and respond with a solution, not a ban, and we may respect you for it. You were elected by the people and for the people, not in place of the people. I think it’s due time your decisions reflected that.

  6. the “act” of delaying. Not the “cat” of delaying!!! Can I edit my remark? I guess I should have proof read!

    • We will watch this Council, who made hand-held sparklers illegal for the 4th of July, handle a far more complicated and profound matter…and who’s handling the mitigation of the disaster-in-the-making on Bakerview ala the new Costco? Is there not already the worst mess in the city in front of the Fred Meyer?—The Guide at I-5 wasn’t enough of a lesson for the Council, so naturally Fred Meyer got ‘run of the Bakerview interchange…look how that’s worked out…And a Costco will be allowed across the street?—And who allowed the disaster that is the Fred Meyer center in the first place?—yes, it’s circular and disheartening—Our officials will hopefully forgive those of us who aren’t moved by their “careful” planning and abundance of “caution.” (and this where they say, “But I wasn’t here when those decisions were made” or “I have no say in such matters”)

      • Agree entirely with this synopsis of Council accomplishments. Ineptitude and self-interest appears to be the operating mode and guiding theme. Yet, voters haven’t turned them out of office (nor their County Council counterparts and various other local and state representatives). Based on that, I assume the public is either indifferent, preoccupied with other matters or too obtuse to recognize the damage being inflicted on the region. Of course, I am being presumptuous: perhaps thwarting voters, increasing sprawl, traffic congestion, unsightly box store proliferation, air, water and noise pollution increases, unregulated development and additional taxes are actually the public goal and the Council(s) is/are correctly intuiting what the voters actually intended to convey, rather than what they erroneously voted to support.

  7. It’s hard to turn down federal incentives and money…..

  8. “Ineptness” perhaps, an inherently-corrupt system within which to operate, almost certainly, but individually most are well-intentioned…but then ‘intentions,’ at least in our culture, have never been enough…

    • “Well intentioned”? What evidence can be mustered in support of that assertion? The facts speak to the contrary.

      • I guess I’m just slow to attribute personal motivation to anyone, and the few times I have done that it’s gotten me less than nothing…though that does not prevent me monitoring their actions, intentions notwithstanding, and protesting and/or opposing them when they get it wrong…

  9. Reblogged this on 4:20 Smokers Blog.

  10. The Council did the right thing. While there is guidance spelled out in the passed initiative as to location (there has been some very good questioning of the wisdom of those guidelines), until the Board completes their work, and the City gives Board rules a very good and public review, a moratorium is very proper to keep folks from gaming the system while the City works through the very long and public process of updating their development codes for this type of business.
    Pot has been illegal for a long time and doing legalization right is going to take time. Doing it wrong would be a terrible set back.

    • A matter of judgement and perspective I suppose. Presumably, and as a corollary, you agree with the method and manner by which this decision was made.

    • Thank you for your perspective. The State is releasing their draft rules this week – and applications on the state level begin in September. I hope the city gets its house in order quickly.

  11. The very best thing we can do for the city of Bellingham and the state as a whole is BAN ALCOHOL think about this… Oh wait ignorance is bliss

  12. Thank You, Riley, and Thank You also John Servais. Although the latter dislikes me because he wrongly assumed that I thought the natural defense mechanism of denial was pathological, he and Riley are totally right on when it comes to this.

    I am not naive, but this stuns me. And, I shouldn’t be stunned., because I was previously stunned when the Council said FU to the voters and went to court to “protect us against ourselves” by denying the 10,000 of us who sponsored it and other Bellingham voters the right to vote on a Community Bill of Rights initiative.

    As per usual, it is Michael Lilliquist who provides the longest and the most eloquent defense for what is an indefensible City Council action. And, I am truly thankful to him for that.

    Still, this action tragically once more shows utter contempt for the voters of Bellingham. I have in my past life voted for every member of this City Council and that shames me.

    I am not particularly proud of my past life as a top-level Corporate Executive. The one thing that I am proud about in that life is that I did not kowtow to our legal department. That would have thwarted many of the decent things I accompished as a self-appointed lobbyist for our customers,

    As an unlikely but potential future member of the Council, I can promise you this. I will NEVER listen to the legal staff of the City before I listen to you, Lawyers are by nature conservative and piss poor when it comes to evaluating risk. Risk aversion should NOT be able to subvert the will of the people. This was another pusillanimous act on the part of this male-dominated City Council.

  13. Just for the record, thank you also John Servais for speaking out on behalf of those who share your disbelief that the City could equate athletic Astroturf and Greenways!

  14. If medical marijuana cooperatives are forced to move to industrial areas. shouldn’t bars and pharmacies be moved as well?

