In a letter to the City Council, Mayor Fuller asked councilors to docket three separate ballot questions about marijuana retail shops on the November 2018 ballot.
Click here to read Mayor Fuller’s memo.
Proposed questions are:
1. Shall the city adopt the following general ordinance?
All recreational marijuana retail establishments shall be prohibited from operating in the City of Newton.
2. Shall the city adopt the following general ordinance?
The number of recreational marijuana retail establishments shall be not fewer than two (2) nor more than four (4) establishments set by a general ordinance adopted by the City Council notwithstanding M.G.L. Chapter 94 G, Sec 3 (a)(2)(ii).
3. Shall the city adopt the following general ordinance?
The number of recreational marijuana retail establishments shall be not fewer than two (2) nor more than eight (8) establishments set by a general ordinance adopted by the City Council notwithstanding M.G.L. Chapter 94 G, Sec 3 (a)(2)(ii).
Click here to read docket item.
Instructions would direct voters that these are three separate questions, each requiring a majority vote to pass. If more than one passes, the question with the highest number of votes prevails.
I’m having a hard time understanding how this gets done in time for an election that’s two months from now.
Mayor Full-of-it is trying to stack the deck. Pretty much what I predicted. People who voted in favor of the 2016 law deserve to have that vote respected with a clear unambiguous way to reaffirm it. Should that “YES” vote carry again, the result should be that the City Council is REQUIRED to fully implement the 2016 law. This proposal is an insult to voters and a genuine affront to democracy. Don’t let our prohibitionist mayor pull the wool over your eyes with this blatant attempt to steal the 2016 vote.
Won’t the no vote just bullet vote, while folks who are ok split their vote and perhaps vote yes on both? If this was 3 elections sequentially I’d be fine with it. But on one voting card, doesn’t this put a finger on the lever for the no vote?
I’m not as passionate as Mike, but I’d prefer just a yes or no vote for sale.
I’d love other voting nerds perspective on this.
The mayor’s memo was read in full last night. I don’t like the wording of the questions or that there is no option to keep the law as is. It’s obvious where the mayor stands and again she is interfering in the city council’s deliberations and an already bureaucratic mess.
These questions just add to the confusion and if all are allowed give voters too many questions about marijuana retail stores.
There was also no mention of a special election just that President Laredo said they had until a date in October to put these questions in order and put them on the November 2018 ballot.
Fig, I agree. Voters derserve a clear choice, since we are evidently revolting this question, + either yes or no.
“YES” should reaffirm the 2016 vote AND require full implementation.
“NO” should opt out and ban cannabis shops.
That’s the FAIR way to do this revote.
I had hoped for some leadership from the mayor but all she’s doing is gumming up the works here. The number of shops that might eventually be allowed to open should be left up to the Council. If anything is being taken to the voters it should just be an up or down vote on whether we should allow shops to be sited or not. The OptOuts got their signatures, let’s give them their vote. These other proposals, frankly, are absurd.
This really is an overt stacking of the deck.
100% of the opponents of recreational marijuana will vote #1 and the proponents will end up splitting their votes between #2 and #3.
Having a vote is just fine, stacking the deck isn’t.
So now instead of the 2 conflicting questions with 8 possible voting permutations pointed out by @Jack Prior previously, they’re now proposing 3 conflicting ballot questions with 12 possible permutations? How is this providing clarity on anything besides the likelihood of the result being legally challenged? For once, the pro-commercialization and anti-commercialization camps are in agreement — this makes no sense!
Has there ever been precedence for something like voting with further qualification on a YES/NO?
As in,
Vote YES for Opt Out or Vote NO for Opt Out.
If Vote NO in the previous question,
VOTE YES for 2-4 vs 2-8 establishments or Vote NO for 2-4 vs 2-8 establishments
If ever an issue screamed for proportional voting, this is it. Fig is right. Opponents of RMJ will just bullet and win.
The City Council should never have passed the “compromise” ballot question. The docketers were too clever by half.
The best, and in my view only, solution here is to not put anything on the ballot for this year’s election (which is just eight weeks away). Let the opponents of RMJ collect another 3000 signatures to get their question on the 2019 ballot (they will have 45 days to do so). With all due respect to the Mayor and the City Council, putting more than one question on the ballot is either just crazy or crazy like a fox. Or maybe a little bit of both.
