Barb: I appreciate your perspective – thank-you for sharing.

I had not considered people giving an advisory vote to maintain SB-6505 as an indirect attempt to further restrict where legal I-502 businesses can operate.

As an owner of Rural (NOT Rural Residential), Agricultural, and Forestry Lands, I put a good deal of thought into the flexibility of future uses allowed for such lands prior to purchasing them. Growing crops (whether for my and my family’s personal consumption, or for sale to others) has been an allowed use that I have always required before purchasing land.

Putting a cannabis seed into soil and then watering the soil and providing light, warmth, and nutrients, generally results in a baby cannabis plant springing forth.

Laws have the magical ability to change definitions. They can make a medically-effective (per a patent held by the Feds) drug appear on Schedule 1 as a controlled substance. They can, apparently, make water-boarding NOT torture. They can make sending missiles (without permission from the ally that holds sovereignty in the area) from an unmanned drone into a wedding party that some computer algorithm thought had too many adult males in close proximity to each other an acceptable practice. They can also, apparently, make us want to think that growing cannabis is NOT agriculture. We appear to disagree on this latter point, and I respect your position — but I fail to see how your concern that having an I-502 operation in your neighborhood might negatively impact the value of your home has anything to do with whether or not growing cannabis is, actually, growing a plant.

Food for thought …. having an I-502 business in your neighborhood might actually increase the value of your land and home (and, yes, I have seen data that support that this is exactly what is happening …. at least in Snohomish County).

Thanks again.

Jim