Yep, 4 pounds worth.

The proposition would allow residents to grow up to six marijuana plants outside their homes, as long as it's in a "locked space" and out of public view.

Ken Rosenberg: "we're going to allow people to take their, probably existing, plants out of the house and put them right in the backyard the next day with no parameters (or) consequences," he said.

How clueless is this council? Do they even know what they're voting for or against anymore?

Whatever his talents, the Rosenberg quotation in the comment above revealed, unwittingly, that the good councilman never studied any serious math. After it diffused into popularity as a fad word in a garbled meaning (which happened within the memory of many people alive today), "parameter" also became a shibboleth word, revealing whether its users learned the traditional longtime meaning, or the garbled fad-word sense that Rosenberg employed. (People who recognize the distinction would have said "perimeter" or "boundary" where Rosenberg said parameter.)

I love watching these local cities freaking about someone growing weed in their backyard.

Oh the horror! (And NO, I do not smoke weed. Never have either.)

Rosenburg's quote is just more evidence that our elected representatives fear freedom. They can't stand the idea that someone might do something in their own backyard and not have to answer to anyone about it.

Wow, imagine that.

Prop 64 is a step in the right direction. As soon as we can admit the "war" on drugs has been a total failure and a waste of resources the sooner we can stop being stupid and let people do what they're already doing without making them criminals.

They are only allowing cities to ban outdoor grows at this point.
So that means everyone has to continue to grow outside on the sly as they have always done...at this point. Nothing has really changed.

The last thing I want in our neighborhood is folks growing cash crops in their yards. Gardeners & contractors are pretty good spies for neighborhood vulnerabilities. I'm sure it would attract all sorts of unwelcome attention from dirt bags wanting to invade our yards and steal the stashes. I have friends in the Santa Cruz mountains and they tell me that things get pretty scary around harvest time --- people sitting out all night guarding their crops, stoned and with shotguns. We don't need that in MV.

For the record, I voted YES on 64. I have no problem with the proposition if it passes. As a city, we need a chance to figure out what kind, if any, restrictions or rules we should apply. The urgency ordinance allows us this flexibility. Because the council will have to discuss this item again in December, this gives residents time to organize and lobby for their own interests and desires. If you have a position, please come out and speak to us!

And I meant parameters, not perimeters. Will people be allowed to cultivate marijuana plants on their apartment balcony? What if they have a shared space with other neighbors? Or a shared community garden in a condo complex? What about growing plants in plain view of an elementary school? Etc Etc.

The city can't even get a handle on Airbnb rentals not paying hotel tax or businesses in the city operating without a license. What a joke they now want to regulate marijuana plants.

Mr. Rosenberg, do you even know what "restrictions or rules we should apply" to Airbnb rentals? There are plenty of city ordinances that apply and taxes and fee that are supposed to be paid. Why no rush to regulate Airbnbs but a preemptive strike on marijuana plants? Seriously. What a double standard.

Disgraceful. The City Council has displayed their ignorance and in the process are helping to maintain the status quo of a historic-scale racist crime against humanity, the 80+ year theft of cannabis -- one of the most valuable healing plants in the entire botanical arsenal for 10,000 years -- from humanity.

The DEA (the DEA!) declared nearly 30 years ago that cannabis is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man" and "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume."Web Link (P. 58, Sec. 15&16)

In a sane world, City Councils around the country would offer tax BREAKS to those who grow cannabis in their gardens. In many states, legalized cannabis seems to correlate with lower traffic accidents, lower suicide rates and lower violent crime rates. Correlation doesn't prove causality but anyone familiar with the benefits of cannabis can tell you these statistical markers make perfect logical sense as well.

As the citizens of CA prepare to roll back the unconstitutional prohibition of this *completely safe and natural* botanical medicine, the MV City Council allows fear and cowardice to determine their policy. The long international nightmare of cannabis prohibition is finally coming to an end; cannabis users are emerging out of the shadows and into the light. This council wants to force cannabis users of Mountain View to go back into the dark.

