City Councilor and Land Use Committee chair Greg Schwartz last night chartered a vote by the Council on the special permit for Garden Remedies to sell recreational marijuana until September. The TAB’s story is here.
Vote on recreational marijuana at Garden Remedies delayed until Sept
by Greg Reibman | Aug 14, 2018 | City Council, recreational marijuana | 44 comments
24 City Councilors, and I’ve yet to hear a single one of them stand up for Newton voters whose clear intention in 2016 was to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.” Schwarz may the worst of the bunch, a prohibitionist and obstructionist who has allowed his unfounded personal beliefs about cannabis to interfere with his job as a representative of the people.
I think his “personal beliefs about cannabis” are shared by Joe and Patrick Kennedy, Boston Police Commissioner Evans and Newton Police Chief MacDonald, numerous physicians, i.e. the people whose subject knowledge is not limited to smoking in the comfort of your home.
Mike, whenever I’d seen your posts in the past, I thought to myself, “how can an adult get so worked up over this silly topic”?
Then in the last discussion it was revealed (for the first time to me, at least) that your family has several million dollars invested in the commonwealth’s marijuana industry.
And all I could think to myself was…ugh.
Does anyone ever genuinely fight for what’s right, because it’s the right thing to do? Or is everyone worried about lining their pockets (and/or the pockets of their loved ones)?
I am disappointed with councilor Schwartz’s record on this issue, but this post is unfair to him. His name is not mentioned at all in the article, and it looks like the delay is for some technical or procedural reasons.
@Michael– I have no problem debating cannabis reform with anyone. Questioning my motive is just a cheap shot.
Initially, I was motivated by a law enforcement incident involving my now deceased wife, Laurie, who used medical cannabis to alleviate the nausea caused by chemotherapy treatment. Through her, I met literally scores of cancer patients who found relief with cannabis.
Those experiences caused me to take a look at the bigger picture involving adult-use cannabis. The fact that the origins of illegality were founded in racism. The fact that people of color continued to be disproportionately prosecuted. The fact that so many otherwise law abiding citizens had their lives destroyed by the legal system over something that was far less harmless than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. Mostly though, my advocacy for cannabis reform is based on my belief that America is a free country, and that “freedom” actually means something.
Once again for the record… I have no interest in my brother’s cannabis venture. I hold no investment whatsoever in the cannabis industry. Cannabis reform is purely a heartfelt cause for me.
Per live tweets from NVA:
Schwartz said the reason he’s chartering it is because 90 days from closure of public hearing on June 26 would be after their next meeting. So if they didn’t act at their next meeting, item would be constructively approved w/o any conditions.
Baker noted that things may be clearer by next time. They may know if there will be a Opt Out question on the ballot if they are able to get enough signatures.
Discussing legal questions like whether Opt Out supersedes board order. Can board order be amended to cover possibility of Opt Out passing. Confusing.
Loredo said Land Use items need a 2/3 vote of full council, and 3 councilors are absent. They want to have full discussion on Sept 5. Not have item approved by default.
@Michael and others –
Mike Striar has been pushing for legalization of marijuana for as long as I can remember, starting way before the ballot questions on legalizing medical marijuana, let alone recreational. He has always made it clear that the reason he’s passionate about this issue is because of the suffering his wife went through.
I’m speaking as someone who often disagrees with Mike on issues and has never met him personally.
As to your question
Many of us don’t consider this a silly topic and feel passionately about at least some aspects of it. I have no financial interest in medical marijuana (nor, alas, any other business), but I feel strongly that it should not be treated differently than alcohol or cigarettes, both of which are legal and easy to obtain.
Is anyone going to accuse Mike Striar of benefiting financially from moving high school start times? Because I see him get pretty worked up over that, too.
Michael -Most people I know who are as passionate as Mike about this topic began as a result of living through a nightmarish experience with a close relative who was in extreme pain at a time when cannibis was illegal in MA. Mike is definitely the most outspoken of that contingent, but there are others. From that point, the other issues that he raised in his post on this thread became part of his thinking. When you have a personal involvement in an issue such as this, you’re more likely to learn about its other ramifications.
Mary, nobody is accusing Mike Striar of anything. But I, for one, am always interested in all of my brother’s ventures, whether financially invested or not. So I would recuse myself from the debate in order to avoid a potential conflict of interests.
Remember, the debate matter is now very narrow. It’s no longer about medical marijuana or the legality of recreational marijuana for adults. So there is no reason to bring in personal tragedies and social justice issues.
I respect Mike’s personal experience. He should respect professional experiences of the law enforcement and physicians.
Jane, I certainly understand and empathize with that perspective, and fully support it, when it comes to medicinal marijuana.
But marijuana commercialization is a different topic entirely. And grasping at random straws by trying to turn this into a topic of social justice for communities of color – a topic which I’m quite passionate about – is beyond ridiculous.
From the beginning of this debate, I’ve tried to stay out of it, because I don’t think it’s a topic of importance to anyone unless they’re: a) an adolescent, b) an addicted adult, or c) someone with a big financial stake. And since I’m none of those, I say: à chacun son goût.
But after reading a few newspaper articles, it seems as though the Striar family are probably invested in this industry to the tunes of not just millions, but tens of millions of dollars. And to that I say: yuck.
“I don’t think it’s a topic of importance to anyone unless they’re: a) an adolescent, b) an addicted adult, or c) someone with a big financial stake.”
You’re incredibly naive. Pot smokers might be your neighbor, your doctor, your lawyer, the PTO president, your coworker, your boss, your child’s babysitter…..and you’d have no idea because they’re just regular people. It doesn’t mean you’ve seen them stoned, it doesn’t mean they do it often, but smoking weed is much more common than you think. If you think that it’s for adolescents and addicts, you’re laughably wrong.
That’s not my point, but thanks so much for enlightening me and my naïveté.
Michael-One of the original reasons that people sought the legalization of cannibis was as a result of the disproportionate prosecution of people of color. If that’s not a problem for you, then I’m glad to hear you own it, but please don’t dismiss it as a concern for others.
Jane – I will quite strongly dismiss it as an insulting, bogus distraction created by white suburban investors who don’t otherwise have a modicum of concern for communities of color, yes.
And with that, I’m out – my primary point was that we’re hearing passionate arguments from people whose families most likely have not just millions, but tens of millions of dollars invested in this business.
As usual, well-intentioned people are being played.
(Sorry, I should say that my above comment was directed toward the commercial marijuana industry in general, and not to Mike, whom I don’t know personally but who seems to have done good a lot of things for the community.)
Michael, if you’re saying that you don’t believe that there are issues of social justice for communities of color in regard to marijuana laws and the continued inequities of enforcement, then maybe you are passionate, but don’t know what you are talking about – a dangerous combination. And to say you’ve tried to stay out of this debate is ridiculous – you comment pretty much every time it comes up, all the while claiming you don’t care.
Just curious – do you have siblings? How does this profit sharing thing work with them? When your brother’s investment portfolio goes up, do you get a cut via direct deposit or does he send you a check? When profits are up at your sister’s business, what percentage do you get? I need my brothers to get with the program, because apparently they never got the memo that I am supposed to be sharing in their business ventures.
This debate is not new, and almost entirely predictable.
First, some on the no side must have thought that the 2016 measure wouldn’t pass, or were (understandably) distracted by the presidential election. That it did pass, and by such a wide margin, is something many have a hard time dealing with. Especially since it realty does hit close to home. So some end up twisting themselves in rhetorical knots (e.g. voters who were duped, think of the kids, the sudden bogeyman of corporate pot, and good old-fashioned NIMBYism).
Fortunately, they have friends in high places; the governor, attorney general, most law enforcement. They led the opposition and have little if any incentive to do more than the bare minimum to implement it. And they’ve done really not much.
Which leads to the yes side. It’s also obvious that many who voted yes may have thought it wouldn’t pass, or voted yes because – like charter change, climate change and affordable housing – it’s a cool kids issue. In other words, all of the cool kids seemed to support it, and that’s the side they wanted to be on. But they don’t really support it. How else to explain the widespread support for the measure but lukewarm (at best) response to actually implementing it. Hence all of the municipal governments (including our own) who have successfully passed moratoria. What better way to muddy the waters further than to call for more studies, analysis, review, etc. For it’s also obvious those who favor legal pot have wide, but -at least for now – not very deep support.
In no way do I mean to belittle those who feel passionately about this issue, and who worked hard on one side or another. But I think this is why we are where we are, and why it’s not likely to change anytime soon. Until perhaps the next election.
@Michael, I agree that “well-intentioned people are being played.” Opt Out Newton has successfully whipped up hysteria about the devil’s lettuce to a fever pitch.
I look at OON’s rhetoric about cannabis and compare that against experience. It simply doesn’t line up.
@Ted, I have to think some of it is a class issue. They voted yes to legalize marijuana but are now gasping at the thought of stores being in their precious Newton.
The main argument of all these threads seems to be about whether or not recreational marijuana use should be socially acceptable. It’s legal and will remain legal. It’s accessible, whether you get it legally in Brookline, Boston, Newton or home delivery, once that’s approved. What people seem to be emotional about is whether or not Newton, as a community, wants to signal its acceptance of pot smoking as a socially acceptable thing, by allowing retail storefronts.
It seems to me that the people who are most adamant about pushing for social acceptance are older pot enthusiasts who have been looked down upon by some others in the community and law enforcement for decades. They are incensed that the social acceptance they thought they achieved by winning Question 4 might be in doubt. The other side doesn’t want to grant social acceptability to pot use because they think it leads to increased use, which only creates problems. There’s no middle ground here, so it will be interesting to see which side prevails.
The steotyping going on in this thread is truly outrageous.
Dear Jennifer,
So many ridiculous assumptions.
Signed,
An Unenthused Older Person Who Supports Retail Sales But Hasn’t Smoked in 22 Years
Hi Jennifer,
I don’t know where this hypothesis came from but respectfully … nope. I want retail cannabis because that’s what I voted for. I want it because, like today’s LA Times editorial headline recognizes, “Marijuana is not Really Legal[…] if Residents Don’t Have a Way to Buy It”. I want these shops as a commercial barrier that will protect my right to purchase legal recreational cannabis if I ever want to, and as a wedge against what I feel were past civil rights violations. I want them for a number of other reasons that neither have to do with being in someone’s back pocket or being a pothead. I know it may be hard to imagine, but it is possible to have the opposite point of view on this issue based on a legitimate, principled stance.
You say “legal and it will remain legal” — you don’t really think Opt Out’s members will stop with banning recreational in Newton? The organization has already expanded its scope, repeatedly attacking Newton’s existing medical licensee and medical license proposal (does Opt Out Newton still claim despite all evidence to the contrary that it’s not opposed to medical?)
But do I care if cannabis to be socially accepted? Nah. Feel free personally to hate cannabis, pot smoke and pot smokers much as you want. Doesn’t much matter to me. If you’d just respect my wish to purchase it locally you all can think whatever you’d like of me for doing so, or for wanting the right to do so. For my part I have already shown respect for concerns about keeping stores from being in-your-face in village centers by backing and collecting signatures for the compromise, a.k.a. the ballot question that shall not be named.
I think we sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that this blog, or the people most active in the community, or even our councilors, represent the silent majority in Newton. I think most people just don’t care if people want to smoke pot. I think this is what led to it passing. I don’t think that folks thought about pot shops themselves, and there’s a little buyers remorse. Now that the time has come to open up stores, some folks don’t want them close to home, and there’s nothing wrong with that opinion. It’s not elitist. This same issue is playing out all across socioeconomic lines around the Commonwealth. This will run it’s course. Pot shops will open. Life will go on. This too shall pass.
I agree with most of Randy’s comment. Once this is sorted out amongst the city councilors and those supporting both sides of this issue, life will go on as if nothing happened. Just like with most change, there are growing pains.
I take issue with the way supporters are being portrayed. I am a baby boomer, didn’t and still don’t smoke or ingest pot so my support has nothing to do with my habits. First I supported the decriminalization of pot. Pot should not be classified the same as heroine, cocaine or other hard drugs. The fact that is is based on fear propaganda. Too many people, mostly young African Americans, are arrested and jailed for years for pot possession. I support releasing those people.
Then I supported the legalization of pot. It’s so much less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes, both legal for years and it’s readily available, although maybe not safe, on the black market. Regulating pot like alcohol just makes sense to me. I supported medical marijuana and now adult use marijuana.
I very much disagree with Randy. There’s no “buyer’s remorse” on the part of people who voted to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.” All of this push back is coming from the anti-cannabis side that lost the 2016 vote. They’ve been empowered by an unusual poison pill provision inserted in the ballot initiative by prohibitionist politicians that allowed for these ridiculous revotes at the municipal level.
I voted yes to legalize and I am for the sale of recreational cannabis in Newton and elsewhere. For the record – I am not a teenager, not addicted to anything, and I am not going to financially gain from it.
There is no reason to deal with cannabis any different than with alcohol. Especially since the former is far less of a health hazard than the latter.
And I find it insulting for people to assume that we yes voters have been blind, or misinformed. What is the point of legalizing something and then not make it readily available?
Whatever the reasons for the opt-out group is, I find their tactics and arguments less than impressive. What I have heard has nothing to do with the issue at hand – people are railing against the legalization of it, which is not the issue at hand; and paining a picture of vendors targeting children (basically accusing anybody who wants to sell of being criminals) and buyers smoking on their way out of the store and then plowing into Newtonites left and right with their cars.
@Bruce,
People drive while impaired by alcohol, sometimes with tragic consequences. Are you saying we should bring back Prohibition? People also drive while distracted by their mobile devices; should we ban those, too?
For what it’s worth, driving under the influence of any amount of marijuana is a crime in Massachusetts. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
That was horrific and tragic.
So it’s been disclosed what drug(s) the underage unlicensed driver was on? It’d be good if you could share the news source for this updated information — thank you!
Patricia, a couple of did you knows for you:
“There is no reason to deal with cannabis any different than with alcohol”. Did you know there are dry towns in Massachusetts? Alcohol is legal, but the residents chose to ban sales of alcohol in their communities. Looks to me it is OON who is proposing to deal with cannabis exactly as with alcohol.
Did you know that the Cannabis Control Commission’s “Guidance for Municipalities Regarding Marijuana for Adult Use” provides for Marijuana Social Consumption Establishments for “consumption on the premises”? So it’s not necessarily “smoking on their way out of the store”. And did you know that (unlike alcohol) police don’t have a test for impairment from THC?
Yes, there are “dry” towns in Massachusetts. Newton is not one of them. Do cannabis opponents think we should ban alcohol in Newton?
Mike, no OON thinks we should vote on whether we want to ban marijuana sales in Newton. Is it really that complicated?
I know you want to ban cannabis. But I’m asking if you think Newton should ban alcohol too?
Mike, I feel that I again failed to explain my point clearly. Let me try again. The existence of dry towns shows that, although alcohol is legal in Massachusetts, every municipality has the right to ban its sales within the municipality’s borders. If you really want to treat marijuana the same way as alcohol, you must let the people choose whether they want pot commerce within their locality.
In regard to your questions: I don’t want to ban cannabis; I don’t think Newton should ban alcohol. I am not sure these questions are relevant to the current debate, but I’m happy to satisfy your curiosity.
Bruce, to my knowledge all that’s been reported about the teen driver was that he was driving while incapacitated on drugs. No place that I have been able to find says the drug was marijuana. Additionally the driver was a teenager so even when legal pot shops open, he was and would have obtained drugs illegally. No drugs for teens have been legalized.
Anatoly, you are talking around in circles; if someone counters one of your arguments, you just circle around to find a way to disagree – whether there is any sense to it at all. It’s because Newton sells alcohol in so many places, 80, that the number of pot stores allowed is 8, 10% of 80. Since alcohol is readily available in Newton, comparing having retail marijuana stores in Newton to those few dry municipalities in ma does not compute. I would understand those dry towns banning marijuana stores.
In Newton, unless we become a dry city, lol, banning retail marijuana sales would only be because of fear propaganda. Alcohol is much more dangerous than marijuana. It’s relevant.
Since the CCC allowed a way to ban retail pot shops in a “yes” municipality, residents have the right to follow their municipality’s laws to get a ban question on the ballot. That process is happening right now. Either it gets on the ballot or not. End of story. Everything else is irrelevant.
I haven’t seem any news of this reported fatal accident but Marti’s point is a good one. Peter blames the accident on the teen being high on marijuana, but since you can’t test for marijuana impairment. So the drug test would have revealed something other than marijuana.
and under no scenario being discussed right now could a teenager legally obtain marijuana or anything else that could cause impairment
@Claire – you can test for marijuana in the blood, just not for whether it’s enough to cause impairment. Same for most other drugs. So the drug test may have revealed marijuana or other drugs.
That said, a kid who’s driving high on pot is equally likely to have driven high on any other substance, legal or illegal (with the understanding that all would be illegal at his age). And there’s also no reason to think that a kid driving illegally high on a substance that’s not available in legal retail outlets is more likely to have done so if the substance were legally available to people older than him, given how easy it is to obtain anyway.
@Meredith “you can test for marijuana in the blood, just not for whether it’s enough to cause impairment. Same for most other drugs. So the drug test may have revealed marijuana or other drugs.”
I am aware of that. It poses a real issue for employers and those who partake because marijuana stay’s in the system so long so just because someone tests positive doesn’t been they are impaired at that time, just that the use marijuana.
The issue with Bruce’s (not Peter) comment is the he stated as a fact that kind was high on marijuana and that is not knowable since the test is for usage not impairment
Bruce – This was truly a tragedy. However, I don’t see the connection between a tragedy involving an underage young man impaired as a result of illegal drug use and the question at hand: should Newton permit dispensaries that can only sell cannibis to those who are at least 21 years old?
I wasn’t sure whether to post this here or in the other thread advocating a straw ban… So while the usual suspects are trying to save the earth one straw at a time, I fully expect the cool kids who think proliferation of weed in our city is for the best to completely discount this story from the Washington Post based on real world experience in Seattle:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/garbage-from-booming-weed-industry-overruns-washington-gutters-sewers-and-landfills/2018/08/14/66f02384-9685-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.37e91ce8cb0a
A free joint to the 1st person who posts “but there are beer cans everywhere anyway”…
Leopold – This “cool kid” is a 70 year old woman. That makes me old enough to tell the boys to knock it off with their misogynist BS. Emily and I may not agree on much, but you picked the wrong twosome to mess with. Rumor has it there are a few others in the city you may want to avoid.
Jane I guess I’m not “woke” enough but not sure how you got anything mysogynistic from my post… Plenty of cool kids of all sexes and identities around here. That being said, I must say I do feel a little threatened by your post, seems a bit inappropriate to me.
Jane, in the spirit of camaraderie so characteristic of this blog, would you name the people in the city who Leopold may want to avoid? I may want to take a note as well.