Here is why
Voting No would keep in place a set of governmental regulations that costs the tax payers of California an average of 3 billion dollars a year in incarcerations and policing of Marijuana. And would continue to allow the government to be able to tell us what is good for us, and what we can / can't put in our bodies.
Voting No would keep in place a policy of ballot-box planning, which the government is forced to uphold by disallowing building permits based on 28 years of failed policies and restrictive zoning requirements.
Voting No will continue to cost billions every year but a yes vote would bring in over a billion dollars in Tax Revenue to the State... Also, don't believe the hype, there are provisions in 19 that allow for taxes to be levied by city and county governments as well.
Voting No will continue to hinder development in the FPARC area for any and all endeavors that wish to locate to that area. Right now there are 1800 privately owned acres that do not have any businesses on them, if Businesses move to that area the County would be able to collect revenue from said businesses. Moreover there is a section of FPARC that is specifically designed to have a wastewater plant built.... If that is constructed then residents of the town of Sutter can have access to sewer infrastructure, something that they want and most are willing to pay for. Also, a special election for a public vote on a prospective business in FPARC would cost the county over $200,000.
Voting No would continue to force the business of selling and growing marijuana in the shadows with no regulation at all. As well as being controlled by Mexican drug cartels that get 60% of their money from smuggling marijuana into the United States. It further hampers expansion of the Industrialized Hemp industry which has the capability to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil because 98% of all petroleum based products can be made from hemp and, with the exception of gasoline and diesel fuel, all of those products would be biodegradable. It would be a HUGE boom to the California Economy, but voting no would kill those prospective industries.
Voting No will continue to force private land owners to not be able to use their property. every other privately owned area of the Buttes is not hampered by the current restrictions. If someone wants to put a business on their land that could open up more industry in the area (that would be free market), they should not have to go before a public vote.
The problem with a lot of people that will be reading this is that they will be looking at these two issues on the ballot with emotions clouding their judgment, and they will never bother to get all of the facts. They won't be thinking about how a NO vote would be hypocritical for a Tea Party Member based on our 3 Core Principals of Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility, and Free Markets.
Of course everyone is free to vote however they want to, but the above statements are facts.