Your browser is blocking the Transact payments script
Transact.io respects your privacy, does not display advertisements, and does not sell your data.
To enable payment or login you will need to allow scripts from transact.io.
Your readers don’t have to live in Carpinteria to be offended by “The Inconvenient Truth About Cannabis Reporting,” but it sure helps. How casual the writer is with the facts! In a rush to prove a point — that conditional use permits are unnecessary — Andrew Rice writes that everything’s okay down here, no trace of cannabis odor. If the piece weren’t so obviously disingenuous, I’d be tempted to ask if the writer has traveled the 101 through town lately.
Here’s the logic at work: “The current cannabis ordinance already contains strict requirements for odor control in Carpinteria. And, based on the lack of complaints in the rest of the county, it’s an insignificant issue elsewhere. Net gain for the public from requiring CUPs on all cannabis projects? Nothing.”
On the contrary, there’s a tremendous amount of public good to come from imposing more controls on cannabis farms in Carpinteria. The smell is pervasive and continuous in many parts of the valley, and officials have failed to solve the problem — as anyone down here can tell you. In the absence of other effective measures, CUPs make perfect sense.