I’m very unclear on why this issue in any form is being rushed to the ballot this year with no time for anyone to prepare for informational campaigns either way (although clearly one group has had the whole summer to prepare). The signatures gathered should have put it on the municipal ballot next year, not this year. Two months is not a lot of time for all of the city’s voters to get the information they need on any of these questions to make an informed decision, particularly if the questions keep changing.
Of course really we already voted on this during a presidential election with maximal turnout and we should just implement the will of the voters rather than going through all of this again within 2-3 years in lower turnout elections (when presumably one side is hoping for more favorable turnout than before).
Mayor Fuller –
You are embarrassing yourself trying to be Goldilocks at the 11-teenth hour. You have just brought about infinitely more division and irritation. Your 3 question ballot proposal is a confusing mess.
However you have accomplished one thing: Uniting all side in profiund irritation with you.
Marijuana Central here on V14, as usual. Snore
I too believe that this “compromise” is a way to stack the deck in favor of the opt out question. As someone stated above, opponents to the law that Newton voters approved of, will just bullet vote the first cannabis question, not vote on the other two, leaving proponents of recreational cannabis to split their votes between #2 and 3, most likely resulting in a win for option #1. I also think there’s reason to believe that the city pols would like option #1, which is why it’s the first option on the proposed ballot. The voters passed a law in 2016 which stated that the number of shops in any city was based as a percentage of the number of liquor in that city. I knew this when I voted in favor of recreational cannabis in 2016 as a Brighton voter. If those opt out voters who claim to have voted in favor of the law (as the canvasser who approached me did), and didn’t know this, perhaps they should have read the wording of the ballot question more carefully. I also am trying to use the better term cannabis instead of marijuana, as the word marijuana is a racist throwback to the days of Harry Anslinger at the start of cannabis prohibition. Many patent medicines of that time contained cannabis, and that was a drug and term that people were used to. Prohibiting cannabis would have been more difficult as people weren’t frightened of cannabis, but if you use the Mexican word for the drug, marijuana, and couch the argument in racist terms, “these Mexicans and blacks are smoking this crazy weed that drives them into criminal activity, and they will come after your white sons and daughters, turning them into drug addicted reprobates”, then that prohibition becomes much easier. These are some of the same tropes being used today, and they are just as outdated and useless as they were in Harry Anslinger’s day. If you don’t know who Harry Anslinger was, I suggest some Googling, or if you want a more complete picture of the history of cannabis prohibition, I recommend the excellent documentary, Grass. The film also documents as it’s running time proceeds the vast amount of money that has been spent over the years trying to prohibit a plant that naturally occurs on Earth. We’ve spent billions of dollars and ruined millions of (mostly poor black and Hispanic) lives over the decades of cannabis prohibition. It’s time to change that for the better.
Since we are obviously revoting this question, One question should be on the November 2019 municipal ballot – Should Adult-use cannibis retail stores be opened in Newton (Yes) regulated as prescribed by the CCC and a Commnity Host Agreement or be banned in Newton (No).
Yes or No question – with sufficient time allowed for an educational campaign directed to the voters about both sides.
Setting aside the fact that Fuller and the prohibitionists are in fact subverting the clear will of the voters, why are folks so sure of the voting strategy?
As long as the first ballot question is defeated, the other two represent an acceptable range of options for retail marijuana (even if we theoretically allowed 8 shops, by the time the nimbys have their way it probably isn’t realistic to expect more than 4 anyway).
Furthermore, if all three questions are defeated then don’t we revert to the status quo, which is the 2-8 number of shops anyway?
How many F’ing times to we have to vote?
I agree- at this point, yes (comply with the 2016 vote) or no (ignore and reject it). Stop blowing smoke at the process.
I am very satisfied that cannabis use is legal in MA.
I support Gareden Remedies but do not want it to become
bigger with more parking.
I do not want more than 2 establishments in the city. I would like the shops to be less accessible to children and teenagers, not near schools and village centers.
I will vote accordingly. Cannabis sales should not become big
business in Newton.
I believe Mayor Fuller’s 3 questions complicate a very controversial issue.