  15. Politically, announcing a public comment for an issue as controversial as this that is also well-supported by a significant silent majority isn’t to the local council’s benefit. If you do, every press organ in WA state will cover it, news outlets will put coverage of Bellingham (with interviews of citizens!) on TV and Bellingham/Whatcom County will be national news for our pro-cannabis consumption habits. (A little too close to B.C., eh?). No one in the public view (pro business or not!) is ready to defend small businesses that sell Marijuana yet, and the future applicants themselves probably haven’t developed extensive lobbying and political contacts because they haven’t made any sales. Thus, they have “no leverage”.

    Probably the best bet for the (impatient) prospective businesses now is to launch suits or a class action against the city for ‘profits lost’. At this point, one can only guess at a significant unsatisfied demand for this product in Bellingham. If you (and/or 10 friends) were even thinking about it, you might work up a business plan, apply for a license anyway, retain an attorney and file a suit based on profits lost until the ban is lifted. It is true that this not a nice way to start off your relationship with the city, but I’ve never seen (for example) the building industry lobby groups worry too much about that sort of thing. Local government officials do respond to public opinion, especially those of their insurers.

    This could make for some great summer theater: liberal pro-business clients and their attorneys estimating profits lost, pushing the case up the courts to Olympia (even after the ban was lifted – you would still have ‘profits lost’). Perhaps there would be pot smokers/demonstrators simultaneously calling the city anti-business and illegal!. If street demonstrations were lively enough, this is the kind of item that might make national news. Certainly would help keep staff for the city attorney busy!

    • I don’t think marijuana consumption is nearly that controversial – I think a public hearing about zoning standards for the upcoming businesses would not dry much attention outside the city limits – and it would be a great way to engage the community in what they want, rather than slapping a ban in place as soon as someone tries to get started.

      • You’re right Riley…much too much is being made of this…fact is, after all the meetings, the ‘planning,’ the commissions, the impact reports, and all the other…it’s all lip service—how can anyone say we ‘plan’ or ‘study’ when you see the results—show me one development in Bellingham—a large one—that isn’t a complete traffic/civil engineering abortion—some are better than others…Was the Guide a part of all this ‘caution’ and planning and zoning?—How about Barkley? Fred Meyer?—Tell me another story about ‘zoning’ and planning’ and ‘caution,’ go ahead…

  16. Riley: Let us know when you are going to run for office….don’t wait too long…!

    • RIght now, four years. I’m considering running for Gene Knutson’s City Council seat when he retires in four years. 🙂

  17. […] the Odds and Ends got slightly delayed between the flurry of attention over the City banning marijuana stores and the usual scheduling shuffle that happens around the 4th of July. However, I think you will […]

  18. I’m “more libertarian” (lower case) than anything else, and I have to say that I find the state’s (and now the city’s) foot-dragging on this issue a wonderment. Propositions have a limited shelf life, and the better part of a year has been consumed by DOR’s and other agencies’ research and rule-making. Given that this was likely to pass, they should have been better prepared. If they fiddle around long enough “the experiment” could expire before much of it takes effect.

    During this campaign season I hope people pulse every wannabe elected on the topic of propositions.. Even though the state constitution and charter strongly support the concept, I hear elected officials say that propositions are a poor practice that indicate failure of the legislative process. That is, many take that stand until a proposition appears that they fancy personally. Waffling of that sort is obviously hypocritical.

    • The Historian Arthur Schlesinger once wrote about the initiative process, (and I’m paraphrasing), that where once we had government without law, and fought a revolution in part to correct that, the ‘initiative’ process gives us laws without government…

      And so here we are—The far Right wants to dismantle the government, my friends on the left want to circumvent the government—how about we fix the damned thing—Begin by getting the money out of it, and then find a way to both include and protect the minority view in local matters and stop already with these “Councils” that operate on a simple majority—who in the Western world does that anymore?—Can you say “Republic”?

      • Is anyone watching the Trayvon Martin trial fiasco? Now the prosecutor wants to enter in as evidence the use of marijuana by George Zimmerman. BUT I thought this was good stuff to produce and use. LOL

        They say it messes with the mind and makes one more violent and prone to anger issues. But we want this stuff on the street for everyone!!! Do you feel safe? I don’t, and a whole bunch of other folks I know agree.

        My wife puts it this way, “Most Americans are BLONDE”, so let’s all grow the STUFF and get high shall we!?! (She’s a true redhead by the way.)

      • I agree. Raw democracy (unfettered majoritarianism) is a dangerous thing. I want a republic, too. And there’s far too much money (I’d add “power interests”) driving public policy and decision making. That does need fixing.

        But there is also value in the “power of the people” to apply brakes peaceably from time to time, on a temporary basis. I didn’t mean to suggest initiatives are a substitute for quality processes of self-government.

        One last minor note: I don’t feel that right-wingers who want “less government” are “anti-government.” They (and I guess I’d fit into this category) want reasonable limits to enumerated powers; it’s very different from “no-government” anarchy. Just my view. Carry on!

