>> COMING UP NEXT ON "HEADLINE HUMBOLDT" H LOCAL POLITICAL OBSERVER AND ATTORNEY ERIC KIRK JOINS US WITH THE PROPOSITIONS VOTERS WILL CONSIDER NEXT TUESDAY IN ELECTIONS.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTED TO SUSPEND TAXES ON CANNABIS CULTIVATION FOR TWO YEARS THROWING A MUCH-NEEDED HELPLINE TO HUM BOIL'S BIGGEST INDUSTRY.

THIS IS "HEADLINE HUMBOLDT", I'M JAMES FAULK.

JOINING THANKS FOR JOINING US.

I IS EXHAUSTING FOR ME AS IT IS FOR YOU TO HEAR TO REPORT EVERY ELECTION PSYCH M. THIS TIME THE STAKES ARE HIGH AND DEMOCRACY MAY BE ON THE LINE.

I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE IT IS ALSO TRUE.

IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE WHAT COMES OUT OF THIS ELECTION REFLECTS THE REAL WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WE ALL HAVE TO VOTE IF YOU FALL ON THE RIGHT OR LEFT OF THE YAWNING POLITICAL DIVIDE SOME FOLKS WHO ARE RUNNING ARE VILLAINIZING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AND ANY PART WHERE THEIR SIDE LOSES IS FRAUDULENT.

THAT LAST PART IS A NEW AND INSIDIOUS DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICAN POLITICS, IF IT TAKES HOLD OUR WAY OF GOVERNMENT AND SYSTEMS OF DEMOCRACY ARE AT RISK.

THEY MAKE NO BONES ABOUT IT.

BE INFORMED WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STAND, UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AT STAKE AND MAKE SURE WHEN YOU VOTE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING HOW THAT VOTE MAY WELL PLAY OUT OVER TIME.

TONIGHT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW CALIFORNIA VOTERS HAVE A CHANCE TO CHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA, DE PENDING IF THE IDEA IS SOUND OR NOT, CAN MAKE RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT THAN IT ALREADY IS.

ON THESE QUESTIONS WE ALL NEED TO BE EDUCATED ON HOW OUR VOTES IMPACT THE WAY THE STATE GETS RUN.

ERIC KIRK IS JOINING US.

THANKS FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE HAVE A LIST OF PROPOSITIONS HERE, 1-31, WITH SOME MISSING IN THE MIDDLE THERE.

>> RIGHT.

>> LET'S GO THROUGH THOSE AND OUR VIEWERS GET A CHANCE TO HEAR WHAT IS AT SFAK IN EACH OF THESE.

>> OKAY.

>> PROPOSITION 1 IS THE BIG SUBJECT THAT IS ABORTION.

>> MM-HMM.

>> CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT IT WILL DO AND WHAT IT IS?

>> FIRST OF ALL, THE REASON THE NUMBER IS SO DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHERS IS IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

IF IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IT WILL BE IN THE SINGLE DIGITS.

>> THAT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT REPRESENTS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?

>> RIGHT.

BASICALLY, IT PUTS INTO WORDING THAT ABORTION AND BIRTH CONTROL ARE PROTECTED RIGHTS IN THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.

IT'S ALREADY THERE BECAUSE IN 1972 EVEN BEFORE ROE V. WADE CAME OUT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY WAS PUT INTO THE WORDING AND EVERY LEGAL INTERPRETATION, SURVIVING THE DOBBS CASE, IS IF YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY, INHERENT RIGHT TO PRIVACY, THAT INCLUDES YOUR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES, YOUR WILLINGNESS TO HAVE A FAMILY AND CONVERSATIONS WITH YOUR DOCTOR, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

SO IN IS JUST REDUNDANT.

IT WILL HAVE ZERO EFFECT.

SOME ARGUE WHETHER IT IS A SYMBOLIC REASON TO HAVE ABORTION AND BIRTH CONTROL EXPLICITLY IN THE CONSTITUTION, BUT I OBJECT TO THIS AND I AM VOTING FOR IT, BUT I OBJECT TO IT ON THE BASIS THAT THIS IS PERFORMTIVE.

