Contrary to the fears of the anti-marijuana crowd, teen use of pot does not increase with legalization. In fact, according to this memo drafted by City Councilor Susan Albright, the use of cannabis in high schools students decreased since legalization in both Colorado and Washington.
Albright wrote:
“Some percent of kids are accessing Cannabis now – illegally, of unknown origin, and unknown quality and safety. Based on statistics from two states that have legalized Cannabis, if Massachusetts follows the same pattern, use of Cannabis will not increase by high school kids. I will make other arguments on July 9th regarding the use of the 50 person petition to make policy in Newton.”
I look forward to tomorrow night’s discussion at the City Council meeting.
I would encourage anyone who reads this report to also read this research article from the Denver Post interviewing school resource officers who question the validity of this data:
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/22/police-across-colorado-questioning-youth-marijuana-use/
Sudden thought: why not just rename Village Fourteen as “Village Fourtwenty”?
@Michael: Given that there’s a critical marijuana vote tomorrow night, it’s not surprising that folks want to talk about it.
On the other hand, at this moment there are 12 threads on this site but only two about pot. Rather than driving up the comment counts here, why not just engage on the other threads?
@Michael I second that
I was actually just looking up statistics on this. I’ve been making the argument that this would happen for the longest time, so I’m excited to see it finally occurring.
This is a comprehensive and recent report on the subject: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SAM-Lessons-Learned-From-Marijuana-Legalization-Digital.pdf. Reviewed by researchers from University of Colorado at Denver, Harvard Medical School, Boston Children’s Hospital, University of Connecticut, Yale University, University of Kansas, and more. I wish the councilors could take a look.
Thank you Councilor Albright.
Will residents be allowed to voice opposition to this “do-over vote” attempt at tomorrow’s meeting?
There is no public comment period at a Full City Council meeting. It’s not too late to send an email to the full council at [email protected]
I took a leap and sent the email to city officials via Respect the Vote Newton. I have gotten 2 responses concurring that they were not for banning sales (one supporting the “compromise” limit, which I don’t). Regardless of the side of the issue, I was happy to get a couple of responses. Considering the size of the council (and none of my Ward councilors or the Mayor’s office have responded), I would have liked to have seen more.
I could have sent individualized emails to each, but how many people, honestly, would go to that effort? I thought I would try this method since I agreed with the no-ban stance and I think it has merit.
Which is to say to Councilors- you may get identical emails supporting or not supporting certain issues, but usually it means someone went through an effort to send out that signal even if they didn’t compose their own email text.
I sent the Respect the Vote email. I also sent my article that was in the most revent Tab on paper but for some reason was not put on-line so I cannot link it to all the councilors and Mayor Fuller.
I received replies from four councilors and from the mayor’s executive assistant. Two councilors mentioned that the emails were exactly the same – in other words a blast email.
Two councilors are planning to vote yes on the question docketed by two councilors but vote no on the ban. One Councilor is planning to vote no on both. The mayor’s assistant just repeated word for word the mayor’s statement.
One Councilor is planning on voting yes to put the ban On the ballot. The reasoning made no sense to me. It is:
“I’ve read and listened to more residents than on any other topic, who say they were unclear about the consequences of the 2016 ballot question, that they were confused about the difference between decriminalization, legalization and commercialization, that they didn’t know it would mean 8 recreational marijuana establishments in Newton, that they weren’t aware of the negative impacts on brain development. So despite one’s personal opinion about marijuana, I believe the voters have the right to updated and accurate information in order to vote on this.
Unlike some of my colleagues who have said that people must have been “braindead” not to understand the 2016 ballot question, I give more respect to the voters than that. Ballot questions are often confusing, and indeed worded in ways that specifically lead to confusion sometimes. Many voters do not do the thorough research needed to fully understand a question they are voting on, such as how would the 20% of package stores translate for Newton into a number of retail sales stores.
So I’d like to give them a chance to have clear information, and vote on it. Whatever the outcome, I and the entire Council will make that work in Newton.”
I responded to all of them. My response to this Councilor was:
“I am disappointed that after only one public hearing unknown to many residents and packed with mostly those who are anti-marijuana, the full council will be voting on a question banning retail marijuana stores in Newton in July. The city council held 7 public hearings on Austin Place. A large number of hearings should be held on this controversial issue. Particularly since no 60 person initiative petition has ever been used to place a question on the Newton ballot.
