After an impassioned discussion and several good arguments, the City Council voted 13-8 against putting a question on the ballot to ban recreational marijuana stores.
Councilors voting against the ban were: Leary, Greenberg, Albright, Norton, Brousal-Glaser, Krintzman, Markiewicz, Downs, Crossley, Danberg, Noel, Grossman, and Kalis.
Yes votes were: Ciccone, Auchincloss, Cote, Kelley, Gentile, Rice, Schwartz, and Baker
Absent: Laredo
Recused: Lappin and Lipof
In a subsequent vote, councilors approved 19 -2 a ballot question about reducing the number of establishments to 2-4. No votes were from Councilors Gentile and Leary.
Thank God! While I’m not a big fan of the 2-4 proposal, it is probably thanks to it that the ban proposal failed. I wonder if this will take the thunder out of the whole opt-out movement, with people not wanting to risk a compromise they can live with.
This is what democracy looks like! Fascinating discussion and standing room only with passionate supporters on both sides. Props to everyone who sacrificed a beautiful July night to sit in an airless chamber on benches only a chiropractor with kids in college could like.
I especially appreciated Councilors Krintzman’s and Kelley’s prepared comments; even though they were on opposite sides of the debate and vote. It’s great to see our freshmen councilors rise to the occasion.
On the other hand, Councilor Baker introduced a couple amendments that were confusing and seemed intended primarily to muck things up. I’m glad his colleagues weren’t buying what he was smoking, I mean, selling.
Newtoner – I don’t doubt that the opt-out crowd will be able to gather the signatures required to bring this on the ballot this fall despite tonight’s vote. While the yes vote passed by a big margin, there are still plenty of people who didn’t want it to be legal in the first place. I don’t doubt for a minute that we will see people with clip boards out there tomorrow and in the months to come. While I am happy to leave the vote as originally worded, I am glad that the 2-4 option will be on the ballot as well. Like that voters will have more choices than just opting all in or all out.
Did the compromise proposal effectively derail the proposal for an outright ban, or would the ban have been voted down anyway? I think the ban would have been voted down anyway. I wish the compromise proposal had been taken off the table as soon as the ban was defeated. This issue was decided by the voters in 2016, and the City Council should have left it alone.
@Mike Striar: I don’t think the opt-out vote would have been rejected without an alternative on the table.
I’m sure it’s been discussed in one of the other post, but very relevant: What happens if the opt-out question is forced into the ballot by signatures? Are there going to be two questions on the ballot? I know some councilors asked that, but I don’t recall if there was a clear answer.
@Newtoner: The answer is likely YES. If the petitioners get the 6,000 signatures, the issue will be brought back to the Council. The Council can then accept or reject the proposal. If they again, reject the ballot question, then the petitioners can get an additional 3,000 or so signatures and force the question on the ballot. The compromise question will remain on the ballot.
@Amy Sangiolo: And what happens if both questions pass? It doesn’t make sense. 2-4 and zero cannot happen at the same time.
Sorry I’m not Amy, but I can answer that.
There is the concept of “Superseding Initiative” in the MA state constitution. If two ballot questions pass, they both take effect. At any points where there is a conflict between the ballot questions, the version with the most votes “supersedes” the other.
The City has its own charter and it doesn’t have to follow the state’s way of doing things. But a template to resolve competing ballot questions already exists and is clearly spelled out. (Credit to Councilor Baker for an audacious but unsuccessful attempt early in the evening to ditch the concept of superseding initiative in favor of a ban.)
Curious… does anyone think the prohibitionists can raise enough signatures to get their ban on the ballot? Having managed a successful city-wide signature drive before, I do not believe they can. But I’m still a bit unclear as to how much time they’d actually have to do it. Our two-faced Attorney General, who once said cannabis moratoriums of more than one year were “unconstitutional,” recently reversed herself and extended the length of time municipalities can keep a moratorium in place without a vote of the people. Can the people of Newton be assured that this ends in November?
@Mike Striar: I recommend you take a second look at the reporting about AG Maura Healey’s ruling. It was a very narrow set of circumstances that, contrary to early news reports, appears to only be applicable to Mansfield and likely nowhere else.
Also, I know you have been extremely critical of the entire city council for its role in the marijuana process but if you did not watch the council meeting last night I suggest you do so once it’s available on NewTV.org. The discussion was very broad. While there will certainly be councilors that continue to infuriate you, others posed arguments that aligned with your advocacy.
The discussion was live on NewTV and as Greg already mentioned, it was fascinating.