IT IS THEATER TO GET PEOPLE TO COME TO VOTE BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE LEARNED THAT IF ABORTION IS ON THE BALLOT, IT WILL ENCOURAGE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE BE ENCOURAGED TO COME TO VOTE, PARTICULARLY YOUNG WOMEN, YOUNG PEOPLE IN GENERAL, PARTICULARLY YOUNG WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN REGISTERING IN RECORD NUMBERS >> YEAH.

NOW IF WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE IN TWO YEARS THERE IS A NATIONAL BAN ON ABORTION, THIS WOULD DO NOTHING FOR RESIDENTS OF CALIFORNIA TO ENABLE THEM TO KEEP GETS THOSE SERVICES?

>> NO.

WHETHER IT SURVIVES OR NOT, A NATIONAL BAN IS NOT -- THIS IS NOT GOING HAVE ANY BEARING.

WE ALREADY HAVE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE CONSTITUTION AND SO FAR NOBODY HAS EVEN TRIED TO OVERTURN THE LAWS HAS TRIED TO SEPARATE PRIVACY FROM ABORTION.

IN FACT, IT IS -- CLARENCE THOMAS PRETTY MUCH OPENLY ARGUES THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE CONSTITUTION.

YOU CAN GET INTO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE NINTH AMENDMENT, THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE 14th AMENDMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE JUSTIFIED.

THAT GETS INTO THE OVERALL ISSUES OF WHETHER OR NOT ABORTION IS A MATTER OF FEDERAL CONCERN AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT SPEFGLY ENUMERATED, LIKE THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL, THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT AND OTHER RIGHTS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED UPHELD TO OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES AND BEFORE.

WHEN THIS CAME UP, THEY SAID, OH, NO, YOU CAN'T MAKE UP RIGHTS.

>> SO BASICALLY WHEN THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED ROE V. WADE IT WAS UNDER THE TLARMT IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY -- >> NO FEDERAL GUARANTEED RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

>> OKAY.

>> EACH STATE MIGHT HAVE IT.

IT COMES FROM A BACKWARDS PHILOSOPHY THAT THE GOVERNMENT CREATES RIGHTS.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS THAT ADAMS WROTE, THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES RIGHTS.

WE HAVE INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE WEEDS OF THAT, BUT THIS IS PERFORMATIVE TO GET PEOPLE OUT AND MAKE A SYMBOLIC STATEMENT.

FINE.

I'M GOING VOTE FOR IT.

I DON'T APPRECIATE BEING MANIPULATED.

I WISH THE DEMOCRATS LEFT IT OFF, BUT IT IS ON, BUT I DON'T WANT THE MEDIA INTERPRETING A NO VOTE OR CLOSE VOTE MAYBE WE DON'T WANT THAT CHOICE.

>> THE ONE PEOPLE HAVE HEARD ABOUT A LOT IS THE BOMBARDMENT OF RADIO ADS ARE PROPS 26 AND 27 THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SPORTS BETTING.

YOU MENTIONED BEFORE THE SHOW SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN A BAN ON SPORTS BETTING AND OPENED UP THE PROCESS.

>> IN 2018 THE SUPREME COURT MAJORITY AGAIN STRICTLY ALONG IDEOLOGICAL LINES OVERTURNED THE FEDERAL BAN ON SPORTS BETTING ON A REALLY STRANGE BASIS, SAYING YOU CAN REGULATE IT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT YOU CAN'T BAN IT OUT RIGHT.

IF YOU BAN IT OUTRIGHT YOU HAVE CEDED YOUR POWER TO THE STATES.

CONGRESS HASN'T TAKEN IT UP, IT IS TOO DIVIDED TO TAKE IT UP 2/3 OF THE STATE RUSHED TO LEGALIZE IT.

>> IT IS A HUGE SOURCE OF REVENUE.