The law says that municipal laws control the process and give two options for putting a question on the ballot to restrict the number of marijuana stores.
1. A city council can write a zoning by-law or ordinance, have it approved by the mayor, to put a restriction on the number of retail stores on the ballot in a city that voted yes to legalize marijuana and soon in any city.
2. An initiative or group petition with signatures that equal 10% of the voters registered in the last Newton election (6000) that is registered with the council clerk, who then has the signatures verified can be put on Newton’s ballot.
Voting to legalize adult-use marijuana, which most of Opt-Newton did not based on the anti-marijuana site they draw their arguments from, requires access for adults to marijuana. How many voters in Newton do you think could be confused by that? As for the number of marijuana retail stores in Newton – 10% of the number of liquor stores (8) is the number that COULD be allowed if that number applied. At this point only one, Garden Remedies, has applied.
The arguments about new studies concerning brain development pertain to children who are not allowed to have marijuana just like alcohol. Alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana.
If you would like to give confused voters a chance to gain more information, hold more public hearings with a more balanced attendance now that more residents have had a chance to find out about what is going on.
Voting for the question requesting a ban, particularly in July, isn’t giving the voters any more information.“
Marti and Doug: why not share the names of the councilors who took the time to respond?
Emily Norton simply responded that she agrees
Josh Krintzman was the first to respond- and is in favor of examining the lower limit question.
Allison Leary, Josh Krintzman, Andrea Kelley and Emily Norton were all kind enough to write to me.
I do think the question restricting the number of stores in Newton docketed by Councilors Albright and Krintzman could fit the restriction of a city council writing an ordinance or zoning by-law, gaining approval by the mayor and then being required to put a question on the ballot before it can become law.
I did the blast e-mail via Respect the Vote as well, and received the same responses that Doug did from Councilors Krintzman and Norton, as well as one from Noah Rivkin in the Mayor’s office. I definitely appreciate that they took the time (even a copy-paste or an “I agree” takes time!), with what I’m sure was a fairly substantial amount of identical-text messages.
I wanted to echo Doug’s point that just because those messages are all identical and are sent via a blast, it should still be considered as part of a signal. Doing that very much isn’t my style, and for past issues where advocates have come to my door, I’ve politely refused the group e-mail and sent a few more targeted messages. The process issues on this one, particularly the full ban, touch a particular nerve, and it’s turned something that was a ‘background’ issue for me into a discussion that I’m paying very close attention to.
I asked the councilors to look into https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SAM-Lessons-Learned-From-Marijuana-Legalization-Digital.pdf. One replied: “I skimmed this and it’s quite compelling.” At least one is willing to consider the facts. Encouraging.
This whole string started with flawed data. The only question this evening is do we allow the residents to vote on Recreational Marijuana sales or not. This option is available because of the ballot question that legalized marijuana.
Recreational sales in Newton will not improve our city, nor reduce youth involvement in drugs.
Councilor Cote wrote:
To the contrary, I think our city would benefit from the revenue generated from the 3 percent sales tax on a product that consumers would otherwise purchase in another community
Councilor Cote wrote:
To the contrary, I believe that the city would benefit from the revenue generated from the 3 percent sales tax on a product that Newton residents would just purchase in another community
and
If the question is that simple, then so is the answer: We already voted in support of recreation marijuana.
I do hope that regular V-14 visitors will realize that many of the anti-cannabis posts are being generated by an out of town PAC called SAM. SAM, which stands for Smart Approaches to Marijuana is based out of Alexandria, Virginia. They offer propaganda and talking points to anti-legalization groups across the country…
You may remember SAM for a very misleading television commercial in the run up to the 2016 legalization vote. It featured a fictitious cannabis store with lots of bakery products in their window. A mother is seen forcing a daughter to avert her eyes, as she also discovers her [too] young son emerging from the store with cupcake in hand. It was a work that would have made Joseph Goebbels proud.
From Commenting Rules: “Avoid mentioning Nazis… unless that’s the topic being discussed”.
I request the previous comment to be removed for the Rules violation.
Councilor Cote, at this late time, with the Discussion being tonight, I will just say this to you.
You are wrong on every thing you mentioned above.
