Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/61364
4A Daily News – Tuesday, April 10, 2012 Opinion DAILYNEWS RED BLUFF TEHAMACOUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U N T Y S I N C E 1 8 8 5 Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes let- ters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All let- ters must be signed and pro- vide the writer's home street address and home phone num- ber. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submit- ted will be considered for publi- cation. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong com- munity newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehi- cles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its com- munities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the resi- dents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 Making a mockery of marijuana medication One thing that conservatives and progressives might agree upon is the mockery of nanny state federal prosecu- tors sticking their noses into the miasma of state marijuana regulations. No one is well served by arcane federal prohibitions that squelch state ini- tiatives that seek to normalize drug pos- session laws, except perhaps for drug enforcement agents, federal prosecutors, defense lawyers, and prison operators. I would argue that they have much more important and worthwhile mat- ters to deal with than arresting, adjudicating, and incarcerating those that use or distribute medi- cinal marijuana. The most egregious outcome of marijuana prohibition is that many sick people cannot legally access the medicine that works best for them. For many serious- ly ill people, medical marijuana is the only medicine that relieves their pain and suffering, or treats symptoms of their medical con- dition, without debilitating side effects. Richard Mazzucchi Positive Point Although an overwhelming majority of Americans support medical mari- juana, the federal gov- ernment continues to impede state medical marijuana laws. Mari- juana prohibition has also thwarted research within the United States to uncover the best and most effective uses for marijuana as a medi- cine, making efforts to reform medical marijua- na laws particularly dif- ficult. shown to alleviate symptoms of a huge variety of serious medical conditions including cancer, AIDS, and glaucoma, and is often an effective alternative to synthetic painkillers. Marijuana has been juana collectives or dispensaries outright. City of Redding attor- neys filed a lawsuit against a medical marijuana dispensary last week that reopened its doors after a Shasta County Superior Court judge denied Redding's request for a preliminary injunc- tion to order storefronts to close. River Valley Collective opened at 3061 Churn Creek Road on March 21 thinking that Judge Stephen Baker's March 14 decision invalidated the city's ban on storefront collectives. Their suit also names Hamid and Susan Vossoughi, who own the property the cannabis club is occupying, and who, like the River Valley owners, think the ban no longer needs to be fol- lowed. This front line of this battle is now drawn in one of the only Northern California counties that have not banned mari- Although the judge's ruling lets dispensaries continue to operate as the legal challenge to the city's ban continues, city offi- cials are warning little has changed regarding its ordinance, and the city will add parties to its lawsuit as necessary. City Attor- ney Rick Duvernay said the city has received at least a dozen calls from people asking about open- ing new collectives. "Our mes- sage back is consistent in that we say the city's ordinance has not been overturned by the judge, it is still valid law and collectives of 10 or more patients are not allowed in the city or in commer- cial zones," he said Wednesday in an email. Redding issued permits for dispensaries for two years before enacting the ban last fall. ordinance was based on an appellate court ruling that a per- mitting system for dispensaries in Long Beach went far beyond Proposition 215 and conflicted with federal law. The collective closed its doors on Placer Street last year before Redding's ban took effect Dec. 1. The alone as a number of collectives closed voluntarily. Redding still allows patients to collectively grow medical marijuana in groups of nine or less. It wasn't The principal reason that Red- ding enacted the contentious ban on marijuana dispensaries was the threat of lawsuits by overzealous federal prosecutors who sent ominous letters to local governing bodies and property owners that permit them, due to an apparent conflict with the fed- eral prohibitions. This is despite direction given by President Obama for the Justice Depart- ment to not interfere with state efforts that provide medicinal marijuana to patients. Instead the prosecutors apparently have nothing better to do than hassle regulated tax-paying businesses with their witch hunt to make it impossible for patients to legally and conveniently obtain their medication. We need to tell them to stay out of our bedrooms, private lives, legal businesses, and local and state matters that they have no compelling reason to enter. would suggest that a good place to cut the federal budget is the Drug Enforcement Administra- tion and their Justice Department henchmen so as to replace them with rehabilitation centers that actually address the problem of drug addiction, and care givers that help control rather than cre- ate pain and suffering. I Richard Mazzucchi is a retired research engineer specializing in energy efficiency and renewable energy. He has travelled extensively and now makes his home in Los Molinos, where he is striving to manifest a sustainable and spiritual lifestyle and operate a BBQ equipment and supply business. He can be reached at living- green@att.net. Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Jim Nielsen (R) State Capitol Bldg., Room 6031 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 319-2002; Fax (916) 319-2102 STATE SENATOR — Doug LaMalfa (R) State Capitol Bldg., Room 3070 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 651-4004; Fax (916) 445-7750 GOVERNOR — Jerry Brown, State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160; E-mail: gover- nor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Wally Herger (R), 2595 Cean- othus Ave., Ste. 182, Chico, CA 95973; 893-8363. U.S.SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111; (510) 286-8537. Fax (202) 224- 0454. Futility of the solar energy boondoggle News that an agency in Corning was considering the installation of solar panels for the purpose of sav- ing utility dollars or some such rationale. Lacking the article and specifics, I'll leave it at that and remind readers that other solar panel installations have been placed both at the fairgrounds and on high school land on the east side of Baker Road. It shouldn't be controversial to state that exorbi- tant amounts of taxpayer or ratepayer money have supported such projects for the kilowatt- hours produced. The feds subsi- dize around $24 per megawatt unit of solar and wind energy, com- pared to $0.25 for natural gas and petroleum, and $0.44 for coal. I know someone that had PG&E install solar panels at their rural home north of town; the total tab was in the tens of thousands of dollars, almost all of which did not come from the home owner. That means it came ultimately from you, me, and millions of other tax- and-rate-payers. When they told me about the installation, covering over 1000 square feet, I did not detect either awareness or grati- tude that other people paid for their solar energy project. Also, without sizable inverter capacity, the direct current from solar panels can only feed into the electric grid; without massive battery banks to store it, the energy has no use to the homeowner after sundown, requiring traditional electricity sources. I read recently in the Daily If I've included any factual errors, I beg readers' indulgence. However, we have some solar pan- els for our motor home and, from the results, I've concluded that you would have to cover the entire roof of our rig, and multiply our exist- ing battery banks, at a cost of many thousands of dollars, to negate the need for a generator while in a campground. We might use 20 or more gallons of gas dur- ing an entire vacation; you can see that we would never recoup the costs. Also, bear in mind that resi- dential installations of solar energy panels, on roofs or the owner's yard or lot, is the most efficient use, compared to installations like those at the locations I've men- tioned, due to energy lost in trans- mission lines. When you consider the massive solar projects installed just in Cal- ifornia, you can readily see the futility of the solar energy boon- doggle. You would think it was a slam-dunk to place massive solar arrays in the vast deserts of South- ern California but recent reports suggest otherwise. The L.A. Times reported in January that "A new $800,000 solar project at Death Valley National Park, pho- tovoltaic panels at the state-of-the- art visitor center at Santa Monica Mountains NRA, and a solar power system at the new U.S.F.S facility at Mono Lake, are among dozens of taxpayer-funded pro- jects in Southern California on hold as the federal agencies try to hash out an agreement with SCE (SoCalEdison) to tie the projects to the state's electrical grid." The result is that the Death Valley solar panels have remained unplugged for at least two-and-a-half years while agencies trip over each other. But let's use the numbers provided by the L.A. Times: $800,000 to install 2,800 solar panels, producing about 800,000 kilowatt- hours (kwh) per year, for a savings of $50,000 per year, presumably achieved by reduced demand from the grid. But not until they get tied to that same grid, cost- ing more, right? Doing the math you'll find it will be 16 years to recoup the $800,000 cost, not including the interest that would normally accrue on a loan of that size. Then, we find that there's "an energy rebate of $700,000 over the next five years." That's $700,000 of your money that PG&E will shovel into that green rat hole, I mean boondoggle, now requiring over 30 years to pay for itself. I've read that solar panels have a lifespan of about 25 years, mean- ing it will not pay off during the life of the panels. Does that make sense? Reducing the scale by 100 to apply to my approximate 8,000 kwh annual baseline electric usage Don Polson The way I see it (I use way more than that, though), that factors out to at least a $15,000 outlay (likely much high- er due to scale) for 28 pan- els, to save about $500 per year, taking over 30 years to pay for the investment, while I still consume large quantities from the grid for the rest of my needs. It makes no sense unless you are so far from the nearest power pole that it would cost a fortune to bring power to your property. There's more where that came from for next week. The Tea Party Patriots will present several candi- dates tonight at the West- side Grange at 6 PM. You don't have to be a regular attendee, nor even a sup- porter, to show up and hear Jim Reed, Nathan Arrow- smith, and Gary Oxley, who are all vying for the Congressional seat being vacated by Wally Herger. Also addressing the group will be Greg Latourell, familiar to many for his service to the city and coun- ty, running for Supervisor District 1. Questions will be accepted; please consult those running the meeting for the applicable rules, but time limits require questions only, not statements or speeches from the audience. Don Polson has called Red Bluff home since 1988.He can be reached by e-mail at donplsn@yahoo.com.