City Councilor Andreae Downs does an excellent job explaining the pros and cons of issues surrounding bringing recreational marijuana to Newton on her website. Recommended reading.
Recreational marijuana in Newton explained (really)
by Greg Reibman | Feb 21, 2018 | medical marijuana, recreational marijuana | 19 comments
I think Councilor Downs’s communication with her constituents is terrific, even though I disagree with her decision to go against the will of the voters, who certainly didn’t contemplate such a long delay (i.e. “moratorium “) when they voted for legalization back in November 2016.
bla bla bla… Let’s just skip to the important part. Downs has zero respect for the voters!
The voters did not ask Andrea Downs, Ruthanne Fuller, Lisle Baker, or the Newton City Council to implement the new cannabis law. Voters INSTRUCTED them to implement the law, and they did so with a specific timeline. So Downs can put forward all the well reasoned arguments she wants for why she thinks this law should be delayed, but she damn well better own the fact that she’s trampling on democracy to do it.
The campaign to legalize marijuana in Massachusetts was called the campaign to regulate marijuana like alcohol. That’s exactly what we should do.
I can live with it if the city council decides to take a few extra months to get to that result, but if they go down a different path I believe it will be violating the will of the voters.
I’m part of that 55 percent of Newton voters who voted to legalize recreational marijuana but I distinctly recall voting yes while knowing that the language in the ballot question was very problematic. Do I wish things could have moved faster? Yes and it would it be great if the city subcommittee had a crystal ball that would have allowed them to know exactly what the state rules would say too.
The language of the ballot initiative was approved by the Attorney General. The only thing “problematic,” was the way elected officials dealt with implementation…
There has been an unrelenting effort on the part of prohibitionist politicians to turn back this new law. Most of these local elected officials in Newton who are so quick to discard a ballot box vote, are also smart enough to understand that they’re playing right into the hands of Jeff Sessions. The longer they expose our newly won rights to tampering from Trump’s Attorney General, the more likely it is that those rights will never be realized.
Thank you for sharing Andrea’s explanation for voting on the moratorium. It’s always good to know our councilors’ reasoning. Is there a docketed item, as she suggests, for the council to vote on that exempts Garden Remedies?
As for the ballot question language, the MA legislature along with Baker passed a bill that’s changes what it said and adds additional measures. It seems pretty clear to me.
I can’t imagine the state regulations would prohibit legislating marijuana like liquor stores in Newton. The prohibitions, if any, and regulations placed on sales by Newton’s city council would be in addition to the state.
We’ve had no zoning problems with liquor stores. I really don’t understand the need for a moratorium to add the local sales tax.
Marti Bowen – The moratorium is not for the sales tax. That is going to be enacted before the state’s June rollout.
I totally agree with you. There are no specific city zoning rules for liquor stores and its not clear to me why there would need to be for this. The state handles the regulations specific to marijuana dispensaries. For the city this should be treated like any other commercial retail business – pizza shop, liquor store, nail salon, etc.
It appears to me that the council and the city are hell bent on trying to micromanage these businesses in ways that they don’t for other retail – limiting numbers, locations, special permit requirements, etc.
That’s exactly my point Jerry. We don’t need special zoning for this.
Jerry and Bryan are right on. No special zoning will be needed. If Newton felt the need to specially zone, it could have been done during the past 16 months as it’s been done elsewhere. All Newton need do is implement the state regs as released by the state on 3/15. There’ll be 3 1/2 months to do so before 7/1. It’s beyond me why Councilor Downs or anyone else thinks it can’t get done in that timeframe.
I really don’t get it. What are the mayor, councilors and those who agree with them afraid will happen if the sale of MJ is treated the same as liquor stores? Same zoning, same regulations. Why the need to put a “Newton’s unique” stamp on everything. It seems to me like mass hysteria.
Liquor over use and the destruction left in its wake were accentuated by prohibition. Alcohol overuse still reeks havoc in many, many lives; it kills people; it breaks up families. But still the sale of alcohol remains unencumbered by special zoning or the requirement of a special permit and n Newton. I’m sure there are many councilors who partake now and then.
