Tonight, September 5, 2018 City Council meeting docket includes the following items – below.
Council President Laredo’s memo to the City Council on August 28, says in part:
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.
According to the first two items docketed below, #468-18 and #469-18, it would take a majority vote to refer these items to Programs and Services because they were acted on by the City Council less than 12 months ago. Something seems amiss here. On #469-18 Councilor Laredo is a co-docketer, among 9 Councilors, who wants to overturn the council’s recent previous decision and put the ban question on the ballot. If these actions are approved as is, the question banning marijuana retail stores would go on the ballot but not the question to regulate the number of retail stores. This scenario would mean the ‘Initiative Petition would not need to be discussed at all and there would be no need for Councilor Laredo to submit #471-18.
Docket:
The subject matter of the following item was disposed of during the preceding 12‐months. Council Rules, Article I, Section 3. D, requires a majority vote of the Council to be referred to Committee:
#468‐18 Request to remove the Question regulating the number of recreational marijuana establishments from the November ballot.
COUNCILORS COTE, NORTON and KELLEY requesting that the City Council remove from the November 2018 special election ballot the question as to whether the City of Newton shall limit the number of retail recreational marijuana establishments operating in Newton to no fewer than two and no more than four, which was approved by the City Council on July 9, 2018.
The subject matter of the following item was disposed of during the preceding 12‐months. Council Rules, Article I, Section 3. D, requires a majority vote of the Council to be referred to Committee:
#469‐18 Requesting the City Council place a question on the ballot prohibiting retail recreational marijuana sales in Newton.
COUNCILORS BAKER, NORTON, GENTILE, KALIS, COTE, CICCONE, LAREDO, KELLEY and SCHWARTZ requesting reconsideration of item #312‐18 so that the Council can place a question on the ballot that would prohibit retail recreational marijuana establishments in the City at a November 2018 Special Election.
#470-18 Initiative Petition requesting a ballot question prohibiting recreational marijuana establishments with exceptions
SUZANNE BENDER ET AL., submitting an Initiative petition pursuant to the City of Newton Charter and signed by 10% of the registered voters, requesting that the City Council place a question on the November 6, 2018 ballot as to whether the City of Newton will adopt the following ordinance:
“Operation of recreational (non‐medical) marijuana establishments as defined in M.G.L. Chapter 94G is prohibited in Newton, provided that a marijuana establishment that was licensed and approved to operate as a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center (Registered Marijuana Dispensary) in the City of Newton prior to July 1, 2017 may, if otherwise allowed by zoning, (a) cultivate non‐medical marijuana; (b) manufacture and/or produce non‐medical marijuana related products; (c) test non‐medical marijuana and the products derived therefrom; (d) engage in wholesale distribution of non‐medical marijuana and non‐medical marijuana products, but not to include retail sales thereof in the City of Newton.”
#471-18 Provide a means for voters to determine which marijuana question prevails if both are approved
PRESIDENT LAREDO requesting discussion and vote on a means to enable Newton voters to determine which of two ballot questions limiting retail marijuana sales will prevail if both appear on the November ballot and both receive a majority vote of the electorate, recognizing that a subsequent implementing ordinance may still be required.
The context is that the proponents of a ban have achieved enough signatures to put the item on the municipal ballot but in 2019. My docket item would simplify the language to focus on the core concern that citizens have expressed –additional recreational marijuana retail facilities – and allow it be decided in 2018 at a special municipal election which is already necessary to respond to the companion ballot question relating to allowing up to 2-4 facilities passed by the Council earlier this year. Another docket item requests that the 2-4 item be rescinded, but the Law Department has also advised that it should be revised to be in proper legal form. The President’s memo suggests that all these issues, including advising voters about which item prevails if two inconsistent questions end up on the November ballot, be initially sorted out in the Council’s Programs and Services Committee meeting on Thursday, September 6, and then in turn by the full Council at a Special Council meeting on Thursday, September 13. In this regard, it may be helpful for readers to review a memorandum from the Newton Law Department on the different ballot questions which can be found on the City Council Web page in the current Friday packet received by all Councilors: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/aldermen/fridaypack.asp.