>> ALMOST $60 BILLION A YEAR NOW -- >> WOW.

>> THAT IT GENERATES.

EVERYBODY WANTS TO TAP INTO THAT.

IT IS ON THE WALL.

WE DON'T HAVE CHOICE.

WE NEED TO PASS IT.

CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN HOLDING OUT.

THIS IS THE CRACK COCAINE OF VOTING.

THIS IS WHERE GAMBLING ADDICTS -- GAMBLING ADDICTS LOSE A LOT OF MONEY, LOSE THEIR SHIRTS.

>> YEAH.

>> AND SO, BECAUSE OF THAT, TWO GROUPS OF INTEREST HAVE NOW PLACED COMPETING BALLOTS, WHICHEVER GETS THE MOST VOTES WINS IF EITHER GET OVER 50% THAT WILL OPEN UP A FRAMEWORK OF LEGALIZED SPORTS BETTING IN CALIFORNIA.

>> HOW CAN PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THEM IN A WAY THAT WILL DIFFERENTIATE THE TWO?

>> PROPOSITION 26 I CONSIDER TO BE THE LEAST OF TWO EVILS.

IT HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY GAMING TRIBES, ALL BUT LIKE TWO OR THREE OF THE TRIBES.

TWO OR THREE SUPPORT PROP 27 BECAUSE THEY ARE GETTING SPECIAL DEALS UNDER THERE.

WHO KNOWS.

IT IS HARD TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT THE REASONING IS.

PROP 26 WOULD ALLOW YOU TO GAMBLE IN SPORTS BETTING.

IT WOULD OPEN UP ROULETTE AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY NOT LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA.

BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO WALK INTO EITHER A TRIBAL CASINO OR INTO HORSE RACE -- >> HORSE TRACK.

>> RIGHT.

TO DO IT.

PROP 27 WOULD ALLOW THESE COMPANIES THAT ARE MAKING A LOT OF MONEY ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO BASICALLY SET UP APPS SO YOU CAN PLACE BETS FROM ANY PHONE OR COMPUTER.

>> AH.

>> IT WOULD GO CRAZY.

IT WOULD MAKE IT SO THAT IT WOULD BE RAMPANT.

THEY ARE PROMISING FUNDS THAT WILL GO TO THE HOMELESS.

>> THAT IS ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS I HEARD AGAINST IT BECAUSE IT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO HOMELESSNESS BECAUSE GAMBLERS -- >> THEY WOULD FALL APART.

IT IS ONE THING TO GO TO THE CASINO BECAUSE YOU TAKE THE TRIP AND CONTROLLED CONDITIONS.

THE PROBLEM I HAVE, THIS IS AGAIN, PROPOSITIONS THAT ARE VERY COMPLEX.

IF WE ARE GOING LEGALIZE IT IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE IT -- THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL, IT OUGHT TO BE DONE WITH ALL THE EXPERTS, THE COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, COMING TOGETHER IN COMMITTEE, TESTIFYING AND THEN THE LEGISLATURE WILL BE ABLE TO DO ITS JOB AND COME UP WITH A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY RATHER THAN ONE WINNER TAKE ALL WHERE YOU ACCEPT A STRAIGHT UP-OR-DOWN IN TERMS OF THE PROPOSITION AND YOU ARE STUCK WITH THEM ONCE THEY ARE VOTED IN.

AND I SUPPORTED, EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT A FAN OF GAMBLING, I SUPPORTED EXPANDING THE CASINOS TO THE TRIBES IN THE 1990s.

WHEN WE PASSED THOSE MEASURES BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS GOING PROFIT FROM IT.

IT IS THE PEOPLE LEGALIZED GANGSTERS IN NEVADA OR THE TRIBES WHO CAN BE BENEFIT FROM IT.

FINE, LET THE TRIBES DO IT.

THIS IS GOING TOO FAR.

>> I FIND SOMETHING JUST ABOUT HAVING NATIVE AMERICANS MAKE MONEY OFF OF OTHER PEOPLE'S GREED.