The right to grow plants is a fundamental human right.

6/7 of the City Council: History will not be kind to you when your active participation in cannabis suppression is tallied.

John Inks: Thank you for being the lone moral voice of courage on the Council!

@I'm Not With Her

There are already restrictions in MV for marijuana plants. We want to move forward in a considered fashion. If (or when) Prop 64 passes, we'd have conflicting rules. That's why council voted the way we did. We needed time to figure it all out. Just because the emergency ordinance was passed does not mean we will put all sorts of regulations on the books in the future. We will see. Got an opinion about that? Petition the full council in December.

As far as Airbnb is concerned, I couldn't agree with you more. That's why the topic will come up before council next year. We tried to get to it this year, but staff time that would be dedicated to Airbnb was occupied with rental ordinances multiple times. Airbnb is a large and complicated issue. It will likely take months to complete.

>Ken Rosenberg said: Will people be allowed to cultivate marijuana plants on their apartment balcony? What if they have a shared space with other neighbors? Or a shared community garden in a condo complex? What about growing plants in plain view of an elementary school? Etc Etc.<

Ken Rosenberg: Your question is based upon a completely false premise, the Big Lie, that is apparently invisible to you -- that cannabis is somehow dangerous like M80 fireworks or dirty and shameful like a 42nd Street grindhouse porno. It is not.

Cannabis is a beautiful plant and a safe and effective botanical medicine that has benefited humanity for at least 10,000 years. Only in the last 80-90 years has it been demonized with an extraordinary and ongoing campaign of lies and propaganda. The truth, as we now know, is that we have an endocannabinoid system in our bodies that acts in concert with cannabis. The whole world will be better when cannabis is returned to humanity from its recent exile.

All people, from elementary school children to the elderly, should learn to recognize and celebrate cannabis for the miraculous plant it is. It just takes the older generation realizing that The Emperor Has No Clothes and those who believe cannabis should continue to be suppressed IN ANY WAY are fully ignorant...and naked.

You know. Loud is extremely safe in any amount. Never fatal.

I have friends who live one house away from someone in Campbell who is permitted to grow pot for himself. My friends cannot open their windows to let fresh air into their home because the growing pot smells like dozens of spraying skunks. The odor at times is sickening to smell. Perhaps the council members should camp downwind of some pot plants to gather more information.

@Ken Rosenberg

I'm sorry Mr. Rosenberg, but Airbnb is not a large and complicated issue. It's a matter of the City not following through with enforcement when contacted by residents reporting them. Read the city ordinances on what the City defines as a hotel or as a business. Airbnbs are operating all over town and not in compliance with city ordinances related to hotel taxes, business licenses, fire code, ADA laws, zoning restricitions etc, etc. The city is also losing out on revenue. New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc have already made aggressive moves against Airbnb. The only thing the City Council needs to do is to tell the City Departments to start citing Airbnbs. Some units in my neighborhood are renting to large groups for up to $7,000 a month with the city losing up to $700 in revenue each time.

It's also ironic that you cite the City Council's obsession with rental ordinances or trying to stop the rent control initiative. Any one can tell you that Airbnb takes critical rental housing supply off the market and drives up rents! I've seen it here in my neighborhood. The City should have been focusing on Airbnb all along.

Most all harvesting has already taken place by this time of year so this is really not an issue until next spring, and things may very well change by then.

Mr. Rosenberg has been known to change his mind, as he did when he unexpectedly flipped off his supporters who opposed BRT, so he may flip-flop on this one as well. He just follows the will of the big campaign contributors. IMO, He chose the will of big $ over the will of the citizens of Mtn View, which is why he's viewed so negatively.

Mr. Rosenberg, I'm sorry I was unclear (or not general enough) above, but the point I made there stands. You're quoted "we're going to allow people to take their, probably existing, plants out of the house and put them right in the backyard the next day with no parameters (or) consequences."