No matter which side of adult recreational marijuana use debate one is on, it is increasingly clear to me that there is no simple right answer to the health and safety side of this issue. Both sides have “evidence” to support their view. For some, “Monitoring Impacts of Recreational Marijuana Legalization” (2016 Update) by the Washington State Office of Financial Management is definitive, yet then the Denver Post article
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/22/police-across-colorado-questioning-youth-marijuana-use/
is compelling to others. Some find the SAM report, with it’s university-based authors, credible while Mike Striar claims it is propaganda. Both sides cite research and evidence to support their views.
If we think youth marijuana use will go down in Newton after commercialization increases supply and access, we should ask these questions:
1. Have we established a baseline for youth marijuana use in Newton now?
2. Do we have a mechanism to track whether or not youth use increases in Newton after commercialization?
3. Do we have the right to revoke commercialization if we find that youth use in Newton and/or addiction goes up after commercialization?
4. Are we just going to rely on inconclusive studies from another state with different circumstances and regulatory environments?
For me, I believe the real issue here is to let the voters weigh in. Hundreds of them have told us they were NOT clear in 2018 that their Yes vote would mean 8 or more stores in Newton, the decriminalization was not the same as legalization or commercialization. Unlike some of my colleagues, I don’t demean or marginalize that they did not have all the answers back then. So they should be able to vote on it now, as the state clearly gave local municipalities that option.
@Councilor Kelley,
Here’s my problem with the argument that voters were not clear that legalization would translate into actual retail outlets:
1. It’s difficult to have sympathy with people who didn’t understand the law well enough to comprehend that decriminalization and legalization mean different things. Elections are how we measure the will of the voters. We don’t give away do-overs because people didn’t educate themselves.
2. If, in fact, people would have voted differently had they known that a Question 4 victory meant retail establishments in Newton, how is that not a prime example of NIMBYism? Isn’t that saying that it’s ok to sell marijuana, just don’t sell it anywhere near where I live?
If the law allows for communities to vote on banning retail establishments, then the council should stick to the same guidelines it has applied to previous voter-driven ballot questions: Require the sponsors to gather the necessary number of signatures.
I may have this wrong but wasn’t marijuana already decriminalized before the referendum?
“We already voted” argument is an outright lie debunked numerous times. We voted on a distinctively different question. What a nerve and disrespect to the opponents one needs to repeat this lie over and over again.
One thing about youth usage: any retail establishment, by law, would not be able to sell or market to underage people. Same as alcohol. I have a hard time giving any weight to the “regulated shops licensed to sell to people over 21 will contribute to underage use” arguments.
Does a packy sell to people under 21? If they are caught doing so, are they not fined/lose their license? It makes no sense to me to make that argument, and wil never convince me to back something that goes counter to the legalization vote. Let the market decide how many shops pop up here (and that number, in the short term, may well end up being 4 or fewer with or without a legal limit, but who knows)
With her permission, I’m publishing Councilor Kelly’s response:
Dear Mr. Kleyman, I also received a link to the SAM report (as did the full City Council) from Police Chief MacDonald. Not knowing about this group beforehand, I was not inclined to dismiss it as propaganda as I see Mike Striar did on Village 14. As someone who is involved in the addiction recovery community, helping give families education and support that have a loved one struggling with a substance use issue, I was impressed by the list of reviewers and researchers that contributed to it from many respected universities. The range of consequence areas that SAM looked at was also very thorough, very much based on health and safety for both individuals and society as a whole.
Thank you for taking the time to send this to us. I appreciate the input from Police Chief MacDonald, as well as from Fire Chief Proia, and Newton’s Commissioner of Health and Human Services, Deborah Youngblood. I sometimes hear a lack of respect for our city staff, but to me these are professionals on the frontlines dealing with issues of substance use, mental health and addiction and how those affect our community so their strong opposition to recreational marijuana establishments in Newton is meaningful. It’s at the heart of why some people want to OptOut. Getting that question on the ballot would be a first step, which I support.
Thank you Councilor Kelley !
I totally agree with you, we should not let recreational marijuana store opens in Newton until the following questions are clearly answered:
1. Have we established a baseline for youth marijuana use in Newton now?
2. Do we have a mechanism to track whether or not youth use increases in Newton after commercialization?
3. Do we have the right to revoke commercialization if we find that youth use in Newton and/or addiction goes up after commercialization?
4. Are we just going to rely on inconclusive studies from another state with different circumstances and regulatory environments?
Leave Striar’s Goebbel’s comment up. By Godwin’s Law, it proves he’s lost the debate.
