No. 1: Voters will be asked to approve this tax before a cultivation ordinance is finalized, so no one knows for certain who will be able to grow how much cannabis in what areas, as it is unclear what past criminal convictions will be disqualifiers, production limits are still unknown and so is which land parcels are included and which are not.

No. 2: Measure C's financial success depends on a lot of cannabis being grown indoors, so it encourages the completely indefensible use of large amounts of electricity to grow a crop indoors that is well suited to our natural outdoor climate. Cannabis can be a low-environmental impact crop, measure C gives it the carbon-footprint of Godzilla.

No. 3: Cannabis grown indoors virtually always needs pesticides to control mites and mold, but unlike any other crop there will be no pesticide use reports filed with the ag commissioner under measure C or the proposed cultivation ordinance, meaning consumers have to hope their grower didn't use any harmful substances on the crop.

No. 4: Measure C constitutes an unfair business practice as it holds commercial cannabis growers to many cultivation standards that are far higher than growers of other crops are expected to meet. This is in spite of the fact that nearly all cannabis grown on the scale proposed in the measure is done in bags, so the natural soil is never disturbed by plowing, fertilizer use or irrigation.

No. 5: The areas identified so far (but not yet decided on by the Board of Supervisors), where growing can occur are all in remote areas that have few roads, so access is either difficult or impossible. The lot sizes tend to be very large, oftentimes in the hundreds of acres, meaning only the very rich can afford many of the parcels. The 40-acre minimum proposed will cost a fortune and must include a full-time residence, and while the total area may look impressive on a map the reality is very few viable parcels will be available on the market.

No. 6: The fact that few parcels will fit all the criteria means the $8 million in annual tax revenue the supporters claim is extremely unlikely to materialize, a more realistic figure will be below $1 million annually. The city of Clearlake tried a permitting process and expected $75,000 annually, they got less than $7,000 and measure C is on the same path.

No. 7: Because only the seriously rich can afford the minimum land requirements, the backbone of the local cannabis industry – people who have for years used cannabis production to supplement their incomes just to get by – will be crowded out by those who have the money to do industrial-scaled farming in the newly designated grow areas.

No. 8: Between the costly and complicated state and proposed local regulations one thing is certain: Many will choose to not comply. After Measure N passed in 2014 plant seizures have steadily climbed, Measure C will also help push much of the industry back into the shadows, where it will continue to be a major drain on law enforcement. 

No. 9: Our county has consistently gone back and forth on cannabis regulations, first it took well over a decade after Proposition 215 passed to have any rules, then it went overboard on regulations, now it just wants to make money off the crop and not much else matters beyond that and keeping it out of sight of tourists. Measure C is poorly planned and written, and the legal challenges are already in the works should it pass.

No. 10. A reasonable measure could have been crafted if the growers had been involved in the initial development stages instead of being excluded as they have been with this measure and the cultivation ordinance. We could have had a balanced proposal that would have actually protected the environment, generated tax revenue while encouraging compliance, protect the people who have grown here for decades without causing problems, but instead we have this seriously flawed measure that puts the government's financial wants ahead of our needs.

Phil Murphy lives in Finley, Calif.