Wednesday, March 3, 2010


The Medical Marijuana zoning issue was presented to the City Planning, Development and Zoning committee last night with about 45 people in attendance. As you might guess there were numerous people in attendance that had concerns about people growing and selling marijuana in residential neighborhoods. Their concerns ranged from just being a bad example to our youth, safety of the neighborhoods due to increased traffic, impaired driving while in route to the growing businesses, the additional possibility of crime around the business, decreased property values, the likelihood of the growers patients selling their legal marijuana for illegal use, and general disruption of their quiet neighborhoods as well as concerns regarding the use of chemicals and other potential problems. Committee chairman Janet Tretheway also said her firefighter husband had some concerns about all the grow lights causing potential fire hazards. Several growers were also in attendance and attempted to educate the audience as to the aspects of their respective businesses and respond to the audiences concerns. When an audience member asked where it was legal to smoke the medical marijuana chairman Tretheway responded that the Montana Public Clean Air act would regulate that the marijuana could not be smoked in any of the places where tobacco products are now forbidden.

Two individuals, Zack Jones and Dustin Malley identified themselves as growers and explained their perceptions of the current law and how they were abiding by it. Malley stated that he currently has 18 patients, which includes himself, and he has 91 plants growing which adequately supply his customers. Dave Stockdill identified himself as a patient and said it was convenient to be able to buy from Malley instead of going out of town. Malley stressed that the growers buy locally and support the community economy.

We at the Corrector think that the City committee charged with this need to further research the potential problems that singling out these growers for special zoning might cause. We currently have an ordinance that forbids home type businesses in residential areas that is not being enforced. If they forbid growers to operate in residential areas are they going to likewise forbid these home businesses? And more so, are they going to enforce the current ordinances that are currently being ignored? We at the Corrector are reserving comment until further research and facts are completed.

The next committee meeting where this will be discussed is on March 16th at 5:15 pm in the City Hall. The council members that are assigned to this committee are Chairman Janet Tretheway, Andrew Brekke, Pam Hillary and Woody Woodwick.


  1. Like what city ordinance is ever enforced?
    home business, trailer parking in the street, sidewalks in new subdivisions etc.

    Oh maybe weeds only on 5th avenue elsewhere NOT.

    Lets add some more zoning to not be enforced.

  2. did the Mayor buy cheetohs and chocolate chip cookies?

  3. I heard they served hashbrownies

  4. These growers have been in business for years. Do you really think they just figured out how to grow Marijuana in the last few months. Most of them have had a established customer base long before "Medical Marijuana". What amazes me is that certain members of the city council can keep a straight face when discussing it.

  5. Well said nomorelies. I do not use, but do support the legallization and taxing of pot for use. But here is a clear example to me of what abuse of the law, could turn into Unless Mally is going to claim he has been a patient in need of pot sense high school.

  6. Right on Dacen! You beat me to the obvious. Both Dustin Malley and Zack Jones have been on drugs since high school. They both have a history of dealing drugs illegally in the past. I'm actually for the legalization of marijuana myself, but to have these two clowns representing the movement is an embarrassment. Get a well spoken educated person to go to bat for your cause. Oh wait, there aren't very many.

  7. There are plenty of well spoken educated people speaking on behalf of medical marijuana and outright legalization. If people actually took the time to do some research instead of making bad jokes and promoting gossip and hearsay we would all be in a be in a better world but no its much easier to tear people down from a distance armed with nothing but what your brothers friends nephews cousin heard from his uncles fathers roommate in college heard about some person or other. Why do serious conversations around here always devolve into some game of he said she said. Its really pathetic and most importantly unproductive in that it gets us NOWHERE

  8. supportyourlocalfarmers, I agree the tendancy of many on this blog is to attack and tear down and that is not helpful.

    However, with that said I think you are trying to make this issue a little more simple that it really is for many folks.

    From my perspective I think marijuana should be legalized across the board. I do also realize that not everyone shares my view on this and it comes right down to the rights of few versus the rights of many. While we all realize that Medical Marijuana is here to stay and those folks who wish to obtain their card by going through the motions have that right as do those who are permitted to grow it. But we must not forget that there are still a substantial percentage of folks who don't want it around their kids, or in their towns, period and we have to respect their rights as well.

    62% is always bandied about as the number of folks who voted to legalize medical marijuana, but that was then and this is now. I am not saying that a majority maybe still would have supported it, but we can't say for sure. Many folks I've talked to regre making their vote because they did not think about some of the very things the Council is now attemtping to address. That's not to say they still don't feel medical marijuana is just, but that there are indirect effects we must consider as well, i.e. proximity to kids and schools, parks, etc.