I’ve often wondered how millions of Americans were once so ignorant of facts, so dismissive of consequence, so caught up in mass hysteria, so completely detached from reality that the US imposed a 13 year prohibition on alcohol. Having read all of the anti-cannabis nonsense posted on this thread [and others], I don’t have to wonder about that anymore. It’s all about fear and ignorance.
@Councilor Kelley,
You may already be aware of Massachusetts surveys conducted for adult recreational and medicinal marijuana use by age group starting at 18 (just in case, the link is below). The baseline shows how ages 18-20 (under 21) are procuring and consuming cannabis illegally today. It establishes a baseline for marijuana adult medical and recreational use for the State now, prior to retail stores opening. The State will trend this study over time.
Surveying minors (who cannot give consent) and getting an unbiased sample is complicated, therefore expensive. If Newton City Council wanted to fund such a research study to establish a 2018 baseline, we have time – the moratorium is in place through end of year. Even if Garden Remedies gets an early recreational license before year-end 2018 I wouldn’t expect that one store to pollute the initial underage sample.
To address your Q#3, if Newton underage use increases, would we also track down supplier sources. I think we’d all agree to shutter any MJ store that sells directly to underage buyers! But do we punish stores when kids buy out-of-state illegal weed from illicit dealers? I’d think if we see underage usage increase, the answer is to review and strengthen youth education (which is one of the intended purposes of MJ taxes).
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/06/29/DPH%20Legislative%20Report%20-%20Marijuana%20Baseline%20Health%20Study.pdf
Councilor Kelley, your points have to do with teen use of marijuana which really have nothing to do with the legalization of adult-use marijuana or that the legalization means adults would need access to retail stores. Liquor stores are abundant in Newton without any studies being done about teen acholol use mainly because the stores are for adult-use only – the same, if not more stringent, laws will govern stores for adult-use marijuana. Liquor is far more dangerous than marijuana.
After your health points, you point out that to you the real issue is to let the voters weigh in mainly because 100’s have told you they didn’t understand what they voted for. Thousands of Newton voters have already weighed in on legalization of marijuana.
First, decrimilazation happened in MA years ago. This vote was for legalization of adult-use marijuana and was spelled out as such. That Newton voters did not realize that access to retail stores would be needed for adults to purchase it, is very hard to believe.
Newton is not required to have 8 or more stores. At this point only one store, Garden Remedies, has applied for an adult-use retail store. There is no indication that numerous retail stores will apply to open in Newton. I would be more concerned that 10% of liquor stores is 8. That’s a lot of places you should be more worried about, if you are concerned about teen use.
Have you checked to see if any of those people actually voted to legalize marijuana in 2016? Are you just taking their word for it? Have you checked out where their information comes from? Are you making a decision based on heresay? What makes you so sure they aren’t just anti-marijuana and voted against legalization?
If you’re concerned about the number of retail stores, pay attention to the question docketed by your fellow councilors restricting the number of stores.
To sum up the data sources:
– Susan Albright’s sources are directly from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (including data from Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs), and from the CDC (the Colorado data).
– The “anti-pot” source is SAM, an organization that makes no attempt to hide its bias, and – I presume – would not be so quick to publish data that did not support its mission.
The sorts of things I always think about and look for when people cite data sources.
It is in other comment threads as well, but here is the summary information that voters were provided with:
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2016.pdf
With regard to legalization vs. decriminalization, voters voted for a law that now allows for “possession, use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana in limited amounts by persons age 21 and older and would remove criminal penalties for such activities.”
That authorized 21+ to …
* possess up to one ounce of marijuana outside of their residences;
* possess up to ten ounces of marijuana inside their residences;
* grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences;
* give one ounce or less of marijuana to a person at least 21 years old without payment;
* possess, produce or transfer hemp; or make or transfer items related to marijuana use, storage, cultivation, or processing
It allows for cities to limit/ban retail establishments, but that doesn’t negate new legalizations voters authorized above.
Again, I’m not taking a yes/no stand, but trying to get clear facts out there.
With regard to this evening, ideally the council should leave the city with one up or down question in November. Voters will I’m sure understand its implications once ballot campaigns are done. On the other hand, if two questions show up on the ballot and voters are faced with a prisoner’s dilemma of a choice of voting the lesser of two evils, that will not be good. The problem is that the petitions can go and get the signatures and get on the ballot without them.
