The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

SC_144Wayne Eggleston, San Clemente

Over the 12 years I was on City Council, and as a former mayor, and as a current member of the Planning Commission, I voted for very strict marijuana city regulations including a ban on marijuana dispensaries, sales, outdoor garden cultivation and more. Should Prop 64 pass, it would allow for a resident to grow, by right, a maximum of six plants, including medical marijuana in the privacy of their residences.

Recently, our City Council voted to require, if Prop 64 passes, those who legally grow medical marijuana to obtain a city permit by registering their names and addresses, which will be a matter of public records and accessible to anyone. The permit issue is not about support for Prop 64 or support for the use of marijuana. The overriding issue here is the social civil liberties issue, medical privacy issues, an invasion of privacy in your own home, potential for home invasion robbery and unwarranted searches in your home for something that may become legal. Imagine someone who is recovering from cancer treatment being harassed by the city. The city’s code enforcement officers and sheriff deputies would have the right to knock on your door, with a complaint, and request entry to count your plants, of which you could legally grow up to six. If you did not grant permission, they could then get a warrant to search your premises. Is this government overreach?

Naturally, if someone is growing a marijuana farm inside their home, that is a different issue, and the city would have the right to shut them down and take appropriate legal action and a warrant. These farms can be identified by the city with increased consumption of water usage and electricity.

Should we be dealing with this exception and not the legal right under Prop 64 to grow up to six medical marijuana plants in the privacy of your own home without exposing your identity, address and that you may have a medical issue, which are privacy issues? Remember, anyone could obtain this public record and address from the city. Additionally, a person’s address via a public record invites a home invasion robbery, as these plants have considerable dollar value.

I believe that our hardworking code enforcement officers and sheriff deputies are stretched pretty thin right now. Is this an added permit that is unenforceable and even necessary? I wonder how many will actually register their names and addresses?

No matter whether we believe Prop 64 is a good idea or not, this “feel good” city permit requirement is a social civil liberty rights, home invasion robbery potential and medical privacy issue. The second reading was voted on Tuesday. They needed to do the right thing and stay out of your home if you are doing what is a legal right should Prop 64 pass.

Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Staff

comments (1)

  • your so full of bull you voted to persecute standard size truck owners because of their ladders never knowing if those folks where injured sick or handicapped but you’ll look the other way for pot farms ? your a hypocrite ,,whats next subsidization of other businesses over others in your fascist world ,

comments (1)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>