Councilor Baker, you’re first sentence is wrong and misleading to the public. The petitioners have acievec enough signatures to again request the city council to vote on whether or not to put the ballot question banning recreational marijuana retail stores. They will have to gather 3000 more signatures automatically get the question on the municipal ballet.
Lisle has done a lot for Newton. Unfortunately he’s chosen to be on the wrong side of history. The prohibitionists manipulation of the voting process in Newton seems unending. They are not going to stop until pro cannabis voters put a stake through their heart at the ballot box yet again. So let’s have at it… But let’s make damn sure the revote is FAIR. There must be a clear option for voters to reaffirm their “YES” vote FROM 2016. A ‘YES” vote in this next election should require the City Council to FULLY IMPLEMENT THE 2016 LAW. A “NO” vote would of course ban adult use cannabis sales in Newton.
Councilor Baker has it just right!
Councilor Baker, why the need to put your thumb on the scales for a matter that was already decided at the ballot box by ALL citizens of Newton? As a previous commenter points out, what the petitioners have achieved is the right to request the council to vote on whether or not to put the question to a municipal ballot in 2019. It would be great if you all would do the right thing and simply vote against that action, but failing that, why do their work for them and expedite this re-vote?
Retail marijuana is the law and the permits should be issued immediately.
If in 2019 the citizens of Newton are foolish enough to retroactively ban it, we can deal with the repercussions of that decision in a court of law.
I think we all know that the last thing any of the prohibitionists want is evidence that retail marijuana is no big deal, and not a threat to Newton in any way. They have one chance to thwart the will of the people, and it seems that you are helping them.
The reality of a 2019 revote [as opposed to a 2018 revote] would be bleak. While some cannabis entrepreneurs will certainly make a lot of money in the future, it’s still a very risky venture. No one is going to invest the level of funding required to start a cannabis business in Newton with the potential of a 2019 ban hanging over their head. The money will flow to more progressive communities with better leadership on this issue. Pushing off a potential ban until 2019 is the same as handing victory to the prohibitionists.
Ms. Bowen is accurate that my prior explanation omitted a step. The proponents have enough signatures to ask the Council to vote to put the recreational marijuana retail ban on the ballot for 2019; if not, additional signatures are required to put the item directly on the ballot. Thanks for the correction.
I should report that the City Council voted to refer all ballot related docket items to the Programs and Services Committee for discussion tomorrow night beginning at 7 p.m. at City Hall.
I should report that tonight, after adopting simpler language suggested by the Mayor, the Programs and Services Committee voted in favor of putting a ban on recreational marijuana retail establishments on a special election ballot for November, 2018, rather than 2019 as would be required for the Citizen Initiative. The Committee did not support putting on the ballot options for limits on such retail establishments between 2-4 or 2-8, though the Committee votes were divided. Finally, again by divided vote, the Committee voted that the Election Commission would be requested to advise voters that if there were more than question on the ballot and they each got more affirmative than negative votes, voters would be advised that the prevailing question would be the one with the most affirmative votes. A complete explanation of these votes and the Committee discussion about them will be available in the written Committee Report to come, and the Committee recommendations will be taken up by the full City Council at a Special meeting on the 13th, which can adopt or modify them.
It should also be noted that several councilors who favor a total ban on cannabis retail establishments also argued against including any other question on the ballot. While that should come as no surprise, in their arguments for having just one question, they spoke about not “confusing” voters and how voters may vote for items in an effort to hedge their bets which is totally within their right. It is also within the right of people who want a total ban to vote for just that question.
Barbara Bousil Glaser pointed to the 2016 referendum vote in which over
26,000 people voted in favor of the legalization of possession and sale of cannabis as a reason to include an additional question allowing for a limited number of establishments. She was booed and the Chair had to call order.
The newly adopted language for the three questions could not be clearer to any voter who is able to read. I would urge the city council to use the scientific term cannabis in its public deliberations and in the adopted language of any/all referendum questions.
Jane, are you referencing the September 5 City Council meeting or the Program and Services Committee meeting last night. I’m asking because Councilor Baker’s comment right before yours refers to the P&S meeting.
As for the mayor’s three submitted questions, their language is clear, but 3 questions about the same issue on any ballot is too many and there is no question in which a Yes vote leaves the 2016 vote as is. It’s either vote Yes on the ban question or divide the Yes vote between 2-4 or 2-8, neither of which just leaves alone the already approved vote.
@Jane and @Councillor Lilse, thanks for the update. Given the sad state of the Newton Tab, it is challenging to know what is going on.
@Jane, I also do not find the idea of two referenda so bad. (Three seems terrible, as it encourages voters to try to game the system.) The prohibitionists seem to prefer a simple up-or-down vote. I guess that they believe that moderates, who may prefer limiting the number of shops, will be driven by the stark choice and their fears into the prohibitionists’ tent.
@Jane Franz — “Marijuana” (not “cannabis”) is the word used in the governing statute, MGL c. 94G (which was written by the marijuana industry with their highly paid their lawyers and lobbyists), for all official regulatory definitions — so the City Council is entirely correct to use the word “marijuana”.
Nice try, but it’s too late to start playing that word game to try to make recreational weed sound like a vitamin.
@Jane. Barbara Bousil Glaser intentionally misrepresented the 2016 vote which legalized recreational marijuana. I voted YES in 2016 and explained my rationale in NewtonTab but it’s unfortunate this view which is held by many is ignored in these discussions because it doesn’t fit Barbara Bousil Glaser’s narrative and political agenda. So here again is my published view on legalization vs. commercialization.
Recreational Marijuana in Newton – YES to Decriminalization NO to Commercialization
In 2016, I voted “yes” to ballot question 4 to legalize recreational marijuana in Massachusetts. My rationale at the time was to decriminalize people using marijuana for recreational purposes because I was and still is sympathetic to those who get penalized severely for something they choose to do at their own discretion without violating or infringing my freedom of not doing it.
Unfortunately, some advocates of marijuana, including a few Newton City Councilors, interpreted or assumed, incorrectly, the message of the people who voted similarly in 2016 as our support for commercialization of recreational marijuana in Newton, potentially resulting in as many as 8 stores and even selling marijuana infused candies and bars in our community. Now the issue hits home. Just to be 100 percent perfectly clear, THIS IS NOT THE INTENTION OF MY YES VOTE IN 2016. I don’t support opening any new recreational marijuana store in Newton, let alone eight, or selling any marijuana products which could be remotely enticing to children or under-aged teens. In order to know the precise number of the population who supports not only decriminalization but also commercialization of recreational marijuana, there must be another public vote which addresses this serious question.
Bottomline is, a “yes” vote in 2016 to legalize recreational marijuana doesn’t automatically imply any agreement to opening stores and selling it commercially in Newton. There are two different issues. Newton City Council should let Newton voters decide and have a final say on whether to opt out marijuana stores in Newton. Anything less than that would be undemocratic. The City Council should vote “yes” on June 18 to let Newton voters decide in November.
http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20180615/letters-marijuana-legalization-does-not-equal-commercialization
George and others who share your view, where in MA would you prefer the stores?
@Mary Mary Quite Contrary, since this is not your real name, I will be brief to answer and hope you are not a troll.
The decision of where to have stores is up to each city or town in MA to figure out and regulate, as outlined in 2016 statewide vote. Newton needs to do just that in coming Nov. as I have argued. I personally don’t want any recreational marijuana stores in Newton and firmly believe Newton voters should have a final say on this.
George,
Its really hard to get a gauge on how newton residents feel about recreational mj, especially from this blog as the contributors lean heavily towards the pro side.
Thank you for your explanation, i personally feel most voters in 2016 felt exactly the same way.. decriminalization was the main intention.
Thanks for answering my question, George. And I’m not a troll simply because I use a pseudonym here; I’ve been an active commenter on V14 for over a year.
As was noted on another thread, the term “marijuana” has a distinctly racist history. It is broadly used in formal settings, just as in the past, racist, homophobic, misogynist, language been used until the historic context becomes known. I’ve used to use the term marijuana, but have changed since finding out about the roots of the word.
George-You make my point. No one knows the reasons why anyone signed the petition either. The low point of the Programs and Services meeting was the moment when an individual sitting in the chambers was allowed to speak before the council about what petition signers wanted. Her comments were anecdotal at best. If they wanted to let one side speak, the committee should have provided another perspective. I was sitting in the chambers and am a well known fixture at the Newton Library with clipboard in hand collecting signatures for many candidates and causes and could have spoken to the issue. No effort was made to have an alternative perspective presented. I will tell you this – people sign petitions for many reasons, and frankly, it’s not usually hard to convince people to sign a petition to get a question on the ballot. A lot of people see it as a democratic action.
While the ballot question did not specifically prescribe the opening of stores in any particular community, it was pretty clear – explicit – that a path to commercial sales was part of the question that was passed in the state (and in Newton). Nobody voted for part of the question and not for other parts, despite how one might feel about legalization vs sales- that’s simply a willful disconnect.
Meant to add the question wording (page also includes subsequent legislative action):
https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Marijuana_Legalization,_Question_4_(2016)
@George Shen, I couldn’t agree with you more. I voted “ No” in 2016, but my husband voted “Yes” with the exact concerns Geroge expressed in 2016. Now marijuana benefit group wants to put shops and perhaps manufacture facilities right in front our own homes, the answer is simply “ No”. The Bottomline is that a “Yes” vote in 2016 can not be automatically translated to a “yes” for putting a shops and manufacturing facilities right in the City of Newton. In addition, the 2016 voting ballot instruction specified local manucipal could ban recreational marijuana via Opt-Out regardless of the 2016 voting results. For this reason my husband has signed Opt-Out signature sheet as one of the over 6000 supporters who support Opt-Out to ban recreational marijuana in the City of Newton.
City Council members are Newton City elected members who represent great majority Newton citizen. I hope Council will cast his or her vote on this issue based on voice of Newton citizen, not on his or her own agenda.
The ballot initiative was called THE CAMPAIGN TO REGULATE MARIJUANA LIKE ALCOHOL. Pretty damn simple. So the people who suggest they didn’t understand the question are either lying or not very smart. In recent months prohibitionists have become fond of suggesting they voted YES to “decriminalize” cannabis, but didn’t intend for it to be sold in Newton. Again, most are either lying or just plain dumb. The ballot initiative did not decriminalize cannabis, it LEGALIZED cannabis. And if they didn’t think cannabis shops would open in Newton, where the heck did they expect them to open?
Do you know how we ended up here? It’s because of the overreach of a greed-sick marijuana industry.
Before it was easy to pretend that voters had clear intent on Question 4, it was a clear mandate for pot shops, right?
But, as it turns out, 8 stores is politically very unpopular. It fueled opt out’s movement. Canvassing was easy because the law literally states 20% of liquor stores (aka 8 stores). Marijuana zoning was all over the map.
Your allies in the council realized this was bad politics and contrived a compromise to head off opposition, this ballot question had no voter mandate, it was an invention of the council. They even got the mayor in on it for a last minute 3rd option which is illogical drivel.
Well, no one likes council games, no one likes sneaky political maneuvers; no one likes confusion. They want clear ballot questions to avoid precisely the confusion we are now watching unfold.
The greed-sick industry, whom you are so enthusiastic for coming to Newton, didn’t want voters to have a clear choice. And you were never in favor of clarity either. You wanted to believe that everyone wanted what you wanted. You didn’t want to people to question their vote.
You screwed yourselves politically by backing a deceptive ballot question, then you doubled down by claiming it was a clear mandate for whatever you wanted.
So go to the voters with your prohibitionist framing and your Respect the Vote sloganeering. After everything they’ve heard and seen, do you think they’re going to trust you now?