>> IF IT IS GOING HAPPEN YOU MIGHT HAVE THE MONEY GO TO WHERE IT IS NEEDED.

AND IT HAS HAPPENED.

WITH TRIBES.

BUT GAMBLES ADDICTION IS REALLY A BAD SITUATION FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.

IT RUINS A LOT OF LIVES.

>> YEAH.

ABSOLUTELY.

SO PROPOSITION 28.

NOW, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT SAYS THAT THE EDUCATIONAL BUDGET HAS TO HAVE 1% SET ASIDE FOR ARTS AND MUSIC EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

>> YEAH.

IT DOESN'T ADD TO THE FUNDING.

THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS THAT EVERYTHING IN EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE HAS BEEN TEACHING TO THE TEST.

WE'RE NOT LEARNING HUMANITIES.

WE ARE NOT LEARNING -- BAND IS CLOSED DOWN, ART CLASSES ARE CLOSED DOWN.

THIS BASICALLY SAYS, LOOK, WE WANT SOME MONEY DESIGNATED, IT IS NOT A HUGE AMOUNT, SOME MONEY DESIGNATED TO THIS.

BUSINESSES HAVE COMPLAINED YOU ARE TURNING OUT PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT WELL ROUNDED IN LIFE.

SO THIS WOULD GUARANTEE SOME MONEY IS THERE, SO SCHOOLS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TEACHERS AND MOST OF THE MONEY WOULD GO TO HIRING TEACHERS, BY THE WAY.

IT DESIGNATED THAT.

TO TEACH ART AND MUSIC.

AND YEAH, IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD.

IT IS FISCALLY NEUTRAL EXCEPT FOR SOME IMPLEMENTATION.

>> THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS THAT I HAVE SEEN AND SOME PEOPLE MAKE AGAINST THE WHOLE PROPOSITION FORM OF DEMOCRACY IS THAT WHEN YOU TIE PEOPLE'S HANDS IN THE LEGISLATURE OR THE GOVERNING BODIES, OFTEN TIMES THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES YOU DON'T SEE AND THERE MAY BE A TIME WHEN SOME MONEY IS NEEDED FOR SOME OTHER PROGRAM AND WE HAVE MANDATED FROM A DISTANCE THIS 1%, WE MIGHT GUM UP THE WORKS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IT ADDS UP.

YOU HAVE THESE MANDATES.

YOU HAVE THE EDUCATION MANDATE HAS TO BE A SPERJ OF THE BUDGET.

PROP 30 MAY BE SETTING UP A WAY OF ENDING AROUND AND SETTING UP A SEPARATE FUND BECAUSE IT IS A PROBLEM.

WE CAN'T RAISE AS MUCH MONEY.

WE DECIDED EDUCATION WAS THAT IMPORTANT.

BUT YOU ARE RIGHT.

IT IS A CRITICISM.

IT IS NOT THAT MUCH MONEY AND IT IS GOING THROUGH THE PROPER OF SPACE SAYING WE WANT THESE PROGRAMS TO HAPPEN SO IF YOU WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PARTICULAR PERCENTAGE OF THE MONEY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE -- >> IT IS LIKE SETTING A MINIMUM PRIORITY FOR PROGRAMS >> EXACTLY.

>> ANOTHER INTERESTING ONE THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT, BUT I KNOW IT HAS HAD SEVERAL ROUNDS OF PEOPLE ATTEMPTING TO GET SOMETHING LIKE THIS PAST REQUIRES A DOCTOR, NURSE PRACTITIONER OR PHYSICIAN SFAUNT TO BE PRESENT AT A KIDNEY DIALYSIS OUTPARTIAL CLINIC AND REPORT ON INFECTION NUMBERS AT THAT CLINIC.

WHAT THIS IS AND WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT?

>> IT IS REALLY COMPLICATED.

BECAUSE THERE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE CLINICS THAT THERE ARE INFECTIONS HAPPENING AND PEOPLE ARE BEING SENT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM.