But the sale of MJ is being treated as a pariah. There’s no need. It’s being sold all around us illegally. Ask Newton’s students where they could get MJ if they wanted it. Just like during alcohol prohibition, when no one stopped drinking, they just found other dangerous illegal ways to get it from buying it in speakeasies to making moonshine. The difference was just between rich and poor but anyone who wanted it found a way to get it.
The horror stories coming out of prohibition are similar to the horrors of young people, particularly our African American young people, who are being arrested and thrown in jail when possessing an ounce of MJ. They are treated the same as if they had meth or heroin just because MJ was classified the same as they are during the war on drugs when propaganda was published to create fear.
Fear leads to speculation which leads to over regulation.
Rant over.
I want to refresh your memory that the state has decided that regulation of marijuana is not the same as regulation of liquor – for better or worse that is a fact. For example, we can only have 36 liquor stores in Newton. There are various ways to regulate the number of marijuana shops 1. we can have a ballot question to limit below 20% of the liquor licenses, 2. we can limit the number of shops to 20% or 3. we can put no cap. Either option is different from the way liquor is regulated.
To my knowledge, there is no buffer zone of 500 feet from a school for liquor licenses. The state gave us that regulation. So people decided to regulate marijuana differently from liquor. That comes from the state. Now the city has to adjust. I forget who – but someone above implied that there are tons of cities ready to go on day 1. There aren’t. Every city and town is working on this. A few are ahead and ready most are not. I’ve already commented that I wish our city had moved on this under the last Mayor – we didn’t – so we move forward.
Finally, regarding the exemption of Garden Remedies – you are welcome to read my memo to the Council which was in the Friday packet last week. We didn’t vote on this because 5 members of the Council were out for February vacation. Zoning requires 16 votes no matter how many are in the room. Five missing members= 5 no votes. So we postponed the vote on the exemption until the next meeting. There are many reasons to exempt Garden Remedies not the least of which is that the State essentially created a protected class for existing medical dispensaries licensed before July 1,2017. Municipalities by law cannot prevent these existing facilities from selling recreational marijuana. So – I think we should get on with it and use our work with them to modify their existing special permit as a way to move along our ordinance for recreational marijuana. There are certainly financial benefits for the city to move ahead right away – some are not moved by this argument.
Here is a link to my memo
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/87794
I know that there are a few on the Council who are against the sale of recreational marijuana but by and large – we are not looking for prohibition.
Correction – I stand corrected – there is a 500 foot buffer in one part of the law for liquor licenses.
11. How far does an establishment selling alcoholic beverages have to be from a church or school?
No specified distance; however under Section 16C of M.G.L. Chapter 138, premises located within a radius of five hundred feet of a school or
church shall not be licensed to sell alcoholic beverages unless the LLA determines in writing and after a hearing that the premises are not
detrimental to the educational and spiritual activities of that church or school, unless the premises are those of an innholder or unless the parts of
the buildings are located ten or more floors above street level. The five hundred foot distance under this Section 16C is measured in a straight line
from the nearest point of the church or school to the nearest point of the premises to be licensed.
Thank you for the information (including the correction), Susan. However, I do not see how any of this supports a moratorium beyond the effective delays the Commonwealth has already built into the process. In fact, it portrays a pretty straightforward set of rules that merely awaits final clarification, and that has been awaited for well over a year.
If the final state guidelines represent a process that makes July 1 an unreasonable deadline, that should not be a problem unique to Newton or any one city.
I appreciate Councilor Albright voting against a moratorium in committee. I’ll address the specific points she raised…
There is nothing in the State regulations I have seen that would limit Newton’s ability to regulate cannabis like alcohol. Newton should not put, nor do we need, a cap on the number of cannabis licenses in the city. The requirement for a “community host agreement” already creates a regulatory hurdle that package stores don’t have, and it provides the city more control over cannabis stores than liquor stores.
The other point that Councilor Albright raised concerned the 500′ setback State regulations require from churches and schools. That setback can be modified or waived by the City. Currently, no licensed cannabis dispensary [medical or adult use] could open within that 500′ buffer, without the City’s approval anyway. So this should be dealt with on a case by case basis through the community host agreement process.