    The City Council will do what they were elected and are paid to do and we'll see what that turns out to be, but lets not try to own this issue on either side. Both sides have great points and we can be civil to one another and challenge eachother's points in a fair manner.

    Great blog!

  9. RR 59501

    62% is the majority.

    The people have spoken.

    I still have not heard one good argument on why policy makers, or people against how the voters opted, feel the need to infringe on peoples rights to seek beneficial health care.

  10. just sit back and watch, there will be legal producers selling to non medical customers. what a hassel the courts will have to deal with then.
    And patients can grow a certain number of plants, what is the penalty for growing more than your legal limit.
    It won't be long and we will all be smoking the day away.
    What if you renting a non smoking apartment and have a legal permit to smoke, but the pain is too great to great to go outside to smoke. I can see lots of issues for our city government to deal with.

  11. Why don't the anti medical marijuana people just speak honestly?

    It is not about growing too many plants (which would still be unlawful) or

    transferring medical marijuana to someone without a prescription (also still unlawful) or

    "smoking" medical marijuana in a "non smoking" apartment- undoubtedly you are unaware that vaporizors are now used (I don't use it and know that)

    In reality, the anti people are not really against medical marijuana, they really feel that the people that dare request to use it are just bad people.

    This is not a case of love the sinner, and hate the sin. This is a case of just considering these persons to be bad people.

    It is a classic use of the ad hominem, personal attack that is used when people have no substantive argument to make in support of their position.

    Once again the misinformation and disinformation, promoted, marketed, and prosyltized by the 12 step faith and the recovery industry are again being used to shape public policy.

    The people have spoken.

    The shouting down of their voices by persons obstucting this progress in the shaping of public policy should be considered unethical, unAmerican, and treasonous.

  12. DeConstructor, you really should look into the mirror before you cast the first stone!

    You start by asking the rest of us to be honest with ourselves and then you criticize our criticism and call it bashing "bad" people.
    You then go on to "assume" (remember what that makes you!!!) that we can't discern between the person and their condition by hating the sinner as opposed to hating the sin. Then you go back to your old soapbox of attacking AA and 12step and all that.

    Get a grip! This is not about religion or personal attacks or AA. Can't you understand that the rest of us have rights too? I'll borrow a line from President Obama in regard to the healthcare fiasco, "you have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts." 62% is a majority, I stipulated that in another post, but I would challenge you to question whether or not the folks have the ability to change their minds? I submit that they can and they have.

    The concern most people have is that this activity not happen in front of our kids. People have the right to demand that!! Even California voters, who are traditionally very liberal when it comes to personal freedoms including medical marijuana found that to be reasonable. The beef is not with the people who need medical marijuana for a legitimate medicinal purpose, it is with those that could potentially abuse this system and the lack of guidance and oversight from the State as to how to reasonably regulate the dispensary side of the business. Ask a grower, they don't inspect them or monitor their operations, they simply license them.

    Go back and read I-148, where in that initiative did it say untrained persons would grow and sell this "medicine" for others? It talks about caregivers broadly as persons who will be responsible for the care of user and mentions protection from possession. No where does it discuss these growers as being exempt from regulations under zoning, landlord-tenant law, smoking ban, etc. These are the issues people have concerns with. They were never considered at the time this passed and now that people think about it they might feel differently, I know I do. And this is not unique to Montana either. Almost every one of the other 14 states has had to make amendments to their laws to deal with indirect conflicts with other laws and other issues arising from this legislation.

    It should be obvious that it is not just about the right of patients to have medical marijuana it us much more complicated than that.

    So if you could, please dispense with the traditional liberal mantra of insinuatiung that those who disagree with you must be morons with no "substantive arguments." We have the right to disagree with you and we do have arguments to support our concerns.

  13. RR 59501

    First some house cleaning-

    "you have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts" was quoted by President Obama during the health care hearings, however he rightfully gave credit to the late Senator Pat Moynihan (D-New York), who originally made the statement.

    Also, statements were made as this was not about religion, bashing or AA. That is EXACTLY what this is about.

    People have been taught the propaganda they have promoted for so long it is just considered fact, to some it is even promoted as medical fact.

    This propaganda is neither medical nor fact.

    Addiction is NOT a disease, it is a behavior, and ALL behaviors are vountary.

    The whining that is going on because one side could not come up with the votes to stop progress is just that, whining.

    Here is your forum, make your points.

    Is it really about parking? Is that the zoning concern? Is it landlord tenant law (do you really believe that tenants don't use marijuana in rentals now?)

    In reality, the landlords can probably just afford better dope.

