DON'T BACK DOWN ON POT GROWING

Our view: A special election would be an expensive but necessary way
to prove county supervisors made a wise decision on marijuana growing.

Democracy can be messy sometimes. After months of vetting and
revisions, three marathon meetings and hundreds of speakers testifying
in front of the Butte County Board of Supervisors, the county's
marijuana-growing ordinance now could be the subject of a referendum
election.

People opposed to a marijuana cultivation ordinance collected
thousands of signatures in a month seeking to overturn the
supervisors' 4-1 decision.

Now the county elections office has three more weeks to verify the
12,308 signatures on the referendum petitions. If at least 7,605 of
those signatures are validated as belonging to voters registered in
Butte County - no sure thing - then supervisors have a decision.
Either they can rescind their decision or they have to hold a special
election.

We hope the supervisors realize they passed a good ordinance and
shouldn't reverse course. If it comes to it, let the people vote on
it. We are confident the supervisors will find a majority agrees with
their decision. It would be an expensive way to make that point -
special elections aren't cheap - but a necessary action.

Just like the recent Measure A in the city of Chico, a referendum can
be marketed in different ways. It's telling in the case of Measure A
that about 8,000 valid signatures were collected to put it on the
ballot, but only 5,244 voted in favor of it on election day. It didn't
even garner one-third of the vote.

It's difficult to know what kind of pitch people were given when asked
to sign the marijuana-growing repeal. It could have been, "Would you
sign a petition that gives sick people safe access to their medicine?"
Most people would sign that.

The message also could have been, but most assuredly wasn't, "Would
you sign a petition that allows marijuana growers to have plantations
with hundreds of plants, guarded by pit bulls and guns, regardless of
what their neighbors think?" Fewer people would sign that.

We're guessing the marijuana advocates put the sweetest spin possible
on the referendum, playing up the link to sick people and glossing
over the fact that this medicine has turned into a cash crop for some
unscrupulous growers.

We think the voters have learned their lesson. Proposition 215, passed
in 1996, wasn't just about medicine for sick people. The supervisors'
ordinance puts reasonable limits on growing. It balances residents'
concerns with growers' desires.

The fact that some residents wanted the ordinance to be more
restrictive, while growers wanted it to be more permissive, is
probably a good sign. Supervisors have too much time and effort
invested. They shouldn't rescind a sensible law. If it comes to it,
let the voters have the final word.