@Greg– I did watch every minute of the council meeting last night. I was very impressed with Josh Krintzman. He’s an articulate spokesperson for cannabis rights. So it’s ironic that he would be the [co] author of a ballot initiative to trim back those rights. I can understand it from a strategic perspective. Josh and Susan Albright felt like a compromise plan was needed to stem momentum for an outright ban. I never agreed with that strategy. And now we have a ballot initiative that the public did not ask for.
I’m not impressed that 13 members of the City Council did what they should have done 6 months ago, respect the vote. Keep in mind, the City Council implemented the 12 month moratorium without dissent, after some members falsely suggested they needed more time to contemplate zoning issues.
Regarding the Maura Healey thing… she’s a prohibitionist responsible for much of the confusion surrounding the cannabis law. That law is apparently still in flux, and still susceptible to the kind of nonsense we just saw in Newton. I am concerned that Healey will tweak the rules again to favor her side of the argument.
Mike, I agree with you re: prohibitionists raising enough signatures. I don’t think they can do it.
@Mike, your question about timeline was raised in Council and OON has no time limit to collect signatures for a proposed ban. If/when it achieves 6,000+ signatures, it’s back to the Council for consideration.
As @Greg Reibman said, the city’s lawyers advised that an extension of the moratorium into 2019 is only supposed to be for exceptional circumstances (e.g. some small towns only hold a full town meeting once a year) — legal department believes Newton is not in a position to claim exceptional circumstances.
Thanks, Dulles. When you say “no time limit” to collect petition signatures, I want to understand exactly what you mean. Because if there truly were no time limit to impose a ban by initiative petition, it’s unlikely any cannabis business would invest the money required to open in Newton. Do you mean no time limit for getting a ban on the November ballot? Or no time limit in perpetuity?
I believe someone said last night that a ballot question for November 2018 needs to be resolved by sometime in September.
Thank you, Gail.
Ah I see @Mike. My understanding is that Ballot initiatives don’t ever have time constraints. But there are practical constraints, both generically and for this initiative in particular (disclaimer, I am not a lawyer).
Generally: If it takes 5 years to gather 6,000 signatures, 20% of those people who signed may have moved residence once it’s time to certify. I’d think “person no longer at this address” renders a signature invalid.
In particular: Once there are licensed recreational retail outlets it greatly complicates a ban effort. As @Gail notes, practically speaking Opt Out needs to get signatures for September to make the November ballot, before the moratorium expires.
Does anyone know how the Opt Out signature collecting is going? The Opt Out folks seem to be getting noisier and it’s making me nervous.
Don’t get too nervous about it. If they actually raise the certified signatures their initiative will lose at the ballot box anyway. The job of running a city wide campaign of any sort is even more challenging than raising signatures through the initiative petition process. And the pro side has money to spend. I’m more concerned about this silly “compromise” initiative that would cost the city million$ in lost revenue every year for the foreseeable future. That proposal should have been pulled off the table the minute the total ban bit the dust.
If they’re all as annoying as the guy who cornered me in front of Whole Foods the other day, they’ll alienate more people than they enlist. Guy wouldn’t take no for an answer and yelled after me as I walked away to get in the last word.
@Mike Striar, when is the “Pro-side” going to disclose who is providing all this money of which you speak? When are they going to comply with the campaign finance laws and file paperwork with the city and the state? Until that happens, I think we are all assuming the money must be coming from companies who stand to gain from defeating Opt Out, including Garden Remedies, and Cypress Tree. Who else?
@Jennifer, Add Four Daughters Compassionate Care to your list.
Referendum is a valuable tool of any mature democracy. Unless it targets unfavorably a minority, or is of no interest to the entire electorate, or doesn’t comply with the law, there should be no valid reason to reject it. The Opt Out opponents first tried to disprove the referendum based on legal grounds (we already voted) and then on moral (NIMBYism). After these arguments subsided under their own absurdity, they moved their focus to the financial one: we are told the city would lose millions if the pot shops were banned. To the financial advisers: 1) Please get an estimate of additional costs for law enforcement and emergency services attributed to marijuana commerce (consult Police Chief MacDonald and Fire Chief Proia); 2) Disclose your financial interest (or lack thereof, like Opt Out supporters did). Such a disclosure usually cools down the rhetoric and makes the discussion more rational.
To my knowledge no one has formed a ballot committee to oppose a referendum. Typically fund raising begins once signatures are certified and a referendum is a certainty.
I have no idea where Mike S is receiving his information. No one has approached me to donate to a ballot committee opposing a ban. I suspect Mike is making an assumption about the ability to raise funds rather than a statement of fact.
I would disagree with the statement that there’s “no valid reason” to reject the ban. Every voter in every election has valid reasons for his/her vote. You may disagree with the voter’s reasoning, but that doesn’t make it invalid.