      • Thanks Ellen for your thoughts…I try to use ‘far Right’ as a sort of shorthand to distinguish them from the thinking-wing of the Republican party…I use ‘far Left’ in the same manner…government does some things well, and some not so well, and I’d like to see better—only I’m open to the possibility that in some areas to improve, gov will have to get bigger, and in some areas it is far to large & intrusive…talking points and bumper stickers to which our political dialogue is prone cannot explain or educate about very complex matters, nor can they provide a basis for thoughtful progress…and since the average reading level of the average American is about sixth-grade-level by every study and most of the companies who publish books, we’re in a pickle…

  19. “But there is also value in the “power of the people” to apply brakes peaceably from time to time, on […]” YES! AMEN! Don

  20. Nice piece, Riley.

    We won’t comment on whether or not the council is correct in its decision, just on the quick and easy manner in which they did it.

    Cor, really.

  21. The City Council is hosting a public comment period on recreational marijuana stores and medical marijuana zoning (two different ordinances) on August 12. Public process, transparency, all of that is on display (on a TV) for everyone to review and watch. The council didn’t pass this in the “dead of night”; they passed it at 8:30 p.m. on public access television (and had they passed it at 3 p.m. in the afternoon, like a Port meeting, people would have been up in arms as well “I was at work!”). I was watching the entire proceedings (live) as anyone could have from the comfort of my home.

    Contrary to your article, as someone who has multiple businesses in the city, in my experience, they do not question nor do they review any business licenses.

    I’ll be there on the 12th urging that appropriate zoning be considered for both medical and recreational marijuana facilities (i.e. not next to daycare facilities). If you read the proposed zoning, it’s not nefarious. They’re quite tame and just lay out that businesses will be expected to have a business license and be located in certain areas of the city (industrial zones for grow operations).

    • There was no announcement about this emergency ordinance – it was not in the agenda or submitted in advance. There was no opportunity for the public to speak to the moratorium before it was passed. That is not a public process.

      I’m not saying that the zoning laws are nefarious, I’ve been reading them since the draft rules were released in May . . .but that’s the point, isn’t it? The state has been providing these materials to the cities and our city got caught not doing its homework to prepare for the implementation of these laws. Hence the “emergency”.

      I look forward to the August 12th meeting, our community deserves a public discussion about this issue. I just wish the discussion could have occurred before the knee-jerk moratorium.

      • By anouncing a moratorium ahead of time and scheduling in the usual manner of ordinances, the city would be anouncing “Our rules of marijuana businesses are not complete and we need a moratorium before someone comes in and puts a marijauna business where we may not want it”. Over the time it would take to have the kind of discussion you are advocating, applications would be submitted to beat the rules before the public even gets a chance to have input on what those rules should be. Hence, we run the risk of grow opperations only having to follow state rules with no regard to the local desires of the community.
        Perhaps the city could have started this process earlier than they did, but there will be a process. Without the moratorium grow opperations and marijauna sales businesses could go in without there ever having been any local public process or discussion regarding local planning for these types of opperations.
        If you want a robust discussion about these facilities to take place in our community, the moratorium was the only way to proceed.
        Local implementation was not considered as much as it should have been in the Initiative.

    • But, as always, thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts. Everyone’s perspective is valuable here and I really do appreciate it.

  22. Dan McShane,
    Very nicely put! I hope many will put their thinking caps on and see that this is the best way to view this whole matter. Kudos, Don

  23. Her’s the thought as I see it
    Caught today you go to jail,
    But tomorrow we all toke
    And sip together Ginger Ale.

  24. this city council is small-time stuff…the city is not a logging community anymore…the government side needs to grow up.

    • What the city council did IMHO was a very grownup thing. Young folks today would mostly jump at the chance to legalize any kind of drug, starting with marijuana. This will undoubtedly open a door we will all regret later on. Trust me. It’s “give ’em an inch and they TAKE…”

      • this is just a silly issue…every liquor store in town is selling a lethal drug that has killed hundreds of thousands over the years…park the dispensaries next to the liquor stores if that what it takes to make people think they’re being regulated…this is much ado about nothing—I stand by my comment—the council and the society need to grow up regarding this and every other “We know what’s best for everyone” nanny-state proponents…thank goodness more and more ‘young folks’ are running things—I can’t wait until everyone of my own generation (I’m 53) is out of power, like we haven’t screwed the whole thing up royally…

  25. […] whether the County Council is considering such a foolish action as banning retail marijuana stores, like the Bellingham City Council just did. Weimer responded with a big smile, “I hear they are all opening up in Ferndale.” Big […]

  26. […] expected, the public hearing on the marijuana ban (“temporary moratorium“) passed last month was a packed house. Over 75 people crammed […]

  27. Admiring the hard work you put into your website and detailed information you present.
    It’s good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same outdated
    rehashed information. Wonderful read! I’ve saved your site and I’m including your RSS feeds to my Google account.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: