City Council President Marc Laredo released this memo today regarding the fate of the proposed ballot question that would ban on recreational marijuana store in Newton (including a twist in terms of when the referendum might be held).
To: City Council
From: President Laredo
Re: Process regarding possible ballot questions relating to a ban or limit on the number of retail marijuana outlets in Newton
Date: August 28, 2018
Under the new marijuana law, Newton must issue at least eight licenses for retail marijuana establishments (one-quarter of the number of liquor licenses) unless the voters give the City Council the authority to ban or otherwise limit the number of retail marijuana outlets in Newton to fewer than eight. In July, we passed a measure to place on the November ballot the question of whether Newton should limit the number of such establishments to 2-4 (with the exact number to be left to the Council’s discretion), but denied a citizen request for a ballot question relating to a total ban.
In the meantime, citizens in favor of a total ban (“Opt-Out”) have gathered what appears to be sufficient signatures to put the item on the ballot (the City Clerk is still in the process of certifying the signatures). We have been advised by the Law Department that if successful in meeting the threshold, the Charter requires the item be placed on the November, 2019 ballot (not the 2018 ballot). The Council can put an Opt-Out question on the November, 2018 ballot, however, pursuant to its authority under G.L. c. 94G, §3.
There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the new marijuana law and the City’s rights and responsibilities under it. We also are operating under significant time constraints since the November election is two months away. Therefore, we will have two special meetings devoted to these issues.
The first will be a meeting of the Programs and Services Committee on Thursday, September 6 to sort out the procedural issues as much as possible and then to determine what course(s) of action to recommend to the full Council. The second will be a meeting of the full Council on Thursday, September 13 for consideration of, and hopefully a vote on, the Committee’s recommendations.
Since there may be two potentially competing and inconsistent questions on the ballot (no retail establishments at all and a limit of 2-4 establishments), I have docketed an item asking that the Council give voters advance guidance on which will prevail if both questions are on the 2018 ballot and then are both adopted by the voters. There are also several other marijuana-related ballot items that have been docketed. At our meeting on September 5, I will ask that all of the marijuana-related ballot items be accepted on the docket and referred to the Programs and Services Committee so it can consider all of the items simultaneously and then make its recommendations to the full Council for decision.
I will explain this process in more detail at our full Council meeting on September 5. Acting City Solicitor Young will be available to answer questions at that time, as well as on September 6 and 13. Thank you in advance for accommodating these scheduling changes.
@Greg, this letter is addressed to the City Council. Was it also released to the general public? I’m not saying it should or should not have been, but just asking for clarification.
@Leslie: As with virtually all correspondence between elected officials, this letter is a public record. It was sent to me by a city employee who I presume knew Village 14 readers would find it to be of interest.
It’s interesting that there are alert city employees out there that make sure that Village 14 is notified immediately before the Friday Packet even goes out!
Well sure Leslie, where do you think alert City Hall employees go for breaking local news?
Re: two ballot questions on the same topic: The Massachusetts state constitution has a template on how to handle ‘superseding initiative’.
To paraphrase: “In the event that two conflicting measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other on any points of conflict–the other measure is not wholly superseded.” Newton’s city charter isn’t the same as the state’s but this approach seems logical.
Certainly agree that voters should be given advance guidance to these ballot questions and procedure, if (as expected) both appear on the Nov. 2018 ballot.
Are city employees supposed to be leaking documents to the press before their department heads follow the procedures in place for releasing them to the public? I don’t really know what the rules are for this, but I think I know who the leaker is.
@Leslie: This memo was not “leaked”. It is a public document. Noting nefarious happened here. geesh.
Let’s be honest here. There is one reason — and only one reason — to keep the 2-4 question on the ballot now: To create voter confusion to frustrate the popular will.
Realistically, there is no way that more than 3, or possibly 4, pot shops could get sited, permitted and licensed before next year. The 2-4 question was proposed by Krintzman and Albright — self-acknowledged pro pot shop advocates — as a “compromise” after they lead the way to voting down having the Opt Out question put on the ballot in July. At that time they were relying on past history that it would t be possible to collect 6,000 signatures in time. And some of the Councilor supporting having the Opt Out question reluctantly voted for the “compromise” as at least better than the free-for-all of being left with no choice but having 8 pot shops all over the City.
But guess what happened? Voters signed the petition in record numbers and in record time.
So now there is NO reason to have the “compromise” 2-4 question on the ballot EXCEPT to set up the opportunity for voter confusion to back door defeat voter choice using conflicting ballot questions and arcane rules.
Dirty, dirty politics at its worst.
And, BTW, lets don’t forget what Krintzman said about his 2-4 “compromise”!! He (smugly) pointed out that the statute that was written and sponsored by the pot industry requires a voter ballot to prohibit or limit pot shops to fewer than 8 in Newton, but that even after a popular referendum, a Krintzman/Albright led Cith Council would be absolutely free to increase the number of pot shops to MORE THAN 4 any time they want. And Krintzman wasn’t shy about saying he would be very happy to have 8 – or more- pot shops all around Newton.
So one man — Krintzman— think he should be able to bamboozle Newton voters to get his own way.
That’s dirty, dirty polityat it’s worst.
Newton voters deserve the right to have a clean clear choice. Retract the 2-4 ballot question that isn’t even needed this year and let Newton voters give pot shops a thumbs up or thumbs down.
Can we stop wasting time with this and just open up some shops? I have not been involved with any sort of activism in regards to opening or banning marijuana stores, but I can’t wrap my head around why people would be opposed. The benefits far outweigh any negatives and in the meantime we are loosing huge amounts of tax revenue. I’ll be sure to be at these meetings to try and talk some sense into will-imposing PTO members who have no clue what they are even arguing about.
President Laredo’s statement below is misleading. It should be AS MANY AS 8 and not AT LEAST 8. This is an important distinction.
Under the new marijuana law, Newton must issue at least eight licenses for retail marijuana establishments (one-quarter of the number of liquor licenses)
Hi Abe,
The reason to have compromise on the ballot, then and now, is to give voters a choice. We can vote for no recreational dispensaries. We can vote to limit (to 2-4). Or we can reject both and have many (8). This isn’t particularly hard or confusing. I also applaud the Council’s proposal to make sure voters are educated on the options ahead of time. Voters should have choices, and make informed decisions come November.
I was in favor of a compromise question before Albright proposed it in Council, was in favor after the 50-signature petition to opt out was rejected, and am in favor of compromise now. If you want to deny voters choices in November, ok. But don’t call it dirty politics.
Greg – As has been the case with previous ballot collections, an official announcement should have come from city hall. Once a city employee gave you the information, you could have contacted the elections department for an official statement.
In 2016, 25,516 Newton residents supported a referendum that legalized the sale of marijuana. This is the reason why we need the 2-4 dispensary option to remain on the table.
@Dulles is that language about 2-4 clarified? Last I checked it wasn’t.
And the councilors balked at the inability to get a clear answer from Councilor Krintzman. Here’s opt out newton’s transcript and audio of the exchange:
http://optoutnewton.org/index.php/2018/07/28/councilor-josh-krintzman-says-4-store-limit-in-ballot-question-can-be-increased-by-city-council/
So again, my question to you is has this question been resolved. And secondly, can you understand what Abe is saying here? These are our representatives, and they are deliberately confusing the voters, again.
Mike Cilino-
Go back and read the statute tha the marijuana industry wrote and sponsored. A public ballot is required to limit the number of pot shops to anything less than 20% of the community’s liquor licenses. MGL c. 94G, sec. 3. So this is AT LEAST 8 shops, not “as many as”. There is NO upper limit on the number of pot shops, but there is a MINIMUM of 8.
Get you facts straight….
@Mike, Marc Laredo is correct on the 8 store issue, and this has been explained by the city solicitor numerous times at various public hearings and elsewhere. State law requires Newton to allow AT LEAST 8 recreational marijuana stores, and there is no upper limit to the number of stores that can be allowed unless an upper limit is set by city ordinance. If Newton wants less than 8 (or none at all) it can only set this limit by a ballot question. Otherwise, the City Council can limit the number to a number that is 8 or more by city ordinance on their own accord, but they have not yet made any attempt to do so.
Once again, we return to the question: How do you force people to open a dispensary? If someone applies for the appropriate permitting for a pizza shop, do you tell them, no you must open a marijuana dispensary?
Abe – If you’re going to parse the language of the statute, then you end up making the case for the 2-4 dispensary referendum question.
Hi @James,
Here’s the deal with Krintzman’s statement — as @Abe and @Laurie Palepu note, lowering the recreational retail limit (i.e., both opt out and compromise) requires a ballot question. Krintzman was observing (and not smugly; like so many councilors that evening, he was speculating on procedure) that the reverse does not have the same bar. Reversing opt out or changing the compromise requires Council vote but not a ballot question.
As for the language around compromise, we’re all looking forward to it. The Council noted July was the last major meeting and that’s when the compromise was approved. So I expect we’ll see the language in September. I’m sure there are lots of people who can’t wait to sink their teeth into it.
If only the tax revenue from pot shops could go to public education….
Jane
1. These are not dispensaries (medical) — they are recreational pot shops.
2. There’s nothing here about “forcing” anybody to open a pot shop — there are a huge number of pot entrepreneurs who are hankering to open pot shops. If you allow it, they will come.
3. Parsing the statute? How about understanding the facts…
For the poster who said this was done in record time, that doesn’t comport with my seeing the same ballot huckster outside the Four Corners Whole Foods for nearly a week. Typically they get their useful idiots in a day or two. I would add that the man in question totally misrepresented the status quo and the effect of this ballot initiative.
The voters in Newton ALREADY had a say on this matter and voted to regulate pot like alcohol. Marijuana is legal in Mass. The only debate here is whether we want to give this tax money to surrounding communities or keep it for productive use in Newton.
Call them what you’d like.
A regulated marijuana industry undercuts the sale of unregulated drugs readily available on the streets all over Newton. Drug dealers aren’t just selling weed – they sell a wide variety of illegal, highly addictive drugs as well. We’re in the midst of an opiod crisis of the likes we’ve never seen before that will require a multi-pronged approach to get the situation under control. This will mean providing wrap around services to those struggling with addiction and the sale of regulated cannabis as just two examples of what we can do to undercut the sale of illegal drugs.
Anyone who thinks that banning these shops is going to stop the sale of cannabis and these highly addictive illegal drugs in Newton isn’t looking at the reality of what’s going in the city right now.
@Matthew B Miller – stop with all that “making sense” business. This is an emotional argument, and there is no room for logical thought or practical reasoning. Won’t someone please THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!
I’m surprised that 20-plus comments in, no one has commented on the fact that, according to the memo, the Opt-Out ballot referendum would be held in 2019, not 2018. I’m pretty sure that was news to the Opt-Out folks who rushed to get signatures in over the summer.
Yes, the council could choose to put it on the ballot this fall. But that’s still one more important detail that will need to be debated/resolved in the next two weeks.
Jane-Do you really think that opening pot shops in Newton will help stem the opioid crisis? Do you really think that opening pot shops in Newton won’t encourage more underage use of marijuana?
There are plenty of good reasons why the Newton police chief (with nine years of narcotics officer experience) opposes pot shops in Newton. There are plenty of good reasons why Governor Baker (with family experience with drug use) opposed Question 4. There are plenty of good reasons why the director of public health in Newton opposes pot shops in Newton.
@Dulles did you miss the part of Councilor Krintzman’s speech presenting the 2-4 option when he compared wanting an opportunity to opt out to Trump refusing to accept the results of an election?
“We’re better than that,” he said (not at all) smugly.
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison, do you?
Proponents lose a lot of ground for that kind of smug overreach; characterizing their opposition as a bunch of out-of-touch reactionaries and then being stunned as the public shifts away from their positions.
Abe –
Go back and read how to spell my name.
Abe,
I believe supporters do truly in their hearts recreational pot shops will solve all these problem.
At the same time, they believe recreational pot smokers will not be able drive (uber,bus,T) 10 minutes to another town to buy pot because they cannot bring themselves to leave the bubble of Newton
@James, in Council meetings dumb things get said over the course of an evening. You referenced Councilor Krintzman’s comments about changing the ceiling (which Abe Zoe separately described as “smug”). I don’t know how Abe heard it that way; I heard it as an observation about process, which would apply equally to opt out or compromise measures. Either requires a ballot question to enact, neither requires a ballot question to reverse.
And I agree wholeheartedly with your final statement.
Of course, the signatures must all be certified before any of this will make any difference. I wish there had been a way to make sure that residents being asked to sign were not mislead.
In addition to what Greg points out, the city council has the right to deny putting the opt out question on the ballot at all. This would require the opt out folks to collect 3000 more certified signatures to override the city council and put the opt out question on the 2019 ballot.
The number of pot stores allowed by law, 8, is determined by taking 10% of the number of liquor stores in Newton. It isn’t an arbitrary number. Just because Newton must allow 8 stores by law doesn’t necessarily mean that 8 proprietors will apply or that Newton could find enough places that meet the convoluted criteria for what they can be near.
The ballot question reducing the number of pot stores to 2-4 is already a compromise of the law as it stands.
@Craig, let’s get the facts straight. There has only been one other sizable petition drive in Newton in the last 40 years, undertaken by the League of Women Voters, who took 8 YEARS to collect the required number of signatures to get their question on the ballot. It took Opt Out Newton 6 WEEKS to collect almost 9000 signatures (3000 more than required by the charter). You may not like the fact that there is a groundswell of interest in voting on this issue, but it’s not accurate to belittle the achievement by saying it was no big deal and could have been done in a week by hanging out at Whole Foods signing up the “useful idiots.” Try it some time.
@ Greg I don’t think anybody is paying attention to the “twist” because there is another way to get the question on the ballot in 2018 and I think everybody assumes the City Council will do it that way because they know they can’t deny a group that gets 9000 signatures in record time, and they don’t want it on the ballot in 2019 after shops have already opened. For the record, the city gave the dates to OON that needed to be met to get the question on the ballot in 2018, and we followed these instructions to the letter. I think they belatedly found out that their may be some discrepancy on their advice.
House keeping note: Someone here has posted under several different pseudonyms and has now been advised to select just one. Future comments under new or multiple pseudonyms will be removed in accordance with Village 14 commenting rules. Thanks.
Abe, I’m certain that opening regulated recreational adult use marijuana stores will not increase underage usage at all.
There are no good reasons for banning these stores.
Bugek, you are wrong on both counts. I don’t believe all problems related to drugs will be solved by opening pot stores in Newton. That’s terribly naive and also not what Jane said.
I also definitely believe the adults who wish to purchase recreational marijuana will drive elsewhere to get it, if it’s not available in Newton – giving all of the tax revenue to that town or city. Most supporters know that as well.
I do agree that the tax revenue should go to drug education programs. I think there’s something in the community agreement about monies going to education.
I think OON had an easier time collecting signatures because they were scaring people by being dishonest. There have even been people who have regretted signing it because they didn’t do their due diligence and believed the lies told by the paid signature collectors. I think the tactics being used by OON are shameful.
Yes, revenue would be generated for NPS. What if we used that money to bolster our social emotional programming and intervention strategies? Theoretically we could teach them skills to make good choices regardless of how far they need to drive to purchase drugs.
With such a divisive issue, it problem was easier than usual to collect opt-out signatures
Whole foods – affluent homeowners who care deeply about property values vs going to trader joes
Churches, synagogues- target folks who lean towards being ‘square’
Baseball games, after school avtivity centers – tiger moms
Community centers for different cultures – asian, eastern european may statistically lean against recreational mj
Houses – canvas homes within 5 mins walk of schools
Basically, someone did alot if research where to target
Many ppl see recreational and medical mj, reducing prison sentences for mj as three complete separate issues… recreational being a bridge too far in 2018
I find it amusing that people think that a large number of Newton voters were “misled” in to signing the petition. Newton voters are highly educated and the question at hand could not be more simple — “Do you want to vote on whether to allow recreational marijuana stores in Newton?” I did a lot of canvassing, and found that people understood the question quite easily and knew immediately how they felt on the issue (most said yes). Two people (out of 9000) emailed us later and asked to have their names removed and we did so.
Laurie-That’s not accurate information. There have been at least two other successful signature collections in addition to the LWV drive. All three did the entire collection as a volunteer effort. If the LWV had used paid collectors, the effort would have been done in a . The other two that I know of completed the collection in 21 days with volunteers. The Opt Out signature collection was the first to use paid collectors and that should be clearly noted if it’s going to use this as a talking point.
Bugek – I believe that OO supporters believe in their hearts that banning shops will limit access to cannabis to underage users, and that’s where the disagreement lies. If shops are banned in Newton, underage buyers will continue to get it right here under our noses – as they do now – and be exposed to illegal drugs that are much more harmful than cannabis.
Jane,
Just a little fun with your last post:
Opt out – “… but think of the children”
Opt in – “… but think of the children who need to smoke pot”
Lol…
Maybe that’s how you presented it while canvassing, but there were a lot of people who were less than honest. A friend of mine forwarded me an email that was circulating throughout Newton that explicitly stated that the stores would market weed to kids and then it linked to the petition.
I only had two people approach me in person about this – one was reiterating the “pot shops will market to kids!” nonsense and the other just stood there awkwardly staring at me after I told her that I was in favor of the stores.
@Jane, ask the City Clerk about citizen petitions for ballot questions in Newton in the last 40 years. I think he will differ with your assertions. I asked him just last week.
@ Laurie I specifically stood next to the paid collector to hear his sales pitch and know for a fact that it was misleading. And anybody who thinks that there will be dozens of pot shops in Newton absent this vote most certainly fits the bill as a useful idiot. The only thing we have dozens of in Newton are banks.
But even if there were dozens, it doesn’t change the fact that marijuana is legal in Massachusetts. People in Newton already smoke it in large numbers, including teenagers. If your stunt works, and the voters who ALREADY voted to legalize marijuana end up limiting sales in Newton, it will have ZERO impact on the number of people who smoke it. The only thing it will do is drive tax receipts to neighboring towns.
Instead of wasting our time thwarting the will of the voters, we ought to be working with landlords to get these pot shops open, and using the regulatory framework as leverage to persuade them to stop destroying Newton by only renting to banks.
Smoke away (and ingest aplenty) in the privacy of you own home. Nobody is preventing you.
But why do you feel compelled to force storefront pot shops on the rest of us who prefer not to have our kids exposed to this kind of normalization during impressionable formative (and rebellion) years?
Lots of us do not want the constant traffic burdens on streets where we live. Karen Munkacy told the city council that she expects recreational pot transactions to last about 5 minutes. We don’t want more constant comings and goings on an already-congested Washington Street — which is about to get busier with residents at the Austin Street and Washington Place developments as those numerous apartments come on line. We deserve to have some quality of life preserved in our neighborhood.
And it’s no better at the Green Tea location. Route 9/Elliot street is already a heavy traffic zone — adding more out of town traffic to make a come/go procession onto a tricky intersection will be a nightmare. Police Chief MacDonald testified that Rt. 9/Elliot Street traffic will be unbearable.
In a democratic republic, government must be open to examination by its constituents at all levels, at all times.
And when they try to keep secret what we must know in order to have a properly free society, then we must find other means to make available that information.
Also, I seem to remember Mass. legalized weed a year or two ago? Like, legal, period?
What’s the problem?
@ Abe Your comments are so absurd they simply must be rebutted. Do you really think the teens of Newton are unaware of the existence of marijuana or that people smoke it? Pot is mentioned in every rap song, many pop songs, and is used overwhelmingly (and openly) by the Instagram “influencers” that kids spend their every waking minute staring at on their phones. Furthermore, thousands of high level employees at Google/Facebook/Apple/tech startup of your choice are currently loading up their cars to head to Burning Man to openly consume marijuana and much harder drugs. Pot use literally could not be more “normal.”
As for your comments about traffic from retail stores, are there honestly people standing up in town meetings and speaking this type of nonsense with a straight face? The Green Tea restaurant space is literally next door to a gas station (five minute transaction), a liquor store (five minute transaction), and a pharmacy (five minute transaction). What are you going to ban next, dry cleaning stores? Dunkin Donuts?
There is no question that Newton has a major problem with cut through traffic from surrounding towns, and there is a debatable point of view that increased housing density will place an unsustainable strain on our roads. But this is the first I’ve heard of people suggesting that limiting RETAIL STORES in city centers is an appropriate way to mitigate these problems. Good grief, before Amazon we had people doing all manner of shopping (five minutes or more!) in Newton’s villages and somehow we managed.
If you don’t want to live in a city with commerce and the traffic that comes with it, Weston is one town over.
@Abe, I for one have answered the question (why do I want recreational retail in Newton) repeatedly and at length in past threads at V14. Not as if it matters because opt out proponents do not accept any reason as legitimate no matter how principled. You’re opt out. I get it.
So instead I’ll post these two recent findings, so that you can reject them out of hand instead.
“It Turns Out Legal Weed In Colorado Hasn’t Led To [more] Kids Abusing The Drug”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/teen-pot-use-colorado-legalization_us_5a2f20fae4b01598ac476d3a
Positive policing changes after cannabis legalization seen by WSU researchers
https://news.wsu.edu/2018/07/24/positive-policing-changes-after-cannabis-legalization/
@Craig If you want to live in a city with recreational marijuana stores and the smells that comes with it, Brookline is one town over.
A study finalized in March from the Institute of Cannabis Research at Colorado State University-Pueblo includes a look at attitudes and perceptions of high school students in communities that since 2014 have opened recreational pot stores, such as Pueblo, and those that have not, including Colorado Springs.
Conclusions are that students in communities that permit recreational dispensaries used more cannabis and thought cannabis was less harmful and less wrong than high school students in communities that did not allow recreational pot stores.
Source: https://gazette.com/news/collateral-impact-colorado-schools-on-front-line-as-debate-swirls/article_251b7e53-baf6-5438-a279-7bcd80b5cd0b.html
@Anatoly, your own quoted article states:
“The findings were surprising […] not because there’s a difference between students in communities that permitted cannabis dispensaries compared with communities that did not, but because there was ***no statistical change pre- and post-2014***.”
Your quoted article makes the point: The presence of retail stores _made_no_difference_. What’s needed is effective youth education and drug prevention programs, and that can be self-funded by recreational retail sales. This approach is demonstrably effective — see tobacco sales to youth.
While I certainly do not appreciate the way that some of my comments have been characterized, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Opt Out Newton. In July, the city council essentially asked that this group follow the same process as other groups seeking to add a question to the ballot. I continue to believe that Opt Out Newton is a group of good people who are trying to do the right thing for their city. Although I may disagree about what is best for Newton – I do not question their motives.
Three quick points of clarification:
1) My response on the floor about raising the limit beyond 2-4 was in response to a procedural question about whether a ballot initiative would be necessary IF, in the future, this industry was determined to be successful and not harmful. I stand by my answer. Under the law, I do not believe that Newton would be required to place another question on the ballot. But I will also seek guidance from the city’s law department should the question arise.
2) Regarding my comments about 8 retail stores: again, I stand by what I said. I said that I am not afraid of the number 8, but I do not know the “right” number of shops. What I DO support is municipal flexibility to implement the new law. Allowing the council to restrict the number of stores to 2-4 provides enhanced flexibility.
3) My comment about Donald Trump was on a very basic point. Many Opt Out supporters were, at that time, asking the city council to assume that voters were confused in 2016 when they voted on question #4 and didn’t understand the true impact of their vote. I compared that to Donald Trump’s statement prior to the election saying that he wasn’t sure whether he would accept the results of the election because he feared that it would be “rigged.” Again – I stand by that comparison. We must assume that voters are informed and act deliberately. But let me take that logic a step further now. We are now hearing stories about misrepresentations made during the signature gathering process. In response, I say this: Absent strong evidence to the contrary, we must assume that everyone who signed that petition understood what they were signing. The signatures should be presumed to be valid.
I commend the signature gatherers on their effort and applaud them for doing all that they have been asked to do. I do not think it is an unreasonable ask for them to now ask the city council to include this on the 2018 ballot rather than the 2019 ballot. But I also think that the 2-4 question must be asked so that the city may responsibly begin implementation of this new industry.
Councilor Krintzman: Thanks for your comment.
I hope you and your colleagues keep the compromise question on the ballet. And if both opt out and the compromise get a majority vote that the question with the largest number of votes prevails, as it should in a democracy.
Bruce Wang: “@Craig If you want to live in a city with recreational marijuana stores and the smells that comes with it, Brookline is one town over.”
Banning stores wouldn’t stop the smell, just the tax dollars. People will just buy elsewhere and smoke it back home in Newton.
@Councilor Krintzman – Thank you for your comments. A minor quibble not to rehash everything (haha – “reHASH”), but I don’t think one needs to presume that voters in 2016 were “confused” about what they were voting on. The ballot question text said “The proposed law would authorize cities and towns to adopt reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of operating marijuana businesses and to limit the number of marijuana establishments in their communities.”
And of course it doesn’t really matter exactly what the ballot question text read, because before the actual law was finalized the Cannibis Control Commission made some changes as well. But I think if a reasonable person read the text and summary of the ballot question, they could make an informed decision about how to vote on the question, and not see in the details information about marijuana retailers not being limited to fewer than 20% of the number of liquor stores. So in fact I think the number of not fewer than 8 marijuana establishments in town was a surprise for many.
Also, I don’t think it is inconsistent for someone to be in favor of legalization or decriminalization, but also not want retail establishments in their community. No one should go to jail for using marijuana, but doesn’t mean we want at least 8 retail outlets in our town.
What does seem inconsistent is those who state having a vote on opting out is somehow disrespecting the will of the voters who voted in 2016. One could have voted for the ballot in 2016 knowing it provided a mechanism for a second vote to occur limiting or prohibiting retail outlets in Newton. So let’s have that second vote as soon as possible and respect the will of the voters, whatever side they are on. If the vote fails, then having a vote on 2-4 seems like a compromise measure that could be implemented.
Could that 2-4 limit be written so that it specifies it will only be in effect should the opt out vote fails? So it would go:
1) If opt-out question wins majority, then no retail outlets. If opt-out does not get majority, move on to question 2.
2) Limit to 2-4. If this gets majority, limit to 2-4. If does not get majority, then no limit (at least 8 ).
That way if someone wants to have no stores, they could vote for both of above without being inconsistent and accept the 2-4 limit as a compromise. If someone wants to have no limit to retail outlets, they could vote against both of above. And if if someone wants 2-4, they vote no to #1 above and yes to #2 above.
Laurie – There are several kinds of petitions, one of which is in response to a city council vote, and citizens have 21 days after the council vote to collect signatures from 5% of the registered voters. As you know, you have to collect 50% more in order to hit the magic number of certified signatures. I was very involved in one of the two collections about 10 years ago and spoke with David Olsen numerous times during the process, so I know this to be true. There was another in the 90’s that I remember well because it had a serious impact on the lives of a number of my colleagues.
My main point was that every other collection was completed from start to finish by volunteers and that having paid collectors kind of dampens OO’s argument that this represent a growing wave of support. Rhanna Kidwell alone put hundreds of hours into the LWV signature collection – it was a serious, long term commitment on her part that should not be compared to an effort completed by paid collectors. Like Josh, I don’t question your motives on the issue, but the fact that the signature collection was completed should not be taken as a sign of anything. If we’re going to use it as an argument in support of your issue, then we also have to consider the 25, 500+ votes as an indication of support for the sale of cannabis.
@ Newton Newbie You make good arguments, and could well be right that there is a large population of Newton voters in favor of legalized marijuana but not legal retail in Newton. I don’t think this is the case, and we’ll probably never know the breakdown.
However I will try to explain why somebody could feel that a second vote, to opt out, is disrespecting the will of the voters.
Firstly, it stands to reason that the folks pushing for this second vote (and paying to put it on the ballot) are the very same ones that voted No in the first place. They lost the game and now want to play it all over again with different rules.
Secondly, the arguments they are putting forth in favor of limiting retail range from the bizarre to the downright disingenuous. Traffic concerns in Newtonville? “Normalizing” marijuana use? Whether a certain segment of the Newton population wants to admit it or not, marijuana is seen as entirely normal by the vast majority of young people. They may or may not choose to use it, but “setting an example” in Newton is highly unlikely to change their view of the drug. Anyway what example does it send to a 14 year old boy when the cool cities like Boston allow put shops and the suburbs only permit a liquor store every 1/2 mile.
The cat is out of the bag and the bag is lying in tatters on the floor. It is simply irresponsible to pass up a source of badly needed tax revenue just because a small minority of Newton voters think pot shops are fine as long as they are in Roxbury.
Unfortunately I could not weigh-in until now, because I’ve been under personal attack from the prohibitionists. In the past 48 hours they have filed an entirely baseless complaint against me with the state elections office, and hit me with an absolutely ridiculous cease and desist order.
They can pursue whatever nonense they want, but I will not be silenced…
It’s horrible that prohibitionists have sown such discord in Newton. I pity their ignorance. But the blame for this ugly situation lies squarely on Newton’s elected “leaders,” none of whom did the right thing. The voters gave them clear instructions in 2016… “regulate marijuana like alcohol.” Not a single member of City government stood up to defend the voters decision. Setti Warren worked behind the scenes to reverse legalization. Fuller did the same thing, along with a handful of well placed councilors…
Here we are with two competing ballot initiatives. In my heart-of-hearts, I believe the City Council should tell these prohibitionistas to take a flying hike, because the issue of marijuana legalization was decided in 2016. But there’s zero chance the Council is going to do that…
So it looks like we’re going to have two competing ballot initiatives, both offering restrictions on the 2016 law. Which is incredibly UNFAIR to voters who want the 2016 law fully implemented, because it would require them to VOTE ” NO” TWICE just to keep the law most of us already voted in favor of. It is patently unfair…
Give the prohibitionists their revote. Ditch the silly “compromise.” It was a mistake from the beginning, because it let the City Councilors off the hook. Let’s have one clear up or down vote. We’ll kick the prohibitionists asses at the ballot box once again. The compromise is the larger obstacle to full implementation of the existing law.
Mike-Some clarification: who filed a complaint against you? What were you supposed to cease and desist from doing?
@Dulles, you are right: I took the citation out of context I had not finished reading the article at the moment, and I apologize. Still the article is an interesting and pertinent reading. I just wanted, in response to the links you provided, to show that on the Web you can instantly cherry-pick a lot of sources to support either side of this controversial issue. That’s why I prefer to listen to the professionals: physicians, police, prosecutors, who have direct knowledge of the other face of the problem.
Jane– The prohibitionists apparently think I’m illegally funding the cannabis movement in Newton. So one or more of them filed a complaint against me with the state elections commission. I got a call from an enforcement officer yesterday. We’re having a follow up tomorrow to put the baseless accusation to rest. The cease and desist is also baseless. I can’t talk about that until next week.
20796 fully certified Newton voters voted to opt out (and not legalize) in 2016: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/80908
Of the 25516 that voted yes on 4, some percentage of them likely took comfort in the assurances in the PRO ballot summary argument that cities and towns could opt out. Between the two its clear there are 6000+ residents wanting a vote on opt-out.
The petition requirement was just a scavenger hunt to find a little quarter of the Nos from 2016. Supporters should really start arguing the many merits of dispensaries rather than attempting revisionist history.
I agree with Mike S. that the compromise item absolutely needs to go. If both stay, then voters have 4 choices:
1. Vote Yes on both
2. Vote Yes on Opt-Out and No on 2-4
3. Vote Yes on 2-4 and No on Opt-out
4. Vote No on both
If both votes get a majority, then the question gets the most votes goes into effect. With scenario above, voters have to vote AGAINST their interests:
* People who WANT many dispensaries are forced to vote to LIMIT to 2-4 to ensure it beats opt-out in total votes.
* People who DON’T WANT any dispensaries are forced to vote to ALLOW 2-4 as well to ensure best chance that at least one gets a majority.
Or they bullet vote their primary interest and hope for the best. The outcome of above is guaranteed to be controversial and questioned.
@Bruce Wang
Mr. Wang writes,
“@Craig If you want to live in a city with recreational marijuana stores and the smells that comes with it, Brookline is one town over.”
If Mr. Wang prefers living in a town without recreational marijuana stores, he should move to a state in which recreational marijuana is not legal.
Recreational marijuana is now legal in Mass., and has been for a couple of years.
Be certain to let us know if anything significant has changed negatively in your life here in Mass. since legalization, or if anything significant changes in the future as a result of legal pot.
I’m going to guess that nothing at all has happened to you as a result of legalization, and nothing will.
Recreational marijuana stores do not smell. People do not consume marijuana in the stores. The recreational marijuana stores that will open in Massachusetts will be highly secure. Customers will enter a secure lobby (where there is no product), show their ID which will be entered into the system, get buzzed (no not that kind of buzz) into the secure show room, make a selection (from behind a case, no self serve), show their id again, complete their purchase, get buzzed out of the show room and leave the premises.
No smells. No on site consumption. No children. No teenagers. Grown ups only.
Harmonic convergence or hell frozen over?
Not sure which, but I am going to agree with Mike Striar: Ditch the silly 2-4 question!
Give the voters a clean ballot. Thumbs up or thumbs down and let’s find out what Newton really wants.
@Craig, you wrote that kids spend their every waking minute staring at Instagram “influencers” on their phones. Honestly, I didn’t know that, and thank you for sharing the information. Education is the key, indeed. In return, let me share my knowledge about other real kids that you are obviously unaware of. They don’t have much time for watching Instagram “influencers” because they are enrolled in every challenging class they can find: advanced math, violin, gymnastics… They sue Harvard over admissions. Coincidentally, their parents believe Tai Chi or yoga is a better way to recreate than “recreational” marijuana. And their number is growing I think.
@Greg, from what I read, the CCC only put off until October the decision of whether to license social consumption establishments like pot cafes. What your assertion “No on site consumption” is based on?
We’re not talking about cafes. We’re talking about retail stores. That’s all that is allowed.
If cafes are allowed, I’m confident they will come with their own regulations and deliberations.
@Greg – I think you are far too trusting thinking that everything will be operated according to the rules.
Why am I “skeptical”? Because we already have a track record here in Newton proving that entrepreneurs in the MJ industry who have opened operations here have not abided by the rules — not even at the very time when they should be on very “best behaviors” in order to get the opportunity to add recreational to their businesses.
Garden Remedies was to operate on an “appointments only basis” according to the terms and conditions of the Special Permit that they they applied for and agreed to. But right from the day they opened they set about actiely violating the condition. They actively advertised for walk-ins (there are screen shots of the GR ads for walk-ins on the Out Out website) and made up the cock-and-bull fiction of walk-in “appointments”. Really? How gullible to they think people are? That’s so just silly. They showed their true scofflaw colors. And Karen Munda you’re even admitted this was their business model at a hearing by the Land use Committee. When somebody shows by their conduct – and tells you out of their own mouths — you who they are and how they operate, you better believe it.
And GR is also subject to another Special Permit condition that they are only allowed to sell 1 oz (or equivalent depending on form) per site visit, with the balance of any order to be provided by home delivery. But weed-user chat rooms abound with self-identified GR customers saying that their “budtenders” tell them they can circumvent the limit by going out to the parking lot, stashing their purchase in their car, and come back in. Another reason to be mighty skeptical ….
Fool me one, shame on me. Foool me twice…..
The Newton Police told Programs and Services that Garden Remedies has created absolutely no problems. Zero.
@Greg, don’t know about you, but I’m talking about the Cannabis Control Commission’s “Guidance for Municipalities Regarding Marijuana for Adult Use” that provides for Marijuana Social Consumption Establishments for “consumption on the premises”. See https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/010918CNB-Guidance-Municipalities-Adult-Use.pdf.
@Anatoly, thanks I’m sure we’ll come back around to further discussion about recreational retail stores at some point in the coming weeks.
As for the renewed attacks on the compromise measure, I understand why some factions here are stepping up the rhetoric to kill compromise. But I seem to remember someone somewhere once saying… oh yes, they said: “Let the Voters Decide!” That seems like a good idea to me.
No one is forced to vote against their interests. My interest is compromise. At one point I started collecting signatures for it. I believe the majority of Newton voters are middle-of-the-road on the issue and prefer a compromise option over 8+ stores or total ban. Opt Out can let folks know to vote no on compromise, if it gets more majority votes the ban carries.
And no matter what the vote the outcome is going to be controversial and questioned, because this is Newton.
@Dulles — Thinking about this a bit more, I was wrong. With both questions on ballot, voters actually would have 9 choices, not 4:
1. Vote Yes on both
2. Vote Yes on Opt-Out and No on 2-4
3. Vote Yes on 2-4 and No on Opt-out
4. Vote No on both
5 Vote Yes on Opt-Out, blank 2-4
6 Vote No on Opt-Out, blank 2-4
7 Vote Yes on 2-4, blank Opt-Out
8 Vote No on 2-4, Blank Opt-Out
9 Blank Both
This is a pretty polarizing issue, so I think voters will vote their preference on opt-out unless they get a lot of confusing information on implications of choices (which is almost a certainty). Imagine the lawn signs…
In any case, many will be confused on implications/strategy of a 2-4 vote, so many will blank vote it. So then suppose this happens with 40,000 voters – Opt Out fails 10000-30000 BUT then 2-4 passes 10001-9999 with with half of voters blank voting it. Then have a situation where vast majority want dispensaries and perhaps many of those want no limits, but we would be restricting them on a small minority of 2-4 votes.
I think a clear up or down on Opt-out (2 choices) makes sense.
@Jack Prior – You’re the most analytical guy on this site! Thanks for pointing out the mental gymnastics that voters will have to go through when presented with two conflicting ballot questions, creating 9 choices and an election result that is as clear as mud.
You’re right that there should be one clear up or down vote on Opt Out in 2018. If Opt Out loses, then we can always vote on the 2-4 limit on the 2019 ballot if there is demand for that. There won’t likely be more than 3 or 4 stores licensed by that time any way, and voters will have more information on which to make a decision.
Reading this commentary, I am left wondering what the fuss is about…sure Newton citizens should have the right (via referendum) to decide on marijuana shops. But ultimately this is about the use of pot— as if this is still 1968 and there are valid reasons to fear a drug-crazed citizenry. Frankly, if you want to buy marijuana (and a variety of prescription drugs)go hang around the high schools
This knit picking about procedural matters is a mind-numbing distraction from the fundamental issue of the societal impact of marijuana use. And suggestive of the irrational values and policies regarding drug use in general. Personally, having frequently observed deranged behavior in the morning drive time period, I think we should spend some time considering the regulation of caffeine products. For the sake of brevity, I won’t go through the causal chain that leads to this suggestion, but people who are concerned about the ‘recreational ‘use of drugs, might do well to read Michael Pollan’s book, “How to Change your Mind”.
Anyway, aren’t there more pressing and important community issue on which to focus?
@Jack, I applaud your inventiveness in making up excuses why people should be denied choices. I understand why you want to take away choice and force people into a binary decision. But getting the ban onto the ballot (an awesome achievement) doesn’t also give you the right to deny choice by taking other questions off the ballot.
Anyway, besides being statistically improbable, the answer to your above scenario is obvious. Here’s the possible outcomes.
Neither gets 50% of the vote – nothing happens.
Opt Out gets >50% of the vote, compromise doesn’t – Opt Out carries.
Compromise gets >50% of the vote, Opt Out doesn’t – Compromise carries. (Wow, it could be 1-39,999 votes against Opt Out, and 1-0 in favor of Compromise with 39,999 blanks).
Both get >50% of the vote — the measure with the most “yes” votes supersedes.
I am wholly in favor of educating voters on the options available so the voting public makes an informed decision. This is not hard. (Question 1) “ban all pot shops? Yes or No.” A Yes vote is to ban pot shops in Newton, a No vote is to keep the status quo. (Question 2) “allow 2-4 pot shops? Yes or No.” A Yes vote is to let City Council restrict licensing to 2-4 pot shops in Newton, a No vote is to keep the status quo.
Well, I’m just impressed that they got the signatures! I’ll note a few things:
1) Everyone who approached me (whole foods, other supermarkets) was super aggressive. I think that the paid person requesting signature approach isn’t ideal. I think that the true volunteers end up giving better information. And frankly more truthful information. Most of the argument seem focused around my kids and the marketing to them, especially the possibility of consumption of edibles. And it got rather…strident.
2) I’m not sure why the partial ban would be on the ballet at this point. But I think it is in the judgment of our city council to make that decision. If I remember correctly that was ok with the ban folks when they wanted to get on the ballot without signatures. I’d prefer to have just a yes/no vote, because now it seems like the ban folks managed to jump through the hoops required and the partial ban did not.
3) With point number 1 said, my objection and prior posts on this were largely based on the ideal that referendums should meet the required rules. In this case, gather the signatures. Opt Out folks did it. Whether they paid for the folks to collect it, and whether those folks lied or were aggressive is only commentary. Perhaps that will move some votes, but it shouldn’t mean the signatures aren’t valid. The statute doesn’t require anything except a valid signature. Newton folks need to take responsibility for not signing their name unless they support the petition. Full stop. If someone wants you to sign for a cause, don’t you expect some amount of bias in their presentation? I certainly do.
4) Medicinal shops would still be permitted I believe. As Garden Remedies started with the promise that they were focused on that, I have little sympathy for them if the rules change and don’t allow them to sell recreational pot.
5) I still think there should be shops in Newton. I think this is largely a NIMBY issue, using the fears of parents as fuel. But again, we have rules for referendums, and if they carry the vote, they carry the vote. I can certainly see some folks being ok with Pot sales, but wanting to keep it far away from Newton. I don’t think that is fair or realistic. And I think I don’t want my kids smoking pot, but I think the availability of it isn’t the way to stop them from doing so. It sounds like a solution, but I think it is really naive. Pot is easier to get than alcohol in a lot of high schools. Certainly was in mine. You can post as many articles as you want, but reefer madness pressure has been around for 50 years. And decade after decade, kids in high school smoke pot.
Again, congrats on the successful signature drive. Real achievement, no matter how you got there. I wish every issue I cared about had passionate folks with deep pockets behind it.
@Jack Prior – thanks for pointing out the potential confusion putting both measures on the ballot. The simplest thing seems to me is to put OptOut on 2018, and 2-4 on 2019, but make sure somehow that the 2-4 is a real limit that the city council can not bypass.
@Jims Bigenfield I am for the decriminalization of the use of marijuana. I just don’t want the stores in Newton. Does that mean there will be no marijuana in Newton? Of course not. But it does mean there will be less consumption from less supply and less demand. I’ve seen marijuana use rise dramatically since 2016 among parents of school age children. It is the nature of teens to rebel. When they know their parents smoke out, to rebel they will turn to harder substances.
This issue is a classic example of the tension between the Puritanism and Libertarianism. There are those who consume marijuana with no problem (some of whom only think it’s not a problem), so they wonder what’s the big deal? Marijuana has wrecked the lives of those dear to me. Completely prohibition is not feasible, but at least stopping Newton from putting the imprimatur of the state makes a difference.
@Greg Reibman I was in Seattle recently where recreational marijuana is legal. They do not have pot cafes and you can not smoke it in public. I stayed in an area where there are no stores. No skunkweed smell there or in tourist areas. As soon as you step into the parts of town where there are stores, you smell it. I haven’t been to Colorado recently. My college roommate lives in Aspen. (We used to smoke pot together). As a libertarian fundamentalist, he voted for legalization and regrets it because the smell is “everywhere”.
As a new resident of Newton, I was approached at the T station about signing the Opt Out petition. Firstly, the woman was taken aback when I asked her what it was about. I told her I don’t sign anything without reading it. She started her spiel with how she voted for recreational marijuana, because she didn’t feel that young people should be penalized for smoking pot. However, she feels that there shouldn’t be any pot shops in Newton. Now I’m not sure if 8 is too many or if 2-4 is too few, but I don’t think none is appropriate, and I told her that. She went on about how the children would be negatively affected, having to walk by pot shops. I asked her if these same children were somehow negatively affected by walking past liquor stores. This is, in my view, the worst type of NIMBYism. I asked her where these young Newtonians were supposed to go to purchase their pot. She said, anywhere but Newton. I asked her if she felt that Dorchester or Roxbury was more to her liking since she didn’t want any shops in Newton. She just stammered, no. Well where then, I asked again, where are your white, privileged young people going to buy this pot, and did she think they weren’t already smoking it. Again, no response. Needless to say, I did not sign her petition. Again, all of this brouhaha over mythical “young people” who probably aren’t old enough to enter a pot shop anyway. I could get behind a smaller number of shops, but recreational marijuana is legal in MA. Opting out of shops only promotes NIMBYism, and the loss of needed tax revenue, which is not being collected by the street dealers who these young people are currently dealing with.
I would like to dispel some suggestions that this petition effort was done primarily with paid canvassers. In fact, the vast majority of the signatures were gathered by over 200 volunteers who went out in the 90-degree heat and pouring rain to talk to thousands of fellow citizens. We got well more than than the 6000 signatures needed through this volunteer effort. We also paid modest fees to a handful of paid interns and canvassers to make sure we would have more than enough to make our goal in such a short time frame. We didn’t end up needed those “extra” signatures, but we didn’t know that ex ante. So we are keeping these “extra” signatures as a back-up in case we need to get an additional 3000 signatures to force this on the ballot. BTW, almost all successful large ballot question drives primarily use paid canvassers (including the YES on Question 4 group) so I’m not disparaging that avenue. I’m just clarifying the strategy that we used.
@Bruce Wang
Bruce Wang writes, “@Greg Reibman I was in Seattle recently where recreational marijuana is legal. They do not have pot cafes and you can not smoke it in public. I stayed in an area where there are no stores. No skunkweed smell there or in tourist areas. As soon as you step into the parts of town where there are stores, you smell it…”
Again – as with his prior observations about shops in different towns surrounding Newton – his observations about the application of legalization in different states strongly suggest that those are states where he should prefer residence, since they better suit the needs he expresses.
@ Kimfair
I agree with every word you wrote! Thanks for posting this.
Laurie,
Thank you very much for your efforts of the petition. You are giving a voice to the silent (majority or minority) who dont wish to normalize pot in Newton.
Opt out folks have been labelled stupud, ignorant,uncaring, white privileged and racist so it takes a thick skin to push a petition forward. Thank you
“Silent?”
@Bugek, we got a fair amount of flak from some people, but by and large people have been respectful and curious to learn and engage. I appreciate that even our most ardent opponents have expressed respect for our efforts, even if they disagree. Newton is a good town.
I just spoke with City Clerk David Olson who expects certification to be completed shortly. Enough signatures have already been certified to put this back before the City Council.
Interesting point of information: If the City Council votes against putting the opt-out question on the ballot, the proponents need another 3,000 signatures beyond what they’ve already collected. I was trying to understand whether the excess certified signatures would count toward that 3,000 requirement. They would not.
Abe – you seem to be a delusion who has lost their grip on reality.
Reread all of your posts (I just did) and try to find some semblance of clear concise thought. You are bouncing around from traffic worries to kids walking by stores to people. It following rule… What are you getting at here? Address some of the counterpoints instead of creating new points that deflect from the issue at hand.
For the record, increased traffic because of a successful business is not necessarily a bad thing – I’m sure you would mind having a Starbucks pop up (probably similar wait time to the quoted 5 min per transaction – also one of the largest purveyors of an addicting drug *cough*caffeine*cough*).
This would be good for Newton. It would bring in revenue, it would take power away from drug dealers, it would allow for more commerce and money exchanging hands, stimulate the local economy, relieve law enforcement resources from trying to fight marijuana, it has proven to reduce opioid dependants, it has shown that legal weed does not lead to increased teen use, and I can keep going. Open your mind, please, and stop sounding like a grumpy old ‘abe’. You and your generation and like minded people are single handedly screwing this country. Quit living in the past, get with the times, and stop looking for excuses.
Kyle,
Based on your line of thought, how do you feel about legalizing brothels in Newton?
@kimfair “I asked her if she felt that Dorchester or Roxbury was more to her liking since she didn’t want any shops in Newton. She just stammered, no. Well where then, I asked again, where are your white, privileged young people going to buy this pot, and did she think they weren’t already smoking it. ”
How about Brookline?
@ Bugek I think the source of your flawed arguments all rest on the same untrue premise: that marijuana use is not “normal” now and might become “normal” if the people who live here walk by a retail pot shop.
You encounter people every single day in Newton that use marijuana. Older people, younger people, middle aged people, and even teenagers. They use it as a sleep aid, as a pain medication, and because they happen to enjoy it.
It is fully and unabashedly normal, and in your misguided attempt to save people from themselves all you are really doing is keeping tax revenue and rent money out of the city of Newton.
Bugek – even though that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, it is funny you mention that as I was just having a conversation about rape statistics in places where they have legalized prostitution: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/legal-prostitution-zones-reduce-incidents-of-rape-and_us_58c83be1e4b01d0d473bce8a
Yet another example of how prohibition does not work and only hurts society. Of course there are some things that should not be allowed because they harm society as a whole, but marijuana and sex work are neither of those. Then again, we are talking about Newton here – one of the safest cities in the entire United States.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say you also think rap music and violent video games cause kids to shoot up schools, amirite?
– I never cease to be amazed by the number of people who vote for, or against a ballot choice without having a clear understanding of what it is they are voting on. If you don’t understand why you are voting the way you are, please don’t bother voting, you do the rest of us a disservice. If you make an uninformed vote and the outcome is not to your liking, that’s on you. Sorry!
If politicians as a whole want better reputations and respect, they will learn to honor the will of their constituents and not screw around with ballot outcomes.
@Matthew Miller-
A majority chunk of Newton’s budget is already earmarked and dedicated to our school system. If parents
decide that pot shops are not in their best interest, or in the best interest of their children,
isnt it a bit rich to expect/propose that tax revenue from these stores be dedicated to, or distributed to the school system?
The spoils from these enterprises should benefit their supporters not their detractors.
Municipalities and their residents that reject businesses should not expect to receive one dime of tax revenue if they are actively discouraging or preventing their growth or survival.
@Dulles — I voted for Medical and I voted for Question 4. I’m on the fence on dispensaries and, as with many things in life, developing understanding of things over time.
To me its a question of where to be on the continuum between criminality and convenience. Reducing criminal supply chain is certainly a good thing. Does the density of stores in city selling liquor and cigarettes impact public health? How much does usage and diversion increase with convenience? I think the debate between now and November will help educate us all and ultimately help guide the zoning/regulation if things proceed. I was in Seattle a few weeks ago and got a few data points. My first Uber driver complained of the smell being everywhere. The person I was visiting said the shops are no big deal and some are very upscale. She said panhandlers tend to gather around the shops; not for the mj as it might appear, but for the spare change from the last all-cash business in the city.
I seem to post on this from the “opt-out” side because I find it hard not to react to “the voters decided” arguments that misrepresent what people voted for
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2016.pdf and those questioning the validity of the petition drive results when its really just a redundant sampling of the explicitly documented perferences of 20K+ residents on the No side in 2016.
I don’t think 2-4 will get a fair shake in direct competition with out-out unless it can be written conditionally on 1st question. It would be better as a follow on special election or in 2019 if time permits.
If the debate is highly polarizing, 2-4 likely more blank votes than it should or people voting opposite of their actual perference. On the other hand, if 4 shops are almost as good as 8+ from the Pro side point of view, I suppose they could launch a full-out “Pro” 2-4 effort and hope to go over the top with opt-out voters hedging with a 2-4 vote, but that becomes really inside baseball that would make the charter debate seem straightforward.
Bugek, honestly, whether we have zero, 8 or 10 recreational pot stores in Newton, I know that’s not going to affect my day-to-day life one bit. There is absolutely no hard truth to any of the opt-out reasons for not having recreational pot shops. Especially if you look at the most current data and most reputable sources. I can easily go head-to-head on you on any of those points.
So given this I’m curious why you have such a a strong opinion. And I know I’m asking to dig deep here but what is it about marijuana that gets your Gander up so much. and please don’t quote some study that I can give you a counter quote on just as easily but I’m looking for a reason did you have some experience, Did You observe something with your own eyes, what motivates you in this debate?
Mike,
Simply the reason is I am old fashioned, I feel the same way about cigarettes and would ban them also if that was possible.
We’ll find out if the majority of residents support medical and decriminalization of MJ but no recreational stores after the vote.
Paul, in regards to your comment to Matthew Miller and taxes – I don’t have children and don’t plan on having children. Should I get to choose that my tax dollars not go to education?
As someone who went to Newton North not too long ago, I can tell you that a well funded, practical drug education program that has a realistic approach to drugs is a much needed thing. Or of you still have an issue with that, then how about [insert arbitrary social issue here]?
Bugek – I think you have a much stronger argument with cigarettes. Funny how 60 years ago, smoking was totally fine and weed was considered the “devil’s lettuce”.
My son works at Trader Joe’s in West Newton. Someone was collecting signatures for the ballot question and asked him to sign it as he left work. When he asked what the petition was about this person lied to him. He actually read the petition and told the person that he would not sign it because he was in favor of permitting recreational marijuana stores in Newton.
The fact that the person collecting signatures for the ballot question tells me all I need to know about the campaign for the ballot question. The City Council should vote against putting it on the ballot and compel the supporters to collect more signatures.
My strong preference would be for the City Council to put both the opt out question and the reduced number of stores on the ballot, with the highest vote getter between the conflicting questions going into effect. I strongly oppose a ban, and thought the signatures needed to be gathered to show there is strong community interest in this debate. Clearly the signatures will be collected to put this on the ballot, regardless of if the City Council asks for 3000 more. This decision needs to be made now, so this doesn’t languish for a year with no clarity as to whether shops can move forward.
Put it on the 2018 ballot. Give voters the choice of a ban, a restriction to 2-4 shops, or let them defeat both. It’s not at all hard to understand and gives voters a fair variety of options. The voters are smart, especially in Newton. I trust them to make the right choice for our community.
@Bryan — If election where tomorrow, how would you vote on the 2-4 question?
If the election “were” tomorrow… unfortunately can’t edit my numerous comment typos…
@Jack – Neither can I, now that I’m a candidate. It was a nice perk of being a V14 blogger. C’est la vie.
In response to your question, I’m genuinely undecided on restricting the number of shops. Have some more research to do and interested in hearing more from the community about their preferences. What are your thoughts?
@bryan brash – “the voters are smart”… Whattaya kiddin’ me? Have you read any of this thread?
But seriously – like with every generation, the younger crowd has different prerogatives than the older one. Weed is still taboo to some (a lot) of these people and I would hate to think that progress would be stifled like that. The real problem is that this is emotional, and you can’t win those debates.
@Kyle-
I absolutely agree with your drug education idea, in fact I had actually thought that idea. I get your point about Newton North. We don’t get to pick what we want to fund as members of a community.
However, the pot shops, which incidentally I could take or leave to be honest with you, are an animal of a different color. The pot shops would generate taxable revenue unlike a high school or city capital project. There
are clearly people in the city who didn’t do their homework or didn’t do it on time and now they want a do-over. That is not the way the world works, and pandering politicians should not encourage those expectations.
People need to respect the right to vote by doing their homework, especially in a city as prideful about the smarts of its residents. There is so much noise about voters rights. There should be an equal amount of noise for voters to actually understand what they are voting for. It is imperative that we hold ourselves to a higher standard, if not as a community, then certainly as individuals. It is simply galling, but not at all surprising (considering the level of entitlement in this city), that residents who vehemently oppose these shops would consider a share of
tax revenues from them to be a given.
Paul – here here, I completely agree. That seems to be the caveat with voting – you get to have your voice heard, you just have no idea what it is you’re saying.
What would you like to see tax revenue from marijuana go to?
My question was more as a “smart Newton voter” you allude to. Given the baseline stats — unless their views have evolved — 20796 residents voted for opt-out in 2016. Of the 25516 who voted for decriminalization, home growing, higher possession amounts, transfers, etc, are you confident there are less than 2361 (9%) that will switch and vote for opting out of local recreational dispensaries? If not, would you vote defensively tomorrow for 2-4 as a means to defeat a prevailing opt-out vote on vote count even if you preference might be no limits? Is it that easy and non confusing of a choice? I don’t think so.
Personally, I’m not sure I’d opt for 2-4 over 8+ given that it two stores would apparently make Garden Remedies the regional recreational superstore. I have never seen any issue with its medical traffic whatsoever, but directing high volume recreational traffic onto Court St and its proposed 11-space lot seems like a lot to further burden that street’s residents with on top of its recent 40B.
@Jack – I’ll vote for 2-4 if I decide that’s the best option for the community. If I decide 8 would be better for Newton, I’ll vote against it.
I agree that there may be some unintended consequences of restricting the number, including that the shops that do exist could be crowded. I’ll be looking into that further over the next few months.
@Paul — “There are clearly people in the city who didn’t do their homework or didn’t do it on time and now they want a do-over.”
This is what a voter would have read doing their homework in 2016: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2016.pdf
“Local cities and towns can limit or ban marijuana businesses”
It’s not a “do over” — its a promised provision of the law that people voted for.
“a promised provision of the law”? Hardly! Opt out is poison pill that was forced down the throats of legalization advocates by prohibitionist politicians…
But the past is now irrelevant. The City Council is going to place a revote on the ballot. And the scenario they’ve created with two dueling initiatives is grossly unfair. These two ballot questions would make it nearly impossible to keep the 2016 law that was already passed by a majority of voters. In order to keep that existing law, voters would have to vote “no” on both questions. A truly confusing situation…
In my opinion, the City Council should remove the “compromise” initiative from the ballot, so we can have a simple “yes” or “no” revote. The wording of the ballot question should be clear. One choice would retain the law passed by voters in 2016. The other choice would meanNewton opts out from that law. In order to be fair, it must be crystal clear how people vote to keep the law they already passed.
A comment was removed here for violating our commenting policy. A second comment was removed because it was a response to the first.
Be nice folks.
Bryan Barbash-regarding your comment suggesting that the council put conflicting questions on the ballot and let the voters figure it out.
Jack Prior elucidated the myriad permutations brought about by that approach.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue, Newton voters deserve better from their Councilors than a dog’s breakfast ballot that requires a PhD in game theory to figure out how to vote to express their opinions. We all deserve clarity
What is the world coming to? My head is exoloding that I have to agree with Mike Striar!
Enough with the wishy washy stuff (see @ Bryan Barbash)!
Drop the 2-4 question and stop confusing the issue
Thumbs up or thumbs down.
Give us a clean ballot and find out EXACTLY what Newton voters want.
If both questions are on the ballot, I should vote no to keep the law as it is. BUT because I don’t think there should be a ban, truthfully I will more than likely vote yes on the 2-4 and no on the ban just to keep the ban from winning. I would prefer another question added, if both questions make it to the ballot; one that asks “should the law remain as is with 8 pot stores allowed.” Then I would have a clear choice. But also then voters who don’t really care, want the law to remain the same or want 2-4 will divide the yes vote.
It seems much less complicated to have one question asking should Newton have pot stores or not. Then the answers are a clear yes or no.
I’m also a little confused about what P&S are deciding on September 6. First he says it’s to determine procedural matters but below that he says P&S at the same meeting will deliberate on all of the marijuana-related ballot items simultaneously. Then present their recommendations to the full council on September 13. That is expecting a lot from one P&S meeting.
Gail, thank you for clarifying that the OO Group would still need to collect 3000 more signatures if the council doesn’t ok the ban question at their meeting.
I agree with Ted that the tactics used to collect the signatures should be a key reason for the city council to keep this question off of the ballot. In another thread I have told how I was lied to outside of a grocery store to get me to sign the petition (They will market to children) and was called a “child endagerer” when I told them I was on the other side.
In this culture created by this US administration of lies are just “alternative facts,” local politics needs to be held to a better and truer standard. Because of the way these signatures were collected, I think that when registering to gather signatures a template needs to be submitted saying exactly what signature gatherers will say, paid or otherwise, to persuade voters to sign.
The lies told from marketing to children, who would want that, to pot shops on every corner, really? there are a lot of corners in Newton, by canvassers and in blast emails should not be allowed. It’s obvious from the many experiences shared, the harassment of Mike Striar and even the violations of the rules on V14, that were allowed to stay up, by one person writing under several pseudonyms, that this group wants their way and will do whatever it takes to get what they want.
Because of all of this the city council needs to vote against putting this ban on the 2018 ballot and require them to use the truth to gather the additional 3000 signatures. Otherwise this group should be required to register as lobbyists and tell that they are to those they approach, since certain lobbyists tell lies all the time to get what they want.
I’m curious … what is the actual process of verifying signatures on a petition? Is each signature cross referenced for residency and duplicates? Are the petition sheets a matter of public record?
It’s wishful thinking to believe the City Council will not put opt out on the ballot. This is essentially the same board that voted unanimously to block sick and dying patients from receiving medical marijuana. The same board that voted without dissent to block implementation of the voters decision to legalize adult use cannabis. The only vote these City Councilors respect is a vote cast for them on election day. Their behavior throughout this process has been despicable. So you can bet the farm that they are putting opt out on the ballot…
I believe a fair vote will reconfirm the voters 2016 decision to “regulate marijuana like alcohol” in Newton. But the only way that will happen is if we have a single ballot initiative that either keeps the law already approved by voters, or opts out. The wording of the ballot question is key. Both choices must be crystal clear. There can be no ambiguity about how to keep the existing law…
It’s also imperative to not leave any wiggle room for the City Council. If voters reconfirm the existing law, the Council should be required to issue all 8 licenses in a timely fashion. Further obstruction beyond that point should be an impeachable offense.
@Mike Ciolino: Signatures are checked for residency and duplication. I’m fairly certain that the signature sheets are public record.
@Mike S – “The wording of the ballot question is key. ”
On that note, each side of this issue better get cracking on drafting their 250 summaries for and against. I can’t find the governing law, but is from David Olson:
“whenever a local ballot question is on a municipal ballot, the Election Commission is required by special home rule legislation to mail to every household a flyer with a summary of the ballot question and short 250-word statements from both the principal supporters and principal opponents of the question. ”
The Charter summaries were due in early August and a revised was allowed in early September. I can’t imagine this text will be able to wait beyond early October to allow for it to be printed and circulated to residents. The opt-out group chair will be the logical author for the YES position. At this point who will the election commission recognize as the principal opponent of Opt-out to author this? Is someone forming a ballot committee?
@Jack– You have it backwards. The question at hand is whether Newton should implement the 2016 law [YES], or opt out [NO]. That’s the FAIR way to ask the question. Since the petitioners have not raised enough signatures to place opt out on the ballot themselves, the City Council can [and must] ask the question in a clear and unambiguous way. YES keeps the law, NO opts out of the law. If the City Council tries to play more games with this revote, I predict it will end up in court before it makes any ballot.
Hi @Jack Prior,
Sorry for delayed response, I’ll be brief and stick to new points.
I’m not part of the “Respect the Vote” crowd. Like you, it’s more nuanced. My position back in July was to bring both Opt-Out and Compromise to ballot together, to reflect voters’ spectrum of opinion about regulation. Many voters fall somewhere on the spectrum between “all-out ban” vs. “nothing”.
So here are issues about the Council rescinding Compromise as I see them:
– Taking Compromise away disenfranchises voters such as myself, who are fine with some pot shops but feel 8 is unnecessary/excessive.
– It would be unprecedented for City Council to approve a ballot measure and yank it at the 11th hour. It leaves zero time or opportunity to organize. How would you feel if the Council had approved Opt Out to go to ballot at the 50-signature point … but yanked the question at the last minute to because there is a (Compromise) alternative?
– Compromise was voted on and approved to go to 2018 ballot. Compromise wasn’t introduced as a make-good for Opt Out (many/most Opt Out members left the Council chambers after the ban was rejected and before the Compromise debate was taken up). Opt-Out is now at the 6,000 voter mark, which only means the Council must hear it. The Council has the right to reject (i.e., go get another 3,000 signatures). If the Council put the ban on the ballot, it can decide to push the Opt Out vote in 2019. Again, Compromise is already approved by the Council for the 2018 ballot. If having two ballot questions at the same time is confusing, procedurally the thing to do would be to turn away or push back the latecomer still being considered, not the ballot question that’s already approved.
If Opt Out proponents want to request to delay the ban vote until November 2019 and we just vote on Compromise in November 2018, that’s an option.
@Dulles– “Many voters fall somewhere on the spectrum between all-out ban vs. nothing.” Really? That’s not my observation. I believe that most voters [which is more than “many”] want to see the 2016 law implemented…
As I’ve been pointing out for months, the two ballot scenario makes it nearly impossible for the 2016 law to stay intact. That’s the law the voters already voted in favor of. You’re concerned about “disenfranchising” voters by removing the “compromise” proposal? How is it not disenfranchising to make voters vote “no” TWICE just to keep the law they already voted for in 2016?
One vote… Should Newton implement the law passed by voters in 2016 [YES], or opt out [NO]. That’s the FAIR way to do this.
@Bryan — Would you have been fine if the city council put 8-8 on the ballot in parallel with the charter commission proposal to see which would get more votes? We could check the recent survey to see which would have won in that scenario and by how much.
@Dulles – I don’t know if the ship has sailed as far as you say on 2-4 procedurally. If residents approve 2-4, but then the city must wait for 2019 for opt-out, that’s likely a legally unacceptably long moratorium. Once a recreational location is approved, opt-out is off the table and petitioners are denied their vote. I think it would need to be a quick special election if questions are done sequentially. The turnout profile of a special election would be markedly different than a state election.
The best scenario would be a clearly worded conditional vote on 2-4 but state law likely doesn’t allow it.
OPT OUT just published pictures of a person of interest in their lawn signs disappearance case here: http://optoutnewton.org/index.php/2018/09/01/is-this-man-stealing-our-signs. Please help the police identify him if you can.
@Mike — The law passed by voters in 2016 (https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2016.pdf) provides for many things including (my numbering and bracket inserts):
1. authorizes possession, use, distribution [BY DELIVERY AT SOME POINT], and cultivation of marijuana in limited amounts by persons age 21 and older and removes criminal penalties for such.
2. regulation of commerce [BY DELIVERY AT SOME POINT] in marijuana, marijuana accessories, and marijuana products and for the taxation of proceeds from sales of these items.
3. authorizes persons at least 21 years old 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.
4. Provides for Cannabis Control Commission and its responsibilities… (your favorite body I know)
5. Authorizes cities and towns to adopt reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of operating marijuana businesses and to limit the number [TO ZERO — IF THEY PUT TO VOTERS] of marijuana establishments in their communities.
6. prevents activities authorized [in most cases] from being used in adverse orders in child welfare cases
7. prevents landlords from prohibiting consumption by tenants of marijuana by means other than by smoking
Implementing the “law” means implementing #5 above as well (I’m sure there is a lot of home growing going on) and allowing residents of the city to limit the number of marijuana establishments in their communities. Communities can not opt out of the entire law and its other provisions.
Will Lucier, in writing the 200 word ballot summary supporting Question 4 provided to residents, dedicated nearly 10% of his concise pitch to say “Local cities and towns can limit or BAN marijuana businesses, and will govern operating hours, locations, and signage.”
Note that the word BAN is only used once in the circular, and its in the PRO Question 4 authored argument for voters to approve the law.
Again, I’d suggest you get started on your suggested 250 words case for retail dispensaries. Reaching every household in the city with your best arguments for free is not an opportunity you want to squander, and doing it effectively is not easy.
Hi @Jack Prior – to clarify:
– {extending the moratorium into 2019 is unacceptable}: True
– {opt out is off the table once licenses are approved}: Incorrect. There is no hard stop for voting to opt out. A vote can be held after stores open. I don’t know how that scenario would work. But the vote can be held.
I’m aware this isn’t what you want, but it’s an alternative if Opt Out refuses to put its proposed ban on the same November 2018 ballot as the already-approved Compromise measure.
@Dulles — are you saying we can try to close approved dispensaries after a late opt-out vote after their owners have invested in their approval, design, land acquisition, and construction? Any bets on what those legal bills would be?
Two questions for lurking city officials:
1. Is there any reason why the city council can’t write 2-4 as clearly conditional on opt-out result?
2. How much would a immediate special election cost? We’ve had high turnout special elections for overrides in the past. The cost is probably pretty low relative to the tax revenue implications.
And finally why is 4 much different than 8? Chances are they pop up in the same places. 8+ highly regulated, low signage, well-designed shops might impact our “city character” much less than 4 high traffic superstores. Seattle seems to have a mix. Some are very low key and some are BLARING AT YOU.
@Anatoly Kleyman
Yikes — dude in the picture looks like me.
But, it is not me.
Guess I’ll know why any cruisers pull up on me when I’m walking to the store…
Hi @Jack Prior,
I’m just saying a ban vote can be held at any time. It’s up to the city to figure out how it would implement a ban after licenses are issued. Maybe the city would grandfather any issued licenses.
I know you didn’t direct the questions to me, but for (1) what if we make the ban vote conditional on Compromise: We only count ban votes if the Compromise measure fails to get 50% of the vote. That doesn’t sound fair at all? I agree. Neither question deserves to pre-empt the other.
For (2), the point, besides cutting the ceiling for licenses in half, is to avoid a licensing frenzy. The city can select just the best 2 applications to start. It will review and expand from there cautiously. Ideally the language will have a brake if City Council decides it isn’t ready go from 2 to 3, or from 3 to 4.
@Bruce Wang
Hi Bruce, thank you for responding to my comment. You responded, “I am for the decriminalization of the use of marijuana. I just don’t want the stores in Newton.”
Well, you know what, maybe I do not want liquor stores in Newton. I don’t even have to say the problems with them – I’m sure you know. But, I am a member of a society, and of a community. That society, and that community, overwhelmingly does want liquor stores.
Since I want to be a part of my society, and my community, I take my personal distaste, and my opinion, and I shut up, and do not share it with anyone. Perhaps I don’t patronize the shops, but I don’t tell people, “I don’t like these, so none of you should have these.”
That’s child-behavior. Are you a child?
Meanwhile: after considering your facetious and time-consuming argument against pot shops in Newton, I can offer you this: you have, several times, advised other discussants to leave Newton for other places where they may engage their whim, according to the change we made to the law.
May I suggest instead, since you’re the one with the issue, that it is consummate on you to leave this place, and go to a place where the legislation informs society and community in a way that you find favorable.
Stop being a Wang.
On the one hand, this is a very interesting, very informed discussion – quite unique given that the actual players and decision-makers are a part of the discussion.
On the other hand, ya’ll need to chill and have a toke.
This is the least-important issue our city faces. It is not an issue, frankly.
There is no problem with pot shops. You are making the problems up. Literally.
Relax.
You want to have an argument about something meaningful to the community of Newton, the future of the city, and our city’s place in our nation and world? Here:
That American Legion on California Street? Bigot Central. It’s a hangout-clubhouse for bigots, racists, Archie-Bunker types, where they drink, smoke, fight each other, ….
…and publish bigoted propaganda, and push racist legislation.
You see, one of their greatest functions is political advocacy and lobbying. You cannot imagine the memos they have sent to members to whip them into a frenzy about Newton being a “Sanctuary City.”
Get your heads straightened out on what’s important, and what’s not important.
Pot shops in Newton is not an issue.
Racists and bigots in Newton is a an issue.
Bruce’s comment “I am for the decriminalization of the use of marijuana. I just don’t want the stores in Newton” exemplifies why people think Newton is filled with classist NIMBYers.
Mike Strair, “One vote… Should Newton implement the law passed by voters in 2016 [YES], or opt out [NO]. That’s the FAIR way to do this.”
I agree that this question would be best.
Since the 2-4 question is already approved for the ballot , I don’t know if it can be removed. Do you?
I also don’t think pot stores could be closed or have their community agreements revoked after they have opened.
I don’t want the 2-4 question rewritten to be conditional on the outcome of the ban. That would defeat the purpose of voting on it at all.
To me there’s no longer a difference between prohibitionists and their appeasers who promote the “compromise” ballot proposal. Both are looking to take away rights that were won fair and square at the ballot box…
Any fair revote is likely to reaffirm those rights. But that’s not what the prohibitionists are looking for. They want to stack the deck with ballot language that favors their position, because they know they can’t win if they play fair…
But the prohibitionists didn’t raise enough signatures to get their preferred question on the ballot directly, so it’s the City Council that will determine how the question is presented to voters. The City Council has an obligation to be fair, and the language of the ballot initiative must be right on point so they are required to implement the 2016 law after it wins again…
The real question at hand, is whether voters want to implement the 2016 law in Newton, or opt out of that law? “YES” should be a vote to reaffirm the law. “NO” should be a vote to opt out. That’s the fair way to present the question. Just watch how hard the prohibitionists fight this concept. They know they can’t win a fair vote when the question is asked in a fair way.
Those who support my position that Newton should implement the law as it was approved by voters in 2016, should now understand that the language of this ballot initiative is our new battleground. Fight hard for a fair ballot question. Don’t compromise. We are going to win!
@Jim my opposition rests on the fact that more stores will mean more marijuana in our community via supply and demand and the tacit endorsement of the city. As for all those that suggest that I move, there’s no need if OptOut wins.
And thanks for the original and racist remark about my surname. I’ve never heard that one.
@bruce wang
Bruce,
I just wrote what I considered a very long, very thoughtful response, and then – stupidly – erased the whole response.
I will re-compose it at some point when I’ve calmed down (So Angry), but I want to say right away:
I am extremely sorry for my racist remark. I was stupidly blind to what I was saying until you pointed it out. I apologize to you, and to the co-discussants in this chat. Incredibly poor taste and very hypocritical of me.
You will not have to deal with anything like that from me again. I’m fixing me now.
@Jims Bigenfield, please calm down a little more and apologize to the American Legion, which is a U.S. veterans association if you forgot.
I just realized that one reason I’m opposed to pot shops near me is that they can attract customers like you.
@Marti – People likely have a different rank order preferences, e.g.
Someone highly “pro” might strongly prefer 8+, then 2-4 over Opt-Out
Someone highly “anti” might strongly prefer Opt-Out, then 2-4 over 8+
Someone anti, but close to a existing/likely dispensary site might prefer Opt-Out, then 8+ over 2-4
Someone pro, but close to a likely 8+ dispensary site or just worried about volume might prefer 2-4, then opt-out over 8+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
The problem is nobody above can express their 2nd preference in November without risk of that vote preempting their 1st if votes are simultaneously. The petition driven vote can’t be made conditional as that isn’t what the petition signers signed up for.
@Dulles — Grandfathering once the horse is out of the barn is not a ban, its 2-4 (or 1-4) depending who goes forward.
@Mike S — I see your rationale/strategy. I would suggest Yes would need to be written as “Should Newton allow the recreational dispensaries allowed by the law passed by voters in 2016 [YES], or opt out [NO] .”, as only that provision is in question. People negotiating the 2016 law hedged with an opt-out provision (or didn’t have the votes to eliminate the “poison pill”) — I don’t know the history — but it seems it was a risk that was taken to raise chances of approval and that has consequences.
Whoever gets NO, I can hook you up with several hundred highly successful, bright red NO signs that can be reused with a couple of strategically placed stickers :-).
A few here have asked if the Opt Out Question and the 2-4 limit question can be structured as an either/or or if/then, which would make logical sense and give voters the full range of choices. I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding of the legal opinions rendered at the public hearings is that due to some arcane rules in the state constitution and city charter, the questions cannot be linked in that way.
So the city can have two separate stand-alone questions that are in conflict with each other on the same ballot, or have one question on the ballot and then place the second one on a later ballot if the first one loses and there is still interest in the second question. As Jack Prior has so cogently pointed out, having two conflicting ballot questions at one time presents a hopelessly confusing decision tree for voters with 9 potential permutations and a likely challenge in court. Mike Striar is right that, given these legal constraints, it makes more sense to have an up or down vote on whether we want pot shops at all. If voters decide they do want pot shops, they can always decide how many at a later date.
@Jims
Your apology is accepted and appreciated.
@ Anatoly Kleyman
Anatoly,
You replied to me, “…please calm down a little more and apologize to the American Legion…”
Fair enough. My criticism of the American Legion is out of line. My reason for writing what I did was to emphasize my thesis.
What I wrote about the American Legion is not fair. I am personally familiar with the Legion: the staff and members have always treated me very nicely, and the Legion is a very important part of the neighborhood and town community. My distaste for certain of their political positions does not justify – at all – my criticism.
I apologize to the American Legion, and to the co-discussants in this chat. I will be more mindful of my participation.
Are there pro mj folks that are 8+ or bust? Seems to me that 2-4 should satisfy any pro mj … On the other side opt out folks seem to be at 0/none.
So why not give voters choice of none or 2-4?
@Bruce Wang
You responded to me, ” Your apology is accepted and appreciated.”
I am grateful, thank you for accepting my apology. It has been further pointed out that my post contained some other offenses that I blindly – and stupidly – made. I have attempted amends for these separate offenses also.
I am enthusiastic to (re)-write a response to our primary discussion regarding the shops, and I am grateful that you accept further discussion from me. Very generous.
My wishes towards a continued good day to you.
Where’s the moderator?
@Jim Bigenfield has used a racist surname slur, has suggested that a person of an ethic background different from his leave town if he disagrees with him on this issue, and has denigrated those of us who have served this country (ironically, at the very time when American hero John McCain is being laid to rest).
What does it take to get suspended from Village 14? Surely it should not depend on whether the offending/offensive author favors Opt Out or, like the moderator, favors pot shops in Newton.
BTW @Greg – Maybe you are just taking a Labor Day holiday and will get back to this. But when you do, if you are not going to suspend @Jim Bigenfield (apology post notwithstanding) please don’t just take his offending/offensive posts down selectively. Let the readers see just how his mind works…
@Abe Zoe
Hello, Abe. Since your questions are regarding myself, may I attempt to address them?
You write, ” Jim Bigenfield has used a racist surname slur…”
This fact was pointed out to me by the discussant to whom I offered a racist insult. We have discussed it together. He has accepted my apology, and I have grown from the experience.
You further write, “has suggested that a person of an ethic background different from his leave town if he disagrees with him on this issue…”
You are incorrect. Your error is due to having considered my comment in isolation, rather than in the context of the conversation it is a part of. I invite you to confirm this for yourself, but if you wish me to explain: the discussant in question has, several times, offered the opinion that people can visit and move to other towns if they wish to visit pot shops, instead of having to have them here in Newton.
Thus, I argue that my criticism towards the discussant is valid, and an appropriate mode of debate.
Your observations regarding ethnic identity of the participants is specious and irrelevant. Our ethnic backgrounds are unknown to one another.
Meanwhile: those whom I have offended with my ill-conceived posts have confronted me directly, and – I hope – we have moved past that.
I hope that with my explanations, you will be able to move past that as well.
It is my sincere desire to remain a participant in the discussion, despite the extremely stupid things that I have written. It’s my hope that my continued participation will not yield any more stupid things from me, and instead, that I can positively inform the chat.
I wish you a good day, Abe.
@Abe Zoe
Abe, sorry to double-reply. In consideration of what you wrote, “BTW @Greg …. if you are not going to suspend @Jim Bigenfield (apology post notwithstanding) please don’t just take his offending/offensive posts down selectively. Let the readers see just how his mind works…”
I am in absolute agreement with you, Abe.
Here is why:
I consider myself “against racism.” Anti-racist. I do not like racists. I spend quite a lot of time thinking about racism in our society, and talking about racism in our society. I do believe that I have good thinking about it, and that I have a positive effect – not a a negative effect – in my community.
And yet- the racist comment.
Now, I don’t know how well you’re reading me – maybe this comes off as just words. However, I will tell you: I am bothered, all day long now, by what I wrote. Because I am not a racist. But, if I write that – if that thought comes in my head – well, then, I actually am racist.
And -this- is why I agree, leave the posts up for all to see, regardless if I am allowed to continue to participate. Because: I’ve been trying to figure something out for a little while now: why, when someone has a clearly racist opinion or view, why do they fight so hard to argue that it is -not- racist?
And so: leave the posts up. Let people see what happens when someone who is trying to be honest, and trying to be good, fucks up, and finds out he’s maybe not so good.
Don’t you think there is value in an actual demonstration of one of us fucking up, but then, trying to grow from it?
Let us not distract from the primary conversation any further. If my continued participation is distracting, then I will honor any participants request to leave the discussion.
Contrition noted, @Jim Bigenfield.
You didn’t think of “Wang” as an ethnic name? Really? It was very generous of @Bruce Wang to accept your apology (which posted while I was composing mine — as did your American Legion apology)
Forgive and Forget?
Nope — Forgive and Remember.
@Abe Zoe
You write, “You didn’t think of “Wang” as an ethnic name?”
I do not generally worry about sociometric indicators in other people. For one thing, they can often be misread, and are generally unreliable in individual cases of sociometric identity.
You write, “It was very generous of @Bruce Wang to accept your apology…”
Yes, it was, as he and I have discussed together. I am glad to know that you agree.
You also write, “Forgive and Forget? Nope — Forgive and Remember.”
So, clearly, you are still upset about this, despite what I have written.
This evokes another thing of great interest to me: our new modes of social justice. We seem very interested in making sure justice is served, and served permanently.
So, let me ask you, Abe. It appears clear that my apology, my self-reflection, and (what I hope to be) a demonstration of growth is entirely unsatisfactory to you. Your verbiage and attitude in your reply make this crystal clear.
So, what – according to Abe – is the correct thing to do with me?
Should we kill me?
Or is that not quite enough? I only have one living family member – should we kill him also?
If killing me seems to extreme, even for you, what do you suggest is the correct punishment (or if you don’t believe in punishment, then the correct response from society) to my crime?
@abe zoe
Abe,
It is worth it, I think, to point out: you wrote, “Forgive and Forget?
Nope — Forgive and Remember.”
Your choice of presentation implies that I asked any participant to “forgive and forget.” I did not, and your attempt to misrepresent what I have written in disingenuous. I do not believe you are trying to help the discussion or your community by saying this. I think you are using this as an opportunity to feel angry about something.
I did not ask anyone to “forgive and forget.”
I have asked to be forgiven.
That is the only thing I have asked for.
Keep your own words in your own mouth, Abe.
Folks – This discussion has run its course. Comments are now closed.
You do a very good job of forgiving yourself @ Jim Bigenfield.
And now, because I choose “Forgive and Remember” (I suggest you look that one up before leaping to your own self-defense again) you resort to equating me with an executioner?
Do yourself — and the rest of us— a favor and try being silent for more than 8 self-reflective minutes between posts on your own behalf.
@Abe Zoe
I will ask again that you keep your own words in your own mouth, Abe.
You continue to deliberately misinterpret, and deliberately misrepresent what I say. I am extremely reluctant to converse with such a person, and I no longer feel the sense of respect towards you that entitles you to continue to judge me.
I might observe – given your advice, “a favor and try being silent for more than 8 self-reflective minutes between posts on your own behalf.”
I might offer you similar advice, given that your haste to express your pent-up rage wherever you think it may find purchase has now resulted in several examples of you failing to actually read the chat you’re so eager to police.
So, the least respect due to you, Abe, phooey on you. You’re looking for a place to rage. This isn’t it.
Well, congratulations @ Jim Bigenfield — you set a new land speed response record — just 7 minutes this time.
And you don’t even know what — in your anger — you are responding to.
Go look up “Forgeive and Remember” and — pardon the pun, learn from it.
I’m glad you wrote that you choose no longer to correspond with me. So why don’t you stop doing so?
@Abe Zoe
I am pretty much all set, Abe, with you being an asshole to me.
I’m afraid I’m not angry. I will share with you, however, that you are a very frustrating person to speak to, and I am quite disinclined to do so any further.
I don’t think I’ll be taking your advice to look anything up, to time my responses to suit your criticisms, or – really – to worry any further about what you have to say.
You have invalidated any criticism you have for me, now or in the past.
Go bother other people now.
Abe and Jim – I just stopped inside to check my email for a message I’ve been waiting for and did my usual 2 minutes roundabout of sites to find find this kerfuffle. Abe – I have the answer to your question “Where are the moderators?”: just guesses, but probably one’s at Crystal Lake, another is at the Cape, and a third is planning some fun event or other with friends. I suggest you both go outside and enjoy one of the last days of summer. It’s a glorious day out there! (On my way back out)
Jim, Abe, Bruce
I read the racist comments posted around 7am before it was removed. There’s actually 2 surprising things about it:
– it was made on a mostly liberal forum by an open minded and educated indivual from one of the most liberal towns in Usa. Looks like the race card is used to both offend and guilt when rational arguments on both sides are exhausted.
– this was the only racist comment could not be blamed on Trump. Lol
And in a more serious note, which is totally off topic. We’ve never discussed (accepted) racism against American asians… perhaps when the Harvard affirmative action case gets closer we can have a new post
@Jane Frantz
Jane,
Thank you. I am taking your advice, and stepping outside for the rest of my day, just a couple of minutes from now.
Excellent advice for both of us. I do not like such distracting conflict, and I apologize, again, for the distraction I have caused to the chat.
LOL, Jane
@Bugek,
Bugek,
You write, “I read the racist comments posted around 7am before it was removed.”
You are incorrect. There is a single racist comment, not multiple racist comments, as you insinuate. You are also incorrect in your statement regarding the comment: it has not been removed.
I urge you to review this thread to be sure you understand what you are referencing.
Your observation regarding the “race card” is incorrect, and you would be aware of this, were you to familiarize yourself with the chat.
You write, “this was the only racist comment could not be blamed on Trump.”
You could not possibly be more incorrect.
None of us are not racists. At least, I haven’t met a person from a culture with multiple ethnicities that isn’t.
The example of myself is prescient of this.
I apologize, again, to all discussants, for the distraction my earlier comment continues to cause to this discussion.
And, now I’m late for going outside. Great.
Greg,
You removed a post 2 days ago at 7am which also referred to bruces last name in a racist slur. Was it made by the same person who used Bruces last name in a slur today?
@Bugek
Since this is a moderated forum, I’d like to offer the suggestion that we allow the moderator to weigh in regarding my offense, and what resultant actions should be taken as a result of this offense.
I recommend this because the discussion surround this has become unreasonable, and is has now provoked a complete derailment of the serious (and seriously incredible) discussion that has been taking place.
Continuing to raise this issue in the absence of any clear purpose is simply petty. Prioritize finding solutions over reiteration of problems.
Usually Bugek is perfectly fine with racism. He’s only making a big deal about it because the comment was from someone pro-weed.
@Mary
I see.
Perhaps I would benefit too from a more thorough review of the entire chat, as I have been advising my more vocal critics.
Keep rocking that Nimby card guys, the pot shop echo chamber is not moving public opinion, which is wierd with all the free media Big MJ gives you.
Heres what’s happening: marijuana culture has grown quickly, proponents and champions of that culture have given up actually addressing the criticism leveled at the Great Leaf, and simply cast opponents as childish (Bigenfield, looking at you here), reactionaries. Now, as this becomes an issue where a resident is asked to weigh the merits, the see one side expressing concerns. And the other side mocking them. Good luck with that strategy as November approaches.
I don’t think, for example, that the big take-away about concerns of teens using and increased DUIs is that opponents are scaredy-cats, but that is the sum of how the concern registers in the minds of opponents. And they bring up alcohol, which has caused major societsl problems, but for what purpose, to remind us that we are about to on board a culturally motivated drug with as many societal impacts?
Really, the mockery makes it so much easier to turn public opinion. Please keep it up!
I don’t think that’s the point when people bring up alcohol. I think it’s to point out that people are AOK with liquor stores and restaurants that serve alcohol, so it’s silly to be anti-pot shop.
@bugek, @james
Bugek,
You write, “You are giving a voice to the silent (majority or minority) who dont wish to normalize pot in Newton.”
Recreational use is normal, and has been for quite a long time. I am afraid you, Bugek, are the abnormal element in this discussion.
I am also unfamiliar with the silent contingent you refer to; those who disfavor observing the change in law appear extremely vocal and visible.
You also write, “Opt out folks have been labelled stupud, ignorant,uncaring, white privileged and racist.” Are you an “Opt out folk,” and are you white?
You inquire of another discussant, “how do you feel about legalizing brothels in Newton?”
I would feel it would be a very positive thing. Why, do you have a problem with commercial sex workers?
Are there any other specific sociometric identifiers which you consider make a person “bad,” separating them from the “good” people?
You also have written, “With such a divisive issue, it problem[sic] was easier than usual to collect opt-out signatures”
This is not a divisive issue. It was settled – by quite a majority of people, I should think – a couple years ago. It is divisive only to yourself, shared only by those whose arguments are as defective as your own.
You also write, “Simply the reason is I am old fashioned[sic].” Old-fashioned in the sense that certain people should know their place, and to not step out of place? Otherwise, they know what they’ll get? Those sure were the days.
Looks like I am enjoying this discussion once again. Glad I reviewed the comments thoroughly: I surely have egg on my face.
—————-
James,
Stern look noted; genuinely attempting to improve my standing – of course, what’s done is done.
Mmqc,
.. or to rephase your post another way…. we will ignore veiled racism as long as it advances the cause of pro MJ. And besides its not racist if it targeted towarda asian right?
Anyway, i wish this thread would die. There will be a vote and residents will decide and I’m fairly sure both sides will abide by it. We’re just beating a dead horse until the vote
@bugek
Bugek,
You write, “.. or to rephase your post another way…. we will ignore veiled racism as long as it advances the cause of pro MJ”
That is not rephrasing. That is a deliberate misinterpretation of the original statement.
You also write, “And besides its not racist if it targeted towarda asian right?” This is an insinuation of a narrative that does not exist.
Both deliberate attempts to foil productive discourse utterly invalidate your criticisms of this issue.
I’m sympathetic to that point, @MMQC.
People generally do not understand how much havoc alcohol wreaks on society. I’ve read around 50% of domestic violence is linked to alcohol. So that is an important conversation that needs to happen and I would bring it up until the public absorbs the reality that alcohol definitely comes at a cost.
@bugek
Bugek,
In further consideration of your statement, “And besides[sic] its[sic] not racist if it[sic] targeted towarda[sic] asian[sic][sic] right?
Am I to understand that you are assuming the ethnicity of one of our co-discussants, based on his surname?
Are you personally familiar with the co-discussant, and can you verify how he self-identifies?
I did note earlier in this chat: sociometric identifiers are notoriously unreliable at specifying sociometric identity. I, for one, would never be so bold as to identify a person’s ethnicity based on surname.
I would never be so bold to identify a person’s ethnicity based on any sociometric identifier.
That’s simply not how it works, Bugek.
A final question – and I would like it if you address it specifically: what, exactly, do you mean when you say, “asian[sic]?”
“.. or to rephase your post another way…. we will ignore veiled racism as long as it advances the cause of pro MJ. And besides its not racist if it targeted towarda asian right”
My family is mixed race (Asian and white) so how dare you put words like that in my mouth.
Jack Prior wrote:
<>.
I agree. More importantly, obviously the impact of one of few “high traffic superstores” on its neighbors will be much bigger than of one of many spread over the whole city. So, wherever such a superstore is placed, it will be very unfair to the local residents. Based on this, I believe the Council should drop the 2-4 option and allow only opt-out yes or no vote.
This is what Jack Prior wrote:
8+ highly regulated, low signage, well-designed shops might impact our “city character” much less than 4 high traffic superstores
Mmqc
Why do you assume i am not asian? So how dare you allow asian racist comments to go unchallenged?
@Anatoly Kleyman
Please excuse me if the answer to my question can be found in the present legislative proposals, but I wish to inquire of the chat,
Is state or local regulation specific in that recreational pot will be sold only in designated and specific retail shops? And that these shops are to be single-purpose, that purpose to be the sales of pot and directly-related supplies and equipment?
My thinking is as follows: once we’ve moved down this road, and we are all a little more comfortable with an admittedly-sudden change in the entire paradigm of one of our legal, recreational endeavors, what regulations might be expected, and how might they manifest?
Will pot continue to be sold exclusively in single-purpose, dedicated retail locations? Like with alcohol?
Or, will retail entities of varied or mixed-use products be eligible for a pot sales permit?
I cannot help but notice things like in Watertown’s Home Depot, a huge gardening section, as well as application-specific product presentation. Would they be able to open a “grow department,” if they wishes?
Knowing that I will doubtless earn criticism from observers conscious that we are in Newton, perhaps the example of a wonderful Sativa blend being sold at Swartz Hardware?
While the chat is at present focused on the decisions regarding whether to allow pot shops in Newton, and what the immediate days and weeks following their opening might be like, I find myself provoked to consider the picture five years or ten years down the line – after the excitement has died down, and those whose job it is to argue current events have thus moved on to more contemporary concerns.
I wouldn’t mind buying a joint at the Quick Stop.
They’ve already got pipes and bongs there, and have for quite some time – so far, no studies revealing increases in addiction, crime, morbidity or mortality!
[ really big thumbs-up emoticon ]
Let’s put this “superstore” fantasy in proper context. A dose of reality if I may. The average Dunkin’ Donuts in Newton does far more volume than Garden Remedies, and Garden Remedies is the only dispensary in the city.
From the Commenting Rules:
“In general, avoid profanity, particularly when aiming comments at an individual”.
I counted two in Jims Bigenfield’s posts to this thread. Will the moderators ban him finally? There is no value in his posts anyway. I just reported his latest comment.
Note: no response from Jims Bigenfield is wanted, though I understand it’s unavoidable until the moderators take action.
@Abe Zoe
Abe,
You have written,
“Do you really think that opening pot shops in Newton will help stem the opioid crisis?”
I think that’s a terribly general statement and question, and betrays a lack of understanding of the topic you evoke.
There are several excellent studies demonstrating the inverse association between recreational marijuana and addiction disease – especially opioid addiction, with exciting evidence being presented in regard to alcohol addiction, as well.
Consider this fact however you wish. You may consider applying it to the question of recreational marijuana retain shops in Newton.
You have also written, “Do you really think that opening pot shops in Newton won’t encourage more underage use of marijuana?”
What one “thinks” about this is irrelevant, Abe. You are asking a question of fact, which can only be answered with evidence, and associated analysis.
Are you aware of any excellent studies that support your claim? If you are, we should certainly consider those studies, and your question, in the context of our chat.
If there is, however, no evidence to support your conjecture, then I propose your fear be classified as one of those things that we can safely wait, observantly, to see if it actually does manifest as a problem.
My conjecture – which may be a little more authoritative than your conjecture – is, “no.”
And if it is a problem, maybe we just do what we do with alcohol, since we have decades of experience with its commerce and regulation. It’s worked well enough that we seem super happy with its legalization, now nearly ninety years ago.
You also write, “There are plenty of good reasons why the Newton police chief (with nine years of narcotics officer experience) opposes pot shops in Newton.”
Incorrect. There is one good reason: he is a law-enforcement professional at the community level, and in his professional life, with it’s heavy emphasis on drug interdiction (per our “War on Drugs,”) he as only known pot to be an illegal substance. And it still is.
The other reasons are not good reasons.
You also write, “There are plenty of good reasons why Governor Baker (with family experience with drug use) opposed Question 4.”
Plenty of good reasons? You’re quite sure they’re good? Do any of them have the letter “$” in them?
You also write, “There are plenty of good reasons why the director of public health in Newton opposes pot shops in Newton.”
I don’t know who the PH director is, and I don’t know what that person has said regarding pot shops. Are you able to accurately represent those views, so we may discuss them?
I wish you a good evening, Abe.
@Anatoly Kleyman
Anatoly,
Though your comment was not directed to me, may I respond to you on my own behalf?
You quoted from the Commenting Rules, ““In general, avoid profanity, particularly when aiming comments at an individual”.”
This is getting to be a pattern: I apologize for my use of profanity in my comments. I feel that my sparing and judicious use of profanity is quite useful in emphasizing and deepening my writing. I was, however, unaware of this forum’s rules. I will absolutely be observant of these rules in all my subsequent posts. You, and the co-discussants, have my sincere apology.
You also write, “I counted two in Jims Bigenfield’s posts to this thread.” You don’t count very well: I’ve used decidedly more than two profanities in my comments on this posting.
You also write, “Will the moderators ban him finally? There is no value in his posts anyway. I just reported his latest comment.”
I noticed a couple of other requests to the moderators of this forum embedded in these comments. If I may offer advice, for the kind of information you’re seeking, it would be far more appropriate – and productive – for you to write a personal email to the individual you are questioning. Not only is this a somewhat inappropriate forum for your personal requests, but it is – I should think – more likely to yield satisfactory responses.
You do seem familiar with this forums rules – quite a lot more so than me! What are the conditions for being banned from a forum? Do you, in your estimate, believe I have satisfied those conditions?
You also write, “Note: no response from Jims Bigenfield is wanted, though I understand it’s unavoidable until the moderators take action.”
Your wants, I’m afraid, are utterly irrelevant. We are having a discussion in a public forum. As long as I feel I have something valuable to respectfully share with the co-discussants, I can promise you: I will.
I have, prior to your comment, but subsequent to our returning to the primary topic of our conversation, asked a question in regard to the long-term considerations of the questions we are discussing. Would you please address that comment at this time? I would personally request that you – and other co-discussants – avoid attempts to change the subject from the primary topic, most especially for any issue for which we await moderator intervention.
I hope that you have a pleasant evening, Anatoly.
@Jim– I love your passion. I’m delighted to be on the same team. But engaging these prohibitionists in lengthy philosophical arguments just doesn’t work. You have to keep your argument simple. Call out one lie at a time. When you box them in a corner on a single issue, the absurdity of their position becomes clear. Two things to always remember. They know absolutely nothing about cannabis. And they genuinely fear freedom. My advice… Calm down [just a bit] and carry on.
@Mike Striar, all due respect but
1) GR is not yet a recreational store
2) people are not going to DUI on donuts
3) Donuts are not a cash only industry, meaning that it’s not going to be a burglar magnet like marijuana dispensaries are.
4) GR is appointment only, meaning that even if the volume is proportionally much lower, it is impossible to get a sense of what volume will be like without that restriction.
5) Dunkin Donuts is near peak market saturation. Let’s say GR goes recreational, and it remains the or or one of the few stores in Newton, that’s still one more store that all towns to the immediate west of Newton don’t have, and MA is hardly feeling a market saturation from Marijuana.
6) Marijuana is a greed sick industry, which is why it has gone so aggressively into MA, with little to no regulation on moldy weed and the practices of medicinal facilities. It has been stupid and reckless, and that makes it awfully easy to argue against.
What MA has achieved for market saturation is constant messaging from major (and minor) publications about how common this product we don’t yet sell recreationally is (aka normalization). Hence, proponents, including yourself, continue to make arguments bolstered by this oversaturated marijuana media market, talking down to towns that have little presence of marijuana as they consider opting out, which strikes me as an awfully myopic stance; to expect that this media will prove to be the advantage and not a liability prior to November.
If anything, I would be watching the news nervously for damaging stories from here until November, fingers crossed that I don’t hear about marijuana, because the more the public has time to consider the issue, the more proudly Nimby they’re going to be about it. They are going to buck national trends and feel good doing it if for no reason other than that towns, like people, enjoy distinction.
I just came in and WOW! has this thread has gone off the rails. Yes, Greg is on vacation.
Everyone should read the commenting rules before joining in the fray. We like to keep it a little more civil here and attempt to stick to the issue rather than attacking each other personally. Several commenters have been breaking our commenting rules in various ways. I am not seeing one to be more egregious than another except that it is a hard and fast rule that no one can post under more than one pseudonym and it seems that problem has been solved. No the comment removed earlier was not from Jims.
I see no reason to ban anyone at this point. I do ask that the discussion get back to the issues. Stop with the personal conversations or swap emails with each other if for some reason you want to continue.
I think the “opt out” people believe that they can enact their will by swaying those town citizens who do not have specific opinions in regard to the question of recreational marijuana sales and retail establishments in Newton.
I believe their methods and arguments make this conclusion absolutely clear and obvious.
And I think most Newton residents are a little too sophisticated for that kind of thing.
I am not concerned – at all – regarding a small, sad contingent of citizens (“good people,” of course, of course) attempting to unify, and defy their society and their community’s consensus wishes.
I will offer a very sarcastic, “Best of luck with that,” since the very most harm these folks are going to do is the wasting of everyone’s time.
The war is over. You lost. And everyone won.
May you share the peace the rest of us have achieved.
@Mike Striar
Mike,
Thank you so, so much for your supportive comment.
I’m still catching up to speed regarding the prohibitionists. I was not aware, for example, that half of them were trolling rather than being genuine – I don’t know if you have seen all my comments, but I vested considerable respect and trust to several of them when called out for my flagrantly poor taste in one of my comments.
But I’m on the right page now, Mike.
I am grateful for your advice, and I am going to try taking it. Right now.
I wish you a pleasant evening, Mike.
@Marti Bowen
Marti,
Thank you for that comment. I’m the one who caused the trouble initially, and at present, I have a couple-few posts containing violations of this forum’s rules. I thought I had taken specific and swift action to amend my offensive post, however, clearly, several co-discussants have remained dissatisfied.
One co-dicussant helpfully provided reference to the rules to me, and I am reviewing them now to ensure that – if I am permitted to remain a member of this discussion – that I will be doing so fully cogent of the expectations of the participants.
And, I can pledge further that I would absolutely respect these rules from this point forward. My interest is in this extremely interesting discussion, and the (mostly) highly-informed dialogue. This is a truly wonderful forum to host and encourage such discourse.
I hope you have a very good night, Marti.
@Mike S. — “Superstore” was probably a bit of over the top. Apologies. You have made that point that the city tax revenue from this business could be in the millions per year, and that many neighboring towns have enacted bans. My point was that, if that is the case, that could be a lot of demand to funnel to 2 stores in the city, and concern about that could lead someone to rank their choices to a non-intuitive opt-out, 8+, 2-4. The current GR situation seems fine to the extent I’ve noticed driving by or visiting Village Cafe. The proposed expansion add an 11 parking space lot on Court St and potentially a lot of circulating traffic on it.
In any case it was to make the point that dueling simultaneous ballot questions are complicated and we seem to be on the same page on that front.
Mike Striar wrote:
“The average Dunkin’ Donuts in Newton does far more volume than Garden Remedies, and Garden Remedies is the only dispensary in the city”.
Following his wise advice, one lie at a time:
1. You won’t believe it, but Dunkin Donuts can be found everywhere, even in Weston. On the other side, folks from numerous Metro-West towns where pot shops are banned will use Newton as their destination.
2. Garden Remedies doesn’t do recreational yet, so the volume, if this happens, is unknown.
3. This is not so much about customers’ numbers, as about who they are and what their condition is.
As the experience with Garden Remedies continues to be evoked and referenced, I wish to share my anecdotal observations:
I pass by Garden Remedies perhaps between approximately one- to two-dozen times per week, and I have since it opened. I pass at various times throughout the daytime and evening hours.
Also, my eye doctor is next door.
Since they opened, I have never once seen a person entering or leaving the establishment. Nor have I seen people proximal to it.
I have observed more traffic entering and leaving my eye doctor’s office – adjacent and in the same building – and it’s not even a very busy practice.
I have never seen traffic in that area of Washington street become so congested that vehicles were no longer traveling at the speed limit. I have never seen more than approximately 15% of the public, on-street parking spaces, from the big liquor store all the way west to the NYNEX central office, occupied.
In short, the impact of medical marijuana dispensary Garden Remedies on general life in Newton, and Newtonville, is – roughly – non-existent.
Now, of course, this is anecdotal evidence. And I could have fantastically unusual luck, and despite its unlikelihood, simply be failing to drive by when someone is entering or leaving that shop.
But, that does not seem likely. It seems much more likely that there is not an unusually high amount of traffic at this retail location. A comparable volume, perhaps, as my eye doctor (adjacent office, same building), or the little cafe that is nearby.
But not on the order of Cabot’s, which attracts extremely high traffic, creates immense parking problems, and – again, anecdotally – encourages children to run across the four-lanes of restricted right-of-way (typical vehicular speed, 30 mph).
Very dangerous.
Cabot’s, of course, looks positively deserted when considering the volume of traffic at Whole Foods (where I regularly almost get creamed by people who have not been trained in driving, nor the laws regulating the use of the public way – or have abandoned those things), the big booze superstore next door, or even the 7-11 just east of all of that.
In short, I find the complaints about real or potential negative community impact of Garden Remedies to be unfounded, and lacking evidence.