    Untrained persons growing marijuana? I would think that competition would take care of that. People want a consistant quality product (not the garbage growing by the Milk River)I would venture to guess that many of these producers are well experienced, and can produce a qualty product.

    Here is your forum RR59501 -make your points.

    I will stand by my statements that the people of Montana have spoken.

    Government on every level should be looking to find ways to expand peoples rights (more liberty) and be beneficial to peoples lives instead of obstructive (allowing professionals to prescribe proper medication to combat peoples health problems)

    Smart government would embrace this as a lucrative revenue generating opportunity.

  14. You are right it was Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said that give or take a few words, and he was one of the last real statesmen in the Senate who was true to his convictions. He was a Democrat, but also a fierce fiscal hawk who shared many fiscal conservative concepts with Republicans (including George W. Bush) such as private social security accounts, the line item veto and the balanced budget amendment. He also was a firm opponent of universal healthcare believe it or not. We could all learn something from Dr. Moynihan's scholarship and I thank you for remindig me about one of my favorite liberals!

    Pat Moynihan also said this about the liberal left: "The liberal left can be as rigid and destructive as any force in American life."

    This whole discussion is an example of that.

    I think folks have the right to object and expect the City of Havre or other jurisdictions to regulate these businesses while protecting the rights of those who require medical marijuana for treatment of an ailment. It is not whining about the vote, it is settled law and will not be reversed. I am aware of that.

    I also feel very sorry for those folks on the Council who have to try to wade through this maze of political correctness and progressive drug policy and haphazard enforcement of existing policies by mindless bureaucrats who can't wait for the clock to strike 5.

    Enough said.

  15. DeConstructor -

    You state that "Addiction is NOT a disease, it is a behavior, and ALL behaviors are vountary.[/b]

    I'd be very interested in knowing upon what basis you make such a definitive statement.

    Many medical professionals view addiction as a neurological disease.

  16. claim that it is sad people spread gossip and hearsay. But most of us know thats not what this blog is about. Anyone can look in the public record and find out if either of these two people have been charged with possession of illeagal drugs..Fact. I also went to high school with Malley and saw first hand his " chemistry set" as he called it. Thats not gossip that called beiing an eye witness.

    My point was with my original post. Was that if people are going to take this as a serious issue and support growers that provide for poeple that actually need it legally. Then they need to find people with a little more honest background. I support medical pot. But I wouldn't support these two guys or poeple with the same background, being the supplier.

  17. How about making it a stipulation that if you want to be a "Medical Marijuana Grower" you can not be a user. Make them have to take a monthly or random drug test with stiff penalties if they fail. You would weed out the people who are only in it to supply their own habit and that of their freinds.

  18. Anyone live next to one of these grow operations? Are they causing problems? I didn't even know they were in city limits

  19. Surely you jest

    The disease model of addiction was heavily lobbied by the AA faith and the recovery industry for acceptance by the AMA.

    AA used its powerful lobbying front groups ASAM, NAADAC, the National Council on Alcoholism, and the Hazelden Foundation to get the declaration, which later came to fruition with the passage of the Hughes Act of 1971 requiring health insurance to pay for treatment.

    This created the 17 billion dollar recovery industry (forced and coerced AA participation) we now have.

    The AMA declaration is quite different than the model used by the 12 step faith treatment (93 to 97% of rehabs in the US)

    It should be noted that 80% of US physicians disagree with the disease model of addiction.

    It should be noted that the word "alcoholism" does not appear in the DSM IV manual.

    It should be noted that the Supreme Court of the United States has declared alcoholism is NOT a disease (Turnage v Traynor)

    It should be noted that Bill W. himself, founder, patron saint, and gods personal mouthpeice of the AA faith, declared it was NOT a disease.

    It should be noted that the State of California has admitted the billions spent on disease based treatment has been a TOTAL failure

    The medical industry has a legal and ethical obligation to use "informed consent", and should really advise people that the disease model of addiction is to say the least highly controversial (there is a war going on youtube about this as we speak)

    There are some real problems to promoting the disease model-

  20. DeConstructor -

    Thank you for that info.

  21. Have you been throught the AA program DeConstructor? Why do you despise the program? Doesn't it help anyone?

  22. A Caregiver must pass a background check...Fact. Passing judgement on people based on things you hear through the grapevine or "memories" of how people were in high school(how many years ago was that?)is not how sensible adults make decisions. The fact is all your information on these people isnt credible. Also I would like to remind you that this conversation is not about the perseived character of two individuals but zoning issues associated with Medical Marijuana dispenseries. Where do we want them now that they are legal. Certainly not close to schools or churches but down town seems ok. Do we want people to be able to operate as a caregiver in residential zones or not. Where do we want them now that they are here?