@Jennifer– Please be specific. Are you accusing any individual or organization with violating campaign finance laws? Please provide details. The suggestion that campaign finance laws have been broken just sounds like more prohibitionist nonsense to me.
@Jane Frantz, I didn’t say “no valid reason to reject the ban”. I said “no valid reason to reject the referendum”. If I failed to express myself clearly enough, sorry for the confusion.
Thanks, Anatoly., for clearing up the confusion. I thought the referendum was to ban the dispensaries so I equated rejecting the ban and the referendum from your comment. My misunderstanding.
@Mike S. re: “The job of running a city wide campaign of any sort is even more challenging than raising signatures through the initiative petition process.”
Will this really require a citywide campaign by opt-out once question is on ballot? This is not a question of voters needing to weigh the merits and complexities of a tax override or a change in city council composition. It is a pretty straightforward question — recreational dispensaries or no dispensaries — and the average voter will likely have a default opinion in the ballot box.
46% voted against the question in 2016. Opt-out only needs 1 in 10 of residents that voted for broad decriminalization of home cultivation and larger possession of transfer quantities to not see retail recreational dispensaries as desirable. On the other hand, an anti-opt-out campaign could (and probably needs to) make inroads with the 46% with education and awareness on tax benefits and the “the sky is not falling” experiences of Seattle and Boulder.
Turnout relative to the 2016 Presidential election could be a factor given that the governor’s race is not see as close, and in that case each side will need to turnout those favorable to their cause, but if that is done with signs and mass mailings, then those on both sides will have their awareness and turnout raised.
@Jack– Newton voters are smart. They stepped over the politicians to legalize medical marijuana. They did it again to legalize recreational marijuana. Neither vote was particularly close. The anti cannabis crowd has predicted the end of the world twice now. In 2012 with medical. In 2016 with rec. But when I got up this morning the sun was still shining. So, what thus far has been the negative impact from cannabis legalization that you think might provide sufficient cause for voters to reverse themselves and turn back this tide of history?
Go ahead and raise those signatures Jack. Put the ridiculous revote on the ballot if you can. When voters realize it’s going to cost the city more than $6M a year to NOT have cannabis shops–When they realize opting out would cost the city hundreds of jobs and leave up to 5oK sf of empty retail space–When they understand that cannabis shops from other towns will be able to home deliver in Newton anyway [without the city receiving a penny], then I’m very confident the voters will reaffirm their support to “regulate cannabis like alcohol.” The only question at that point… Will the prohibitionists ask for a RE-revote?? Ya know, they’re not very good losers.
It’s pretty obvious that the opponents of Opt Out have been raising and spending money — dozens of facebook ads to everyone I know in Newton, paid signature gatherers and meeting attendees (I heard some complaining about their long their ride home after the City Council meeting), etc. Mike Striar has stated on this and other threads that they have thousands to fight an Opt Out ballot question. They only question is who is financing all of this and what they stand to gain if Opt Out is defeated. I think we all know the answer to that question. #followthemoney
@Jennifer, Sharon’s story here http://sharon.wickedlocal.com/news/20180511/marijuana-ban-fails-at-sharon-town-meeting helps understand who the actors are.
Jennifer and Anatoly– I am happy to address any specific accusation having to do with campaign finance laws. If you believe there’s been some sort of violation, all you have to do is state it with specificity so I can give you a detailed response. You’re not going to find much success by attacking me through innuendo.
For the record, I do not have a single dollar invested in the cannabis industry. I’ve previously written in great detail about my personal passion for reforming marijuana laws, and the motivation behind it. It’s not about money for me. It’s about personal freedom and social justice.
@Mike. No one is asking about your financial investment in the cannabis industry. You and others have every right to advocate for reforming marijuana laws. We are only asking who is financing the groups opposing Opt Out, including “Respect the Vote,” and what investment they have in the cannabis industry. And why this group has not filed any disclosure paperwork with the City of Newton and the OCFP. Supporters of your group have a right to know if they are being asked to devote their time to an organization that has something to gain financially from the outcome of their efforts. If the financial backers have no financial interest in the outcome, then by all means, let everyone know.
Jennifer – You’re not just implying that people are acting illegally; you’re making an accusation. At this point, there is no ballot committee to oppose a proposed referendum to ban marijuana dispensaries.
I read about the city council meeting right here on V14. I then expressed my reasons for opposing the ban right here, contacted a number of councilors to request that they reject the ban, and contacted friends to ask them to attend the meeting and to ask others to do so as well, and to write to their councilors. It’s what I do about a lot of issues and on behalf of a lot of candidates – and I do it for free! Others took the same steps. It’s how the process works. Once 6000 signatures are certified, then the same crowd will probably end up in the chambers again. I’ve had no further contact with anyone about the matter. If the issue becomes a referendum
In addition, I’ve had nothing negative to say about the character of the people involved in OON. When I saw anonymous donations on the GoFundMe page. I expressed concern because anonymous donations are not in compliance with campaign finance law and cannot be accepted as such. One of the leaders of OON assured me that they had taken care of the situation. Her word was fine for me. End of that story. From my side of things, the interactions was civil and respectful.
As an FYI, a group of people feel as passionately about opposing the ban as those in favor and we know who we are, so there’s a natural group who will address the issue of marijuana when it comes up in any form as a council issue. These people often have been in this battle for years, trying to get medical marijuana legalized or getting cannabis legalized. We’re people who’ve had family members who’ve suffered greatly because medical marijuana was not legal at the time or had a young family member buy weed off the street from a scummy drug dealer who had all kinds of other stuff to sell.
In an era when anyone can make any accusation about anyone with no facts to back it up, I urge everyone to maintain a level of civility as this issue moves forward.
@Jane, kudos to you and your associates for advocating for issues that you care about. That’s democracy in action, and I’m not questioning the integrity of you or anyone who does that. But that doesn’t answer who is behind the spending for Respect the Vote or related entities and whether or not they have any financial interest in the outcome. There have been repeated requests for this information on this and other blogs and there is never an answer. There are no filings with the city to determine that information either.
I saw a help wanted ad for OON at Lee’s Burgers. It said they would pay $2 a signature and suggested that employees could make up to $30 an hour. Who is paying them?
@Jennifer, I share your interests/concerns about having more transparency on who is behind RtV.
You are making a big leap in logic by stating RtV *paid* people to attend. Is your only basis a remark one person made about having a long ride home? Maybe it was a Garden Remedies worker, or some other enthusiastic out of town advocate?
Both sides have brought people to City Hall who are not eligible to vote in Newton. I’m not a big fan of that, but since these are public meetings there is no way to restrict attendance to local voters.
As for your claim that RtV has paid signature gatherers, this is the first I’ve heard of it. Could you lay out what you know on this topic?
MMQC were you able to get a picture of that help wanted ad?
Again, there is nothing wrong with raising money or spending money or volunteering on issues you care about. I’m only asking for transparency on whether or not the funders to RtV or related entities have a financial interest in the outcome. Whenever this is asked, there is a lot of obsfucation but no answer. I think OON has been quite clear that they don’t accept money from people who have a financial interest in the issue. Their donations on Gofundme all look to be relatively modest any way. I’m not sure how they are spending the money, but I don’t really care. I’m just concerned about whether political contributors have a financial interest in the outcome, as I think this should be disclosed.
As for your question, there was a group of about 5-6 people in green RtV t-shirts after the City council meeting who were complaining about their long ride home. Some of those same people were collecting petition signatures beforehand. I didn’t ask them if they were paid to do any of this, or if they were just out-of-town marijuana enthusiasts willing to travel a long distance to spend 4 hours at a Newton City Council meeting and stay until the bitter end. If they were paid, that’s perfectly legal, but I think Newton voters deserve some transparency on commercial interests in political donations. The point I was trying to make is that RtV is clearly spending money on dozens of FB ads and probably other things, and has stated that they have thousands more to support this issue in the future, so disclosure is warranted.
@MMQC, in the interest of full disclosure, I asked the volunteer campaign manager at OON about the ad they have looking for paid high school and college interns to collect signatures. She said that all of the signatures they have collected so far are from the 100+ volunteer unpaid signature gatherers they have on the street. However, they are on a very tight deadline, and most of their volunteers are only only available on weekends, so they would be happy to pay enthusiastic high school and college interns who believe in the mission to collect signatures, in order to meet that deadline. It’s all hands on deck at this point! So far, they haven’t gotten any takers (I guess most students already have internships for the summer), but if you know anyone good, and enthusiastic about the OON mission, please send them to the OON contact page to inquire about qualification and training. She also re-iterated that the funding (if they can find interns who want a job) is through GoFundMe donations from interested citizens, and none of it is from corporate interests with something to gain financially from this effort. Still waiting on RtV to confirm whether or not they are accepting corporate donations from the marijuana industry.
Claire, I wish a thought to snap a photo!
@MMQC – No need to snap a photo. OON has had the same ad on their public website for weeks. It’s not any secret. Apparently they have had some calls, but no students willing to stand outside in the hot sun asking strangers for signatures yet. But if you know any good candidates, send them to the website! They only have a few weeks left to collect 6000 signatures, so they should call soon!
I’m not in support of OON, so I won’t be doing that!