James, thanks for pointing out what I want to say.
@Jane Franz – The Councilor asked a citizen leader of the grassroots Opt Out group — who was clearly introduced as such — to give some background and information last night when Councilors were speculating about what the signature gatherers had heard from Newton voters during this process. The speaker clearly stated that what she was calmly and politely relating were her personal, anecdotal experiences as one of the leaders of Opt Out Newton and when she was canvassing throughout the summer. No misrepresentation there.
But are we to understand from your comment that you also felt it was wrong and unfair when Councilor Albright invited Seth Blumenthal to speak at a meeting that occurred after the close of the public hearing?
Councilor Albright called him to be allowed to speak as an “expert”. And, while he did mention at the start of his extended remarks that he was only a Sr Lecturer, he then allowed various Councilors to (deferentially) call him “Professor” repeatedly throughout the ensuing discussion, all without correcting them. When I talked to him after the meeting and told him that I thought that it was wrong of him not to have corrected the Councilors’ repeatedly calling him “Professor” and, thereby, having fostered the untrue impression that he had far greater standing that he in fact does, he (irritably) responded that he didn’t think that paying attention to such “academic rigamaroll” mattered. All of the academics to whom I have spoken about do not consider academic standing to be “rigamaroll” — they considered it to have been very wrong and an act of academic misconduct that he did not correct the, especially under these circumstances. A couple of (real, tenured) BU Professors even suggested that I notify the academic dean or provost at bu about this conduct.
FYI, a Sr Lecturer is a non-tenure track position. It is often only a part time job (and the internet shows that Seth Blumenthal was only part-time until relatively recently). Like “teaching assistants” these kind of year-to-year contract posts are used to flesh out staffing with (wo)manpower with people who the University is not prepared to track to to be evaluated and considered for tenure. Moreover, a person gets to be a “Sr.” Lecturer at BU by longevity, after serving in this non-tenure track year-to-year contract position for 5 years without being advanced to a tenure track role. If you look up Seth Blumenthal’s CV and list of scholarly publications, that may be one of the reasons he was not on a tenure track. All I could find for scholarly publications on the internet with repeated Google searches is a “thin” list with a just handful of on-line blog posts (Really? Listing blog posts on an academic CV??) and a couple of on-line only journal items, and his dissertation turned into a book — which, BTW, is not even about marijuana but, instead, is about Richard Nixon and youth politics.
Sorry — but that’s just not my idea of a credible, heavyweight (or particularly personally straightforward) “expert” – especially when compared to the Board Certified MGH physicians/psychiatrists who testified at the public hearings about the various problems caused by marijuana use.
Wow, James. You’re an expert at revisionist history. Question… Do you think alcohol should be banned in Newton too?
@Mike this history is still being made.
50% of domestic violence is linked to alcohol. Does that bother you? It bothers me. It speaks to the fact that people turn to drugs to escape their problems and hurt others in the process. I wonder if they do that with marijuana?
Any other drugs you want to discuss other than one which the topic of this thread?
@James– I asked you a specific question. Do you think alcohol should be banned in Newton?
@Jane If you don’t like “marijuana”, how about “skunkweed”? That doesn’t seem racist to me, maybe speciesist (or more precisesly classist).
@Abe that presentation by “The Professor” cracked me up especially when Councilor Albright fawned upon on him like he was Plato asking for his participation as an expert advisor. This is Newton, surely we can find a pro skunkweed legalization academic that is a professor.
@Mike – you know, I think that’s a great question. Why stop with me? Why don’t you get started with a petition and you can put it before the voters in 2019.
Because that’s what this is about. It’s what you never understood. We are fighting to put the question about a new industry to the voter. Just a little ol’ question.
Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter if I think it should be banned, it matters what the residents of Newton want when they exercise democracy. It’s the will of the people, not the will of James.