IF YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL ON THE PREMISE THE HOPE IS THIS WILL HAPPEN LESS.

IT IS AN ASSUMPTION AND PROBABLY TRUE, WHAT THEY ARE CLAIMING, THE OPPOSITION IS CLAIMING IS YOU ARE GOING MAKE IT HARDER FOR CLINICS OUT IN AREAS LIKE OUR OWN TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS.

>> IT IS EXPENSIVE.

>> HIRE THE PERSON.

THE THING IS THAT THE PRO PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT THE PROFIT MARGIN FOR THESE CLINICS IS ABOUT 15%.

WHICH IS THREE TIMES HIGHER THAN HOSPITALS SO IT IS LIKE THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF GIVE THERE.

OTHER PEOPLE ARE SAYING, YEAH, BUT WE ONLY HAVE SO MANY CERTIFIED PERSONNEL.

WE HAVE A SHORTAGE.

IF WE HAVE TO DESIGNATE, WE MIGHT HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING THEM.

WE HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING DOCTORS AND NURSES TO HUMBOLDT COUNTY.

IT IS COMPLICATED.

IT IS AGAIN AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE LEGISLATURE, BUT IT IS COMING UP THREE TIMES BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT TAKING LEADERSHIP ON THIS.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHY?

>> BECAUSE IT IS COMPLICATED.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S -- THERE'S A LOT OF PRESSURE FROM ALL DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.

A LOT OF MONEY BEING SPENT ALL THREE TIMES BY THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MAKING MONEY OFF OF THESE THINGS.

A LOT.

LIKE OBSCENE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY ARE SPENDING TO KILL IT.

YOU HAVE SEEN THE ADVERTISEMENTS PEOPLE ARE SAYING I'M GOING DIE IF YOU PASS THIS MEASURE.

IT TUGS THE HEART STRINGS AND IT WORKS.

THAT IS THE REASON I'M VOTING FOR IT BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE CLOSE SO THE LEGISLATURE TAKES A LOOK AT IT AND SAYS WE NEED TO DO THIS.

SOMEBODY IN THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO TAKE THIS UP AND SAY WE NEED TO DO THIS SO IT DOESN'T KEEP COMING UP BECAUSE IT WILL PROBABLY KEEP COMING UP.

>> IS THERE A RISK HAVING THAT EXTRA CHARGE ON A CLINIC COULD FORCE A CLOSURE?

>> THEY CLAIM SO.

THEY CLAIM YEAH, WE ARE GOING HAVE TO DO IT.

IF YOU ARE MAKING 15% PROFIT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU ARE ONLY MAKING 8% PROFIT, REALLY?

I QUESTION THAT.

AGAIN, THAT IS WHY IT SHOULD BE IN COMMITTEE SO EXPERTS ARE TESTIFYING TO PEOPLE IN COMMITTEE AND THEY CAN SORT THAT OUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF DE TAILS THAT VOTERS JUST AREN'T -- EN IF WE HAD, AREN'T GOING LOOK INTO IT.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

PROPOSITION 30 TO RAISE PERSONAL INCOME TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY.

>> OVER $2 MILLION A YEAR.

>> TO ALRATE REVENUE TO ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE PURCHASE INCENTIVES, CHARGING STATIONS AND WILDFIRE PREVENTION.

IT SOUNDS GOOD, RIGHT?

>> IT IS GOOD.

ESPECIALLY IF YOU SUPPORT MOVING TOWARDS CLIMATE CHANGE.

TWO PRIMARY OBJECTIONS.

UBER AND LYFT ARE GOING MAKE A MONEY.

THEY ARE MANDATED TO MAKE A PORTION OF THEIR FLEET ELECTRIC.

THEY BENEFIT, BUT JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS GOING PROFIT OFF IT, DOESN'T MEAN YOU DON'T WANT IT.

BECAUSE YOU DO WANT IT.

THE SECOND OBJECTION IS IT SETS UP A FUND INDEPENDENT OF THE GENERAL FUND NOT SUBJECT TO THE MINIMUMS FOR EDUCATION.