Jennifer – No ballot committee in opposition to a referendum has been formed. This is common practice – once the city council approves the referendum, a ballot committee will most likely form. That’s when a group begins to report fund raising. OON chose to form its committee early on.
As I mentioned before, no one has asked me for a donation and I’m one of the people who has spoken out most often against a ban (no one can compete with Mike S, but that’s another matter). I find it odd that people think something terribly nefarious is going on when the most outspoken opponents haven’t been contacted.
As for paid collectors on either side, I wouldn’t expect it to be an effective strategy to collecting signatures that can be certified. I find it interesting that the MD’s on your list who are quoted so often are willing to make a statement at a public hearing in favor of a ban and donate money, but don’t seem to be willing to stand out at Star Market or the Library to collect signatures. I’ve been through this process and it’s tough, but it’s the process set out in the charter. It requires a critical mass of people committed enough to the cause to stand at those locations after work and on the weekends collecting signatures – any time you’re not working, you’re collecting. The titles after the names of the supporters matter not a whit if they’re not out there collecting signatures.
@Mike’s awfully confident of the money RtV has to spend on campaigns, but then, he’s awfully spare on information regarding WHO IS FUNDING RtV? What am I insinuating here? That Mike cannot answer this question on a public forum.
Want to see, OON’s fundraising? It’s linked directly from the site, look at all those shady donors. Can’t be trusted one bit!
Will OON hire signature collectors? I hope so! That’s what professional campaigns do, as in, the kind of campaign Mike implies that the opt-out ballot measure will face in the fall should the mountain of signatures be collected.
Again, no word on who’s funding, because as we all know, the shadier of two political groups posts its fundraising in public view, and how they use the funds are more suspect than the most opaque shade of upstanding pot shop politicos.
What is OON called on the OCFP website? I haven’t been able to see it.
Throwing out baseless accusations about who’s funding a Facebook ad against the ban shouldn’t be allowed. At this point, I have received nothing asking for a donation. Except for OON.
If a ballot coummittee has not been formed, the information need not be public. So continuing to ask and accuse anyone of withholding pertinent info is absurd.
The noble Mike Striar proudly proclaims above: “For the record, I do not have a single dollar invested in the cannabis industry. I’ve previously written in great detail about my personal passion for reforming marijuana laws, and the motivation behind it. It’s not about money for me. It’s about personal freedom and social justice.”
The power of Google quickly identifies several Striars well positioned to profit handsomely from recreational weed:
https://whdh.com/news/sharon-family-has-high-hopes-for-new-marijuana-market/
http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/news/ci_30718446/striar-looking-open-lunenburg-pot-facility
Shocking I tell ya…
@Marti — City ballot question committees file their information hard copy with the city and scanned copies go up on the Newton Campaign Finance page. You can google it to get there quickly. I’d include the link to the page in general, but that would put me in the spam filter. Here is the opt out ballot committee filing itself: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/90798
There is no filing posted from any pro groups at this time on the page.
@Mike S. and @Greg — I’m not taking a side on this at this point. I’m just pointing out what seem like flaws in arguments. I voted for question 4, and am leaning against opt out if its on the ballot, but I will sign the group’s petition as I don’t see it as a problem for voters to be able to decide if they want to opt out as the 2016 ballot question clearly told the voter that cities could do so if they decided to. If you see that as pro opt-out so be it.
Leopold:
I think Mike’s advocacy is based around his experiences with an illness of his wife, who passed away. And he has been an advocate for years on this, always based on the same personal reason. How do I know? Because when he supports an issue, he posts on it…a lot! For many years…
Do you think he has a relative that would benefit from building over a Pike or later start times? Because that would explain a lot… (eye roll directed at you, not Mike)
Instead of making insinuations of improper behavior (even if a relative of Mike’s was somehow connected to the MJ industry, how does that any bearing on Newton? Or this vote? Or pretty much anything?), why don’t you focus on his arguments?
Look, every issue has two sides. Folks can be for or against MJ for good reasons. Not everyone who is an advocate is trying to line their pockets or is being evil. Passionate people can disagree. This same crap happened with the anti-development discussions on this message board, where lots of folks became conspiracy theorists and started doxxing anonymous posters.
But I gotta say, you may think your post is somehow revealing of Mike’s character, but from an independent viewpoint, it is far more revealing of yours. And it isn’t a flattering look for you.
Finally, if Mike wanted to be sneaky, wouldn’t he just post anonymously, and advocate that way? You know, like you?
I personally don’t even care if he has a financial interests in the recreational marijuana shops. He’s not an elected official who is being bought. He’s not a councilor. He’s not the mayor. And these stores will be businesses, so obviously someone has to have a financial interest in it. I believe him if he says he doesn’t have a financial interested in the shops, but I don’t see why it matters if he does or not. Plus, I know he has strong personal reasons for supporting this, but even if it goes beyond that, it’s not a conflict of interest or anything. So who cares?