If Newton were to ban, I will happily stop at the number of liquor stores in other towns on my way home to pick up my $13-$15 bottle Zinfandel. I guess this is analogous to the number of pot shops I will pass in those other towns in the years to come. What a hassle! Unthinkable!
The city has the right to form its own identity. What citizens ban, or un-ban may change over time to reflect the problems the arise.
And opt out may lose at the ballot. That is a reality we’re all aware of. But I’m not afraid of asking a question of Newtonians.
I respect the voter.
@James– You’re not answering my question. Maybe one of the other prohibitionistas will take a crack at it. Any of you opt out folks think alcohol should be banned in Newton?
I already answered Mike’s question about alcohol, but he obviously forgot. Another try:
Mike, I feel that I again failed to explain my point clearly. Let me try again. The existence of dry towns shows that, although alcohol is legal in Massachusetts, every municipality has the right to ban its sales within the municipality’s borders. If you really want to treat marijuana the same way as alcohol, you must let the people choose whether they want pot commerce within their locality.
In regard to your questions: I don’t want to ban cannabis; I don’t think Newton should ban alcohol. I am not sure these questions are relevant to the current debate, but I’m happy to satisfy your curiosity.
@Anatoly– Thanks for answering my question. I ask it without agenda. I’m simply trying to understand how the opt out folks think. Do you think Newton should ban the retail sale of alcohol? How about onsite consumption in restaurants and bars? I’d welcome any of the opt out crowd to respond as well.
@Abe and @Bruce — Speak of the devil. I’m a professor, also at BU, and I am pro-skunkweed legalization. I am not a fan of weed, but for all but the most dangerous intoxicants, a regulated and taxed market is superior to a black market. I’m perfectly happy for us to vote on it. The more important issue to me is that pot smokers no longer have to live in fear of arrest and prosecution.
It is odd for Ms. Albright to play up a rank that the Dr. Blumenthal does not have. She should have gone with “doctor.” Dr. Blumenthal is an expert on the history of regulation of marijuana. If that is what he spoke about, I am sure he had much to offer. Don’t get hung up on rank.
Bruce-I prefer the scientific term-cannabis-be used at city council meetings and on the referendum. In private, councilors may use whatever terminology they like.
@Striar Alcohol is so ingrained in our culture and society, that there is no way to roll it back by shutting down liquor stores. It’s such an impractical task that it’s not worth supporting. By the way, there’s interesting historical research that indicates that alcohol itself is the foundation of civilization. People had to organize agriculture to grow enough carbohydrates to ferment into alcohol to disinfect water.
Right now skunkweed is not so prevalent now that we can not stop its expansion. Yes, alcohol brings bad things, but why add pile on more bad things to our community? The toxic cocktail of marijuana and alcohol is many times worse for judgement impairment and driving under the influence than either alone. Plus at least with alcohol the police have a tool to test. With marjuana, there is no court admissible test.
Abe – First of all, I had no issue at all with the woman from Opt Out who spoke. She did what she was asked to do. My issue was with the Chair of the P & S Committee who asked her to speak. That was simply not appropriate unless he was going to ask if anyone with a different perspective would like to speak. As I mentioned, I would have been more than willing to do so as I’ve been involved in many signature collections at the local and state level and there are a number of common themes that run through all of them.
I was not present at the meeting where Susan Albright asked a professor to speak. Unless that person was on the agenda, it also was not appropriate.
I have no idea why anyone is calling on all these doctors and professors to speak. High school teachers have at least as much experience with issues related to cannabis and illegal drugs, if not more. It’s says more about who we value in this community than anything to do with cannabis.
@Jane A high school principal who is a Newton resident made a great speech during the public comment period.
Bruce– As I mentioned to you on another thread., you’re filled with a lot of opinions, but very few facts. Personally, I find your response about alcohol to be entirely disingenuous. You have no real knowledge about the subject of marijuana, and you’re all too willing to foreclose the rights of others as a result of your complete ignorance.
Thanks, Bruce, I really do appreciate the sentiment (I mean that). But I’m talking about Newton teachers who understand how much illegal drug trafficking goes on in the city.