THE MINIMUM POSITION.

THEY ARE AFRAID THIS IS GOING CREATE A LOOPHOLE AND THERE WILL BE MORE PROPOSITIONS.

AGAIN, THAT IS UP TO THE LEGISLATURE.

THE LEGISLATURE CAN SAY YOU CAN'T HAVE PROPOSITIONS LIKE THAT, BUT THEY CAN DO THAT SO THEY HAVE TO DO THAT.

>> WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DO THAT?

THERE IS A LOOPHOLE -- >> IF THE LEGISLATURE DOESN'T TAKE IT UP YOU WILL SEE MORE AND MORE PROPOSITIONS LIKE THIS.

>> CAN YOU SAY WHY THAT IS PROBLEMATIC?

>> THEN YOU HAVE SEPARATE FUNDS OPERATING INDEPENDENT OF THE GENERAL FUND AND IF EDUCATION ISN'T PART OF THOSE, THEN EDUCATION WILL NOW BECOME LESS AND LESS A PERCENTAGE OF THE OVERALL MONEY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMING FROM REVENUES.

>> GOT YOU.

>> THIS IS DIFFERENT, TOO, BECAUSE IT IS CREATING A SEPARATE REVENUE FROM A SEPARATE TAX.

PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PRECEDENT.

THE LEGISLATURE CAN ADDRESS THAT PRECEDENT ANY TIME.

>> ANY TIME THEY WANT TO.

>> ANY TIME THEY WANT TO.

>> OKAY.

PROPOSITION 31, VOTERS WILL DECIDE BANNING FLAVOR TOBACCO.

>> CANDY FLAVORED, MENTHOL >> SHOULD TAKE EFFECT OR OVERTURNED.

THE LAW WAS PASSED AND IT IS ADVISORY?

>> IT IS NOT ADVISORY.

IF YOU GET ENOUGH SIGNATURES YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE BALLOT TO CANCEL LEGISLATION THAT PASSES.

I DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET INTO THAT.

THIS DID PASS THE LEGISLATURE AND IT WILL GO INTO EFFECT IF YOU VOTE YES ON IT.

WHETHER OR NOT TO CONFIRM IT.

LIKE THE JUDGES, CONFIRMS.

>> 50%, RIGHT?

>> 50%.

PLUS ONE.

AGAIN, THIS IS CANDY FLAVORED TOBACCO IS SOMETHING THAT HAS REALLY LED TO CHILDREN, PARTICULARLY IN SOME OF THE MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES, PARTICULARLY AFRICAN-AMERICANS TO GET HOOKED.

IT IS SOMETHING LIKE 80% OF WHAT YOUNG AFRICAN-AMERICANS SMOKE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS THE FLAVORED STUFF.

IT IS GEARED TOWARDS PEOPLE, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE BANS AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.

SOMETIMES WHEN YOU HAVE A REAL SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED BY THE BAN.

THERE WILL BE A BLACK MARKET, BUT IT WON'T BE SUPPLIED LIKE THE REAL THING.

PEOPLE WILL GO TO NEVADA AND BUY IT ON THE STREET.

I DON'T KNOW.

THAT SEEMS FARFETCHED THERE WILL BE A MASSIVE STREET THING.

IT ALREADY IS BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR KIDS TO BUY THIS STUFF.

>> YEAH.

YEAH.

>> SO THEY ARE GETTING IT SOMEHOW.

IT WILL MAKE IT THAT MUCH HARDER FOR THE DEALERS, IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, TO COME UP WITH THE STUFF.

IT HAS BEEN EFFECTIVE IN OTHER PLACES >> OKAY.

WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT MEASURE M. SEVERAL LOCAL MEASURES MOST PECULIAR TO THEIR LOCAL, MEASURE M IS AN INTERESTING ONE.

VOTING YES WOULD SUPPORT REQUIRING THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO FLY THE EARTH FLAG OVER ALL OVER FLAGS >> REAL QUICKLY, THIS IS BASICALLY INTENDED TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE GLOBAL CITIZENS AS WELL AS NATIONAL.