Yikes. Lots of typos in my comment. Hopefully you catch my drift!
@fignewtonville:
“why don’t you focus on his arguments?” I’m happy to hear this. It’s exactly what we must do. I sent a letter to the Tab Editor to be published in the nest issue where I offer my analysis of his arguments. I’ll appreciate any feedback of course. But in short, I don’t see any valid arguments. What I see is the throw-dirt-enough-and-some-will-stick technique from the toolbox of a mediocre propagandist. What else is “NIMBY”, “prohibition”, “fearmongering”, let alone Goebbels parallels, all without substantiation? Unfortunately, dirt does stick, and somebody has to do away with it, nothing personal.
P.S. Your posts could gain trustworthiness if we knew who you are. And a piece of friendly advice: “post revealing of your character, not his” is an outworn cliche – avoid.
What Fignewtonville and Mary Mary said.
Mike Striar has been a regular very public, not anonymous, poster on a variety of subjects for a number of years. If you want to know why he feels very strongly about high schools start times or marijuana or any of a number of other topics just go back and read his comments. He’s very articulate and has spelled it out in great detail.
It feels just a bit creepy when anonymous posters suddenly surface and begin slinging personal innuendo. Totally aside from the immediate marijuana issue at hand, Mike Striar has earned a substantial reservoir of respect and credibility over years. I welcome new voices and new viewpoints on this blog but you lose my respect and credibility with the mudslinging.
If Mike Striar says he has no financial interest I believe him. Regardless, as Mary, Mary points out this is as legal a business as any other in the state of MA. Implying that anyone who has a connection to it is somehow corrupt is misguided. Yes, I’m sure the owners of Garden Remedies have an acute interest and point of view on this issue, just as neighbors who object do too. That doesn’t disqualify either of them from weighing in here on the pros/cons.
If the Opt-Out folks can put the question on the ballot, great. I suspect it won’t pass but I could be surprised. If you want to work to get it passed I’d recommend you spend your energy trying to make the case rather than trying to drag good people that you disagree with into the mud.
Anatoly:
I’ve been posting here since the beginning, so lots of folks know me by that. Name alone isn’t the only way to gain trustworthiness. I’m not a plant or a MJ advocate. And I’m not on Mike’s side or your side. This isn’t an issue I care too deeply about. I don’t smoke and rarely drink. I tend to air on the side of personal freedom and civic engagement. But I do call out B.S. arguments on any issue, and Leopold decided that smearing Mike S. was easier than actually responding.
I hope you post your letter here. I’d be happy to comment on it. But NIMBY and prohibition are actually arguments. You may not like the conclusion, but folks understand what those terms mean. You don’t like the argument? Rebut it.
I stand by my “cliche”. You say you have arguments to make. So make them, here or in the Tab. But don’t stoop to the level of making the insinuation that this is all a monetary head fake by someone who has been consistent in his years for many years on this issue, in a very public fashion.
Let me give you a piece of friendly advice as well, perhaps a cliche as well, but cliches are often true, neighbor: Your arguments are weakened by personal attacks and your presentation. The posts against Mike S. here. The folks who won’t take no for an answer at the various supermarkets. Rally your supporters. Try and convince the folks that are independent minded on this issue (like me). Calm, reasoned arguments, without personal attack, would do wonders.
Personally, collecting 6000 signatures by September feels like an impossible task to me, which explains some of the behavior. It is always difficult when an issue you care deeply about isn’t shared by your neighbors and peers. I’ve been there, it is frustrating. I do think you’d have a strong chance on limiting the number of shops within Newton, since a lot of folks view that as a compromise. Perhaps that should be your goal. Best of luck in your arguments and your task ahead.
Cheers,
Figgy
Defending a neighbor from what looks like personal attacks is honorable. I already said: let’s focus on his arguments. Good night.
Wanted to say thanks for the response @Jennifer. I, too, would like to know more about RtV funding. I think V14 is pretty safe from paid shills.
Still listening to what everyone has to say on this topic here with great interest.
Speaking for me, I’ve never accused Mike Striar of having a financial interest in the outcome of Respect the Vote. I’ll take him at his word that he does not. He seems to have a long-standing passion for marijuana rights, and is working hard to promote those views. Kudos to him!
I’ve merely been asking if the funders of Respect the Vote have a financial interest in the outcome. If so, this should be disclosed for the sake of transparency. STILL NO ANSWER…
Mike Striar is getting a not deserved bum rap in this post. He’s been making passionate and consistent statements in support of legalizing marijuana years before the proposal to allow its sale in Newton seemed a very remote possibility at best. He was driven by the simple fact he went through the traumatic experience of having to take his terminally ill wife out of Massachusetts to obtain the substance.