There are currently two proposed medical marijuana sites for Newton that I have recently heard of the former site of Green Tea and now the former site of the South Pacific restaurant. I am curious about how these facilities actually run. On the application submitted by New England Cannabis which is the co behind the South Pacific proposal it indicates that they are forecasting to have 1002 unique patients visiting an avg of 35 times a year the first year and then by yr 3 they would have 1921 unique patients visiting an avg of 41 times a year and they expect to have net income of $1.3M. These are all non-proft organizations.
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/11/22/new-england-cannabis-corp-sp-2-2017-10-12.pdf
Does this realistic? In reading prior posts about Garden Remedies it sounded like making a profit was difficult? It seems to me a recreational dispensary would be exponentially busier etc.
I would love to hear insight from others with more knowledge.
Newton Highlands Mom– You’re correct, Massachusetts medical marijuana dispensaries are operated by law as non-profit companies. It takes a lot of money to build out the infrastructure needed to cultivate, process and sell regulatory compliant medical marijuana and its associated products.
Like a hospital [for example], the people who manage and work at a medical marijuana company earn paychecks. Most of the jobs associated with a medical marijuana company are on the cultivation side. Payroll is a major expense…
Cultivation and processing takes a much larger building than what you see if you go to a dispensary like NETA in Brookline or SIRA Naturals in Needham. Those dispensary [point of purchase] buildings are only the tip of the iceberg…
Most medical marijuana companies grow their core product in environmentally controlled warehouse type buildings. Because municipal zoning regulations significantly limit their options, and commercial landlords tend to be pretty opportunistic, medical marijuana companies are forced to pay up to 4x what a warehouse property might otherwise rent for to another type of tennant. Rent is one of the largest expenses for most medical marijuana companies…
Like any business, most medical marijuana companies need investors. Since they are prohibited from using traditional lenders like banks, medical marijuana companies generally borrow money on the private equity market where they must pay a much higher interest rate. Annual interest rates of 15%, 20%, even 25% are common in the industry. Paying back investors is far and away the largest expense for most medical marijuana companies…
Also, most medical marijuana companies in Massachusetts have “community host agreements” that require [in many cases] large payments be made to their “host” city or town…
The enormous expenses associated with the medical cannabis industry are what’s driving many of these non-profit companies into the adult use market. The infrastructure on the supply side is nearly identical, and the adult use market will quickly dwarf the medical marijuana market in terms of pure dollars. It’s not a question of greed though. It’s really all about survival in a rapidly changing environment. Trying to pay back investors before they go broke, so they can eventually get their heads above water.
@bryan makes a great point that we voted to regulate marijuana. Also, please keep in mind that the concept of majority rules (vote) is a guide but cannot be the rule of law. Absent the courts and political process we would be no where today as a diverse society if we had followed the majority opinion.
Please see this article, which is an important consideration if your a parent, a pedestrian, a driver, or a cyclist to name a few.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2018/03/harm_in_the_high_way_pedestrian_fatalities_jump_in_states_with_legalized
We will be better off as a city to take our time and get this right.
@James Cote– Seriously Jim, democracy is a “guide” but not the “rule of law”? You’ve got to be joking! Voters passed the ballot initiative 16 months ago. City Councilors have had plenty of time already to contemplate this. Now it’s time to listen to the voters and do your damn job.
Jim, the article doesn’t indicate a connection between pedestrian death and marijuana. 30 more deaths in a few states, but not MA or ME, that could have been caused by using smartphones or other measures. Correlation is not causation.
The article posted says:
The pot states — Massachusetts, Alaska, Colorado, D.C., Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — had a total of 30 more pedestrian fatalities during the first half of 2017 than the first half of 2016. While included in the legalization states, Massachusetts’ pedestrian deaths decreased by one to 33, and Maine’s number was flat.
The report’s authors — who also cited smartphone use as a factor — cautioned that their findings don’t show a definitive link between pot and pedestrian deaths but said the increase “provides an early look at potential traffic safety implications of increased access to recreational marijuana for drivers and pedestrians.”