HE SAYS, SWEARS UP AND DOWN IT IS NOT ABOUT BEING UNPATRIOTIC.

AND THAT THIS IS SIMPLY ABOUT PUTTING IT IN ORDER OF THE GEOGRAPHY.

GLOBE, NATION, STATE.

THAT IS HOW IT WOULD GO.

THERE IS A LAW, STATE LAW THAT SAYS THAT THE AMERICAN FLAG MUST BE PLACED IN HIGHEST HONOR.

WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE FEDERAL WHICH SAYS IT HAS TO BE UP HIGHEST PHYSICALLY.

FEDERAL HAS NO JURISDICTION WHAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT DOES ON THIS ISSUE.

SO IT IS REALLY UP TO THE STATE.

SO WHAT DOES HIGHEST HONOR MEAN?

>> THAT IS UP TO ANYBODY.

>> IT IS UP TO ANYBODY.

IT IS OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FEDERAL BECAUSE A LOT OF STATES ADOPT THE FEDERAL GUIDELINE.

>> YEAH.

>> BUT OBVIOUSLY CALIFORNIA INTENDED SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

NO CLUE AS TO WHAT THAT MEANS.

WE MAY FIND OUT IN COURT IF THIS PASSES.

>> THANK YOU, ERIC.

>> YOU CAN CATCH ME ON ALL THINGS RECONSIDERED ON KWONK AND ACCESS HUMBOLDT.

>> THAT IS IT FOR THE INTERVIEW.

WE WILL BE BACK IN A FEW SHORT SECONDS AFTER THE BREAK.

>> AFTER HEARING FROM MEMBERS OF THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY CANNABIS GROWERS, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DECIDED TO SUSPEND TAXES FOR TWO YEARS.

>> HEARING FROM ALL PEOPLE REPRESENTING CANNABIS COMMUNITY PASSIONATELY SUPPORTING A COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF THE MEASURE S CANNABIS EXCISE TAX, THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DID ELIMINATE THE TAX FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

OF THOSE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, MOSTLY HAILING FROM THE SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT REGION WHERE THE BULK OF CANNABIS PERMITS ARE ALLOCATED, FARMERS SHOWED UP ON TUESDAY?

>> WHAT IS THE FUTURE?

DO WE BELIEVE THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY HERE HAS NO FUTURE?

WHAT CAN WE LOOK FORWARD TO.

THERE IS A FEW THINGS WE WANT TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

FIRST TO ACKNOWLEDGE WE ARE GOING LOSE A NUMBER OF FARMS BECAUSE OF CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS.

THE REALITY IS IT NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR A LOT OF FOLKS.

65% OF FARMS ARE SELLING BELOW THE COST OF PRODUCTION.

THE FARMS THAT SAY IS THEY HAVE LOW COST OF INPUT, THEY ARE WORKING ON BRANDING AND WANT TO BE HERE.

THEY ARE NOT HERE TO TAKE A TON OF MONEY, TO BE EXTRACTED OR A GREEN RUSH.

THEY ARE HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE HERE.

THERE ARE GOING BE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHO REMAIN HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE HERE.

>> AS WE MOVE FORWARD IT COMES TO MIND, ARE WE THE ONLY ONES IN THE STATE THAT ARE GOING DISMISS THE TAX ALL TOGETHER?

SOME PEOPLE AREN'T CHARGING A TAX.

ARE WE THE ONLY ONES?

I THINK IF WE SAT HERE APPROXIMATELY SIX YEARS AGO WE CAN SIT HERE AND SAY WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTY IN THE STATE THAT IMPOSED A TAX.

NOBODY ELSE IMPOSED A TAX.

BUT HUMBOLDT WAS FIRST.

SO MAYBE HUMBOLDT IS LEADING -- AND THEY LED THE CHARGE AND A LOT OF PEOPLE FOLLOW.