Yesterday, I was approached by a young man collecting signatures for the opt out position. He hit me with horror stories about how drug addicts and drug dealers would flock to Newton and how we’d start seeing discarded syringes all over the place. He claimed that this has happened everywhere wherever marijuana shops have been established. I told him as nicely as possible that this was the kind of fear driven and corrosive propaganda during the 1970s that put a young Virginia kid into prison for 40 years for possessing two joints of marijuana. Mike hasn’t forgotten what happened to his wife and I haven’t forgotten what happened to this Virginia kid and to countless other Americans who were needlessly caught up in the anti marijuana components of the “war on drugs”.
The question of legalization has been settled and is not applicable to the current discussion. Bringing the man’s personal tragedy to support a different issue seems to me inappropriate. Is anybody trying to ban medical marijuana?
Jennifer, you continue to harp on the funding for Respect the Vote including saying “still no answer.” There is absolutely no reason for anyone to answer your question. There is no committee required to disclose funding. There is also no reason that folks who disagree with OON, you personally or anyone else slinging mud to answer your question. It doesn’t matter at all how the Facebook ad you mention was funded.
You’re all barking up the wrong tree when attacking Mike Striar’s motives. Many people here know Mike and how passionate he is about the things he believes.
You and others here who are posting under anonymous pseudonyms are not taking any responsibility for your positions – whatever they are. As for Fignewtonville, many folks do know who he is and if not certainly know and respect his viewpoints. We know he lives in Newtonville and participates in most discussions. Unlike you and the other OON folks, he didn’t just pop up for this one cause; he has been contributing to V14 since the beginning.
I was “accosted” outside Star Market by a signature gatherer standing right in front of me without letting me pass who became surly when I said “actually I’m on the other side.” I was asked in a raised voice why I hate children and want to see them brain damaged. I was trying to get by with my groceries and was blocked from moving. I’m a woman in my 60’s wearing a head scarf as I am going through chemo. I came close to calling the police. This approach won’t garner many signatures.
Jack, thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
@Anatoly. It’s always appropriate to restate how fear driven lies and distortions from the past continue to infect, infuse and reinforce several of our most current, corrosive and divisive public debates. It’s also appropriate to recount how individual Americans such as Mike Striar or the young man in Virginia who was sentenced to 40 years for possessing two joints of marijuana have been personally harmed by said lies and distortions. And it’s also appropriate for me to restate past lies and distortions about marijuana continue to drive this debate as exemplified by what the young guy with the clipboard was trying to convince me of yesterday.
@Bob. I still don’t understand why you keep bringing your stories when the questions of legalization and decriminalization have been settled in Massachusetts? Now it’s only about an inconvenience for some who may have to drive an extra couple of miles to get their stuff. Am I missing something? Can you tell me a horror story about what can happen if pot shops are banned in Newton?
The OON group is using outright dishonest tactics. I got an email from someone about it saying: “Recreational establishments market to children. Common products include cookies, brownies, candies, and sodas infused with potent and addictive THC. These products are designed to entice under-aged users and disguise the harmful nature of the product.”
That’s an outright lie. Recreational establishments won’t be allowed to market to children or entice underage users.
If you’re against the recreational pot stores, fine. But stick with the facts instead of trying to appeal to people with lies.
Mary, “The couple hopes to make marijuana cookies, brownies, chocolate bars and other things”. See https://whdh.com/news/sharon-family-has-high-hopes-for-new-marijuana-market/ Whether these products attract adults, I don’t know. I’m not an expert on that.
I know that they’re able to sell edibles, the lie is that they will market to children. And the answer is yes, edibles attract adults quite a bit. It’s an alternative to smoking and it provides a different experience.
Mary, I feel I can learn a lot even before the referendum is approved. How do adults keep edibles at home away from curious kids? Any secure storage on the market yet? And are they labelled clearly so no one can get the different experience inadvertently?
@Marti – I’m so sorry to hear you’re going through chemo. BTDT, have the scarf collection to prove it. I hope you have as few and as mild side effects as possible, and that it is completely effective.
Anatoly, that is certainly a concern but there are also things like alcoholic juice boxes and pouches which pose a similar problem.
As I said with multiple issues, my goal is just to keep the conversation fair and respectful. And I hope the new folks continue to read and post on other issues. I’m not sure what else I can add to this discussion.