That makes clear that you did mean "parameters," but also (my point) you meant it in the newer, popular, offshoot sense I referred to ("parameter" as some kind of contraint -- whether or not in the physical sense of a boundary -- which is still not its traditional meaning). People experienced with the classic (mathematical) sense of the word tend to spot the distinction, but people who learned it from recent pop-culture usage do not.

That newer sense of "parameter," not as an attribute or coefficient, but an applied constraint, came into currency in the late 1980s from people who confused it with "perimeter," and the new meaning grew outward from there. (Rather as some current users mistake and employ "bemuse" as a version of "amuse," or "flounder" when they really mean "founder." Or most of the current use of meld, cusp, or epicenter.)

"Language most shows a man. Speak, that I may see thee." (Benjamin Jonson, 1572-1637)

Too bad Mr. Inks is termed put. He is the only council member that still supports individual liberties and freedoms. The other council members still believe that one size fits all governmental regulations are better. Even the issues Mr Rosenberg raises are no big deal as long as people grow stuff on their own private property. Unless there is some missing property rights issue, there is nothing to solve here. At least Mr Rosenberg has the courage to state his authoritarian viewpoint.

Why, in the name of all that is good and holy, do we have to preemptively regulate stuff? Is there a problem we are trying to solve here, or has regulation become an end goal of its own. I don't smoke weed, maybe I'll dabble if it's legal, don't know, but what business is it of the city council that I'm growing a particular kind of plant in my own garden for my own consumption? I currently grow many of my own vegetables - is that a problem too? Maybe I need a regulation to say I shouldn't eat the leaves off my rhubarb.

Good job Mr. Inks for voting against! I wish I could vote for you.

What a waste of time, money, and governance...

It stinks of "pay-to-play"...

I can't wait to vote on most of the council's re-elections.

1. "I think as a society we tend to say, 'Oh my God, here it comes, it's the evil weed again, batten down the hatches,'" Kasperzak said.

No Mr. Kasperzak, that's exactly WHY it is finally going to be legalized - because our society has educated itself and it does NOT think like that. Fear tactics NO LONGER work because we've EXPERIENCED the reality of marijuana use over the past 80+ yrs. since Harry Anslinger and have REJECTED the ignorance and lies of the Reefer Madness believers.

2. Thank you Mr. John Inks for voting against the ban and for being the ONLY MV councilmember with a spine and a brain. As it will be LEGAL statewide, HOW MANY GROWERS (answer? Uhhh, close to NONE) are going to pay any attention at all to this ignorant (Kasperzak) and uninformed (the rest of the bunch of MV councilmembers except for Mr. Inks) group of over-officious and imminently UN-re-electable folks who STILL think that ONLY their close-minded opinions and choices of lifestyles are valid IN THE FACE OF THE NEWLY LEGALIZED RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA!!! THAT is some SERIOUS self-important arrogance!

This is an overstretch of power. A discusting display of taking away privileges as usual. We Pay outrageous money to live here . I as a recent cancer survivor takes this offensive. I never in my life thought the city that raised me and I love so much. WOULD want to do people wrong like this. It saddens me that greed leads to test regulations. I pray that the tyrannical council does not go through with this. Cancer does not care about regulations. IT kills no matter what. So why take away things that help people. Specially chemo patients. If making life harder for us while trying to recover is what you are trying to accomplish, basically helping death panels.... then you are on your way to success . we are not Palo Alto. So stop trying to copy them. Stay original, #just saying

@Pepe Le Pew: wow - golly - so you have friends who are living next door to someone who is (gasp) LEGALLY growing a pot plant or two??? ... I'm surprised your friends aren't brain-damaged from being oxygen-deprived after having those evil pot plants suck the oxygen right out of the air ... or ARE they???!!! You know, you COULD just BE HONEST AND ADMIT that you and any friends you may or may not have who live in Campbell ARE JUST AGAINST MARIJUANA for ANY AND ALL USES and you are just fit-throwing, foot-stomping, huffing-and-puffing mad about the probability of LEGAL RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA!!!