MAYBE THIS WILL HELP THE CALIFORNIA CULTIVATORS ACROSS THE BOARD SO AS WE LOOK AT THIS AND IF WE ARE GOING BE INDUSTRY LEADERS AND WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTY IN THE STATE DOING THIS AGAIN, WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTY IN THE STATE THAT IMPOSED A TAX AND EVERYBODY FOLLOWED.

>> A REASSESSMENT OF MEASURE S CANNABIS TAXATION HAS LONG BEEN CALLED FOR BY THE CULT VAGS COMMUNITY IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY.

SUPERVISOR REX BONE ULTIMATELY MADE THE MOTION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WE WILL SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO ON THE PENALTIES AND THAT, BUT FROM HERE GOING FORWARD, I WOULD LIKE TO SUSPEND, I HAVE SAID FOUR YEARS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT IS GOING BE TWO YEARS AND THAT IS WHAT IS CONSENSUS IS.

BUT WE SUSPEND THE MEASURE S TAX FOR TWO YEARS.

>> I WOULD PROPOSE A MOTION TO SUSPEND TAX PAYMENTS FOR CULTIVATION YEARS 2022, BILLED IN 2023 AND CULTIVATION YEAR 2023 BILLED IN 2024 TO DEFER ALL OUTSTANDING PAYMENTS UNTIL OCTOBER 2023, WITH A WAIVER OF PENALTIES ON INSTALLMENTS THAT WERE DUE OCTOBER OF 2022 AND WITH ENFORCEMENT OCCURRING FOLLOWING THE PAYMENT IN OCTOBER 2023 FOR ANY OUTSIDE TAXES OWED.

RETURN WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO MODIFY PROJECT.

WHICH WOULD ADDRESS THE PENALTY SITUATION.

AND TO RETURN FOR DISCUSSIONS ON POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO MEASURE S THROUGH A BALLOT INITIATIVE.

>> LET'S SEE.

SUPERVISOR BONE.

>> YES.

>> SUPERVISOR WILSON.

>> NO.

>> SUPERVISOR BASS.

>> YES.

>> SUPERVISOR MADRON.

>> YES.

>> THANK YOU.

MOTION PASSES 3-1.

>> DRAWING A SMALL AND POWERFUL CHEER FROM THE CROWD IN ATTENDANCE, SUPERVISORS BONE, BASS AND MADRON IN FAVOR, SUPERVISOR WILSON DECLINING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION SUPERVISOR BUSHNELL RECUSING HERSELF DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN HER OWNING A PERMITTED CANNABIS FARM IN THE SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT AREA.

REPORTING FOR "HEADLINE HUMBOLDT" THIS IS RYAN HUTSON.

>> CALL POLY HUMBOLDT AND COLLEGE OF THE REDWOODS ANNOUNCED A NEW STATE OF THE ART FACILITY TO BOLSTER LOCAL NURSING PROGRAMS.

PLANS WILL SEE A FORMER WAREHOUSE IN ARCADIA REBUILT INTO A CUTTING EDGE 50,000 SQUARE FOOT EDUCATIONAL SITE.

TO PERFORM THE WORK THE STATE HAS ALLOCATED $10 MILLION TO EXPAND THE NURSING PROGRAM AND WHAT IS THE HEALTH CARE HUB.

ACCORDING TO STATE SENATOR MIKE McGWIRE THE FACILITY WILL TRAIN A WIDE RANGE OF PROFESSIONALS, E.M.T.s AND PSYCHIATRIC TECHNICIANS.

STUDENTS WILL ULTIMATELY BENEFIT.

THE PROGRAM WILL BREAK DOWN SOON AND OPEN TO STUDENTS IN 24 TO 36 MONTHS.

THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO VOTE ON TUESDAY OR BEFORE IF YOU WANT TO BECAUSE YOU CAN IN THE GOLDEN STATE.

STAY TUNED.

STAY INFORMED.

LIVE CC BY ABERDEEN CAPTIONING 800-688-6621 WWW.ABERCAP.COM