I’ll note that ballot questions that are contested often seem to add more heat than light. I don’t think the pro-MJ folks are correct in their long term financial benefits to the community (much like CPA, the benefit is largely to first actors, then it reduces over time until a basic level of additional taxes). I don’t think the anti-pot shop folks really think the edibles are being marketed to children (since a kid getting sick would be horrible press, and really, do folks think MJ producers want to get kids “hooked” on MJ?
And the same topics on each ballot issue. Who funded what? What is the motivation? Outsiders coming into Newton with outside money. Insiders being biased because of political donations/business opportunities. Rumor and innuendo. The other side is cheating. I admit, I think about this stuff too.
I’ll say the same thing I’ve said about the charter, about Austin Street, about every single damn issue that has divided us over the past 10 years. Argue as much as you like, but be fair, use facts, and remember that when all is said and done Newton will be a terrific place to live, and if you were discussing the issue with a neighbor at a bar or cafe and not on the internet, you’d buy them a cup of something they liked and discuss things politely and rationally. Because in most things the truth is in the middle, even if our system encourages a ballot winner or loser.
Or if this helps, imagine discussing the topic in front of your kids. That’s what I do.
And Marti, I didn’t know about your health challenges. I wish you a quick return to good health, and as easy a path through chemo as possible. Be well.
MMCQ: Not quite on the juice boxes. Alcohol is more easily identified, it has a stronger taste even when it is masked in sugar. Pot brownies I’m told taste like…brownies.
With that said, I’m not sure why this is any different than allergies to peanuts. Accidents will likely happen, but it is the responsibility of adults not to provide access and to make sure kids don’t eat the wrong brownie. A duty of reasonable care. I also don’t think you can lethally overdose on pot, although I suppose if body mass was small it would make a kid ill.
I may need to discuss with my kids that they can’t sneak homemade treats at someone else’s house anymore. But edibles have been around for a long time, and CO seems to be surviving as well.
I agree with your overall points, fig.
My point was just that if people claim that the edibles are “marketed” at kids, so are alcoholic juice boxes. And in my experience pot brownies and cookies have a pretty distinctive weed taste and odor. I don’t know about the candies. And it was at least a decade ago that I last had an edible so the world of edibles could have changed. Also in my personal experience I recently had a sangria juice pouch which looked like a Capri Sun, was high in alcohol but really tasted like plain fruit punch. No real distinctive alcohol taste.
@Mike Striar, can you elaborate on your $6 million tax revenue estimate? It’s been a while since I smoked out, so correct me if my math is wrong. With a 3% tax, that’s $200 million in marijuana sales in Newton. Garden “Remedies” is selling in bulk around $10/gram. So $200 million divided by $10/gram = 20 million grams. Say you can roll 3 joints per gram (maybe you roll fatter ones than I did back in school), that’s 60 million joints. There are about 60,000 adults in Newton, and let’s assume that the proportion of people who voted for Question 4 represents the number of Newtonians that want to get baked: 33,000 cannabis users. So that’s 1,800 joints a year per Newtoker. Seems like a lot. Unless I’m vastly underestimating your personal consumption.
@Bruce: Thanks for running the numbers on the projection of $6M in taxes. In order to meet those tax projections, half the adults in Newton will have to buy an average of 5 joints per day each and every day of the year! Either this $6M number is grossly inflated, or we’re going to see half the Newton adult population walking around stoned 24/7.
I suspect the benefits coming from all the minimum wage retail jobs at dispensaries is similarly exaggerated.
It’s really frustrating to have this perpetual debate with people who are entirely ignorant about cannabis and the cannabis economy…
There are two ways a municipality like Newton can financially benefit directly from an adult use cannabis store. There’s a Community Host Agreement with each facility, PLUS a 3% local tax on all goods. The municipality has to be pro-active in order to get the highest value Community Host Agreements…
That is where our elected “leaders” in Newton really blew it. Because while they were trying to block implementation of the 2016 law, other municipalities recognized the value in these community host agreements and began negotiations early. The State licensed growers sought out the path of least resistance. And the communities that put out the welcome mat will be reaping huge dividends for years to come as a result.
It’s not too late for Newton. Each adult use store will make the City at least $750K per year in combined revenue. That’s $6M a year at a minimum. Don’t believe me? Do some research. Community Host Agreements are public record. Take a look at what other municipalities have done.
@Mike Striar: Which communities are you referring to?
Hi Newtoner. I’m referring to those communities that have Community Host Agreements in place. My brother’s project in Sharon, “Four Daughters,” might be a good example. There are others you can find online. You might also look at the recent proposal from Garden Remedies. Additionally, one of the opt out people even referenced the value of these community host agreements somewhere in this two thread debate. Glad to offer more specifics by email.
Mike
[email protected]
Bruce and Jennifer – not everyone who buys pot in Newton will necessarily live in Newton.