@Jack Prior if the Council decides to narrow the ballot question to one choice, a compromise measure is clearly the correct one to put on the ballot. Compromise represents the sort of middle ground, measured resolution that should come out of the Programs & Services Committee — rather than an extreme measure such as an all-out ban. Just saying.
@Jack, you write “The problem is that the petitions can go and get the signatures and get on the ballot without them.” But can petitioners do this without the approval of the mayor and the City Council? MGL Ch. 94G says YES cities and towns have to use the voter approval process in Sec. 3(e) if they want to limit, and the end of that subsection says “A ballot question under this subsection may be placed on the ballot at a regular or special election held by the city or town by a vote of the board of selectmen or by the city or town council, with the approval of the mayor or chief executive officer of a city that does not have a mayor, and subject to a municipal charter, if applicable.”
Doesn’t that mean you need city council approval + mayoral approval + voter approval in order to limit?
I agree with you, if a majority of the city council wants to approve a limiting ballot question, I hope they approve only one.
@Kathryn
There are 3 ways I can see things going to the ballot and they get confused.
1. Under MGL Ch 94G the city council and mayor can put a limitation or ban on the ballot.
2. Citizens can use the petition process under the charter but looks like they need 15% (10% + 5%) of register voters at last election to do this over the objections of council
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/45807
3. Citizens can use the process outlined in the law to petition opt into social clubs (consumption on premises). Signature requirements are a percentage of voters that actually voted.
A petition under #2 above is triggering deliberation that could lead council to advance something to the ballot under #1.
Kathryn and Jack, what you both ignore is written plainly – “subject to a municipal charter.” Newton’s charter states that an initiative or group petition with 10% of voters registered in the last election, 6000, registered with the clerk of the council who then verifies the signatures is the way to put a question on the Newton ballot.
The CCC regulations says that the city council of a city that voted to legalize adult-use marijuana, and soon any city, must write an ordinance or zoning bylaw, gain approval from the mayor and then must put a question on the ballot to determine if the voters approve the law.
Those are the two ways to get a question on the ballot in Newton to restrict the number of adult-use marijuana retail stores to lower than the number that equals 10% of the liquor stores.
No 60 person petition has ever been the way to put a question on Newton’s ballot.
@Marti — I’m not disagreeing with you. The petition forces the discussion tonight on a difficult vote some probably would rather not have to take. The discussion could led to the council putting something on the ballot themselves. They could put the petition’s content on the ballot or a dispensary restriction.
The 201 6 vote was relatively close, and its not implausible that a majority (the 2016 NO voters plus say 20+% of 2016 YES voters) of at least some of councilors constituents want something on the ballot and will see no action as not representing their interests.
@Marti, I am not disagreeing with you either. I was pointing out that even with a petition of 10% of voters to force a ballot question under the charter, you may still need city council and mayoral approval under the procedure set forth in MGL Ch.94G sec. 3(e) before submitting a limiting or prohibiting ordinance to voters.
Andrea Kelley, I have to call BS on your reasoning. Just because a couple hundred people send emails claiming they didn’t know what they were voting for is a lame excuse for not requiring the opponents of recreational marijuana to collect the requisite number of signatures to put the question on the ballot.
Citizenship 101: if you don’t understand the ballot question, vote no or do not vote at all. But don’t whine about the outcome.
“Hundreds” of voters who misunderstood the ballot question would not have altered the outcome. Six thousand would have. Overturning a democratic election requires more than just an email campaign.
This ballot question smacks of NIMBYism. What people are claiming is that they are in favor of recreational marijuana, just not in their own backyard.
Any City Councilor who votes the put recreational marijuana on the ballot without requiring the petitioners to collect the requisite number of signatures loses my respect, my endorsement, and most importantly, my vote.
#NIMBY #RespectTheVoteNewton #TowersOfJello
Tonight’s vote:
75% of Ward-elected councilors 75% voted against NIMBY opt-out
Only 50% of At-large councilors voted against NIMBY opt-out
#WhoAreTheNimbysNow? #NewtonDemocracy
@Ted -Yes on 4″ spent over 10% of their ballot summary to inform voters who researched the ballot question in 2016 that “Local cities and towns can limit or ban marijuana” https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2016.pdf
Make the case on philosophically grounds that convenient legal supply is important, but the “respect the vote” argument ignores this inconvenient hyperlink.
look forward to tomorrow night’s discussion at the City Council meeting… do u have a follow up to this article?