@Laurie P — It’s actually 3 questions with 3 choices (yes, no, blank) so its 3^3 = 18 possible permutations.
Since our earlier comment threads, the law department has said that 2-4 can be placed on ballot worded as conditional on opt-out outcome. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/91381
I think that is best path forward.
In terms of the conditional question 2-8 instead of 2-4 might be better to allow smaller businesses across city while providing city council with more local control. I don’t see much difference between 4 and 8.
Way to go, Mayor Fuller. You’ve managed piss people off on BOTH sides of the debate.
what was she smoking when she wrote that?
is there any legal basis for “If more than one passes, the question with the highest number of votes prevails”? I would think the yes/no ballot questions–and the interpretation of the results–would need to conform to Mass voting laws.
So if the yes votes from 2 plus the yes votes from 3 equals more than the yes votes from 1, does that mean that 1 loses because more people voted for shops being open than not? And then we would take the higher of 2 and 3 to see how many shops? This question format makes no sense at all.
I previously had thought that Mike Striar’s view of the slow process for legalization of pot was harshly cynical. This letter from the Mayor proves his point. It’s a setup.
This is a big disappointment from Mayor Fuller.
Vote up or down. That’s it.
My head is spinning from all this and I haven’t even been smoking the weed. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)
But three questions about one issue on the same ballot? Only in Newton…
What a joke this whole thing is….Is she high?!
Susan Albright made it very clear at tonight’s Programs and Services Committee meeting that each question stands in its own merits. A voter can vote on any question on the ballot. Just an FYI.
Doug Haslam, I see what you did there.
To be is to do, to do is to be. Do Be Do Be Do.
….and while everyone was arguing,
…Cabot’s begins serving pot-infused milkshakes.
I am sorry that change remains unpalatable to some people. It would help if they could remember that they’re part of a society that has overwhelmingly made a choice.
Here is a thing to think about: if it is determined to not open pot shops, then nothing will change.
And the hundreds of Newton residents who sell pot from their homes, outside of a regulatory framework will continue to do so, as they have for years.
And the thousands of Newton residents who buy pot from individuals outside of a regulatory framework will continue to do so.
And some Newton residents will continue to travel to other communities to meet pot sellers and buy pot, and some people will travel to Newton to meet resident sellers to buy pot.
This has been the way it has been for year – decades. It is a black market that is being turned into a white market.
But, if the white market does not materialize, then the black market, which has been chugging along with no problems – and is now decidedly more grey than black – just keeps chugging along.
If you have no problem with hundreds of resident dealers, and thousands of resident customers, engaging in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of transactions that neither the city nor the state will receive the tax benefits for, ….
Then I don’t either.
@Abe Zoe
I am sorry, Abe. I don’t think this is the correct forum for a comment of that tone.
I am glad to discuss my comment with you if you can discuss things respectfully. I will not, however, be responding directly to comments featuring such sarcastic and accusatory language.
Words do matter. Google for Jims Bigenfield’s racial slur (I don’t want to reproduce it again), and the old good search engine will bring you to V14, no matter whether the troll has apologized or not. The moderators obviously don’t care.
@Anatoly Kleyman
You’re correct in each of your points. Words do matter. If you google my (now forever-misspelled) name, you will find a single instance of a thoughtlessly-delivered racial slur – along with associated apologies to the individual to whom it was directed, and all co-discussants.
The moderators, it would seem, do not care.
Meanwhile, all of these observations – along with the observation that you are distracting the chat from the primary topic under discussion, suggest that this is not the correct forum for you to participate in.
May I suggest that you could offer your opinion or reflections on the questions surrounding the November ballot, relating to retail marijuana businesses?
Everybody give it a rest. @Jims apologized to me graciously and I accepted the apology. Let’s move on to the real debate.
With regards to the black market. It exists, and will continue to exist. I find the city putting its imprimatur on the sale of skunkweed problematic. It will increase supply, demand, and the feedback loop. The pro skunkweed contingent seems to think the demand for skunkweed is inelastic. Having been a former skunkweed connoisseur, I don’t think it is. To me less pot in the community is better.
If people want to smoke it in the privacy of their homes, blaze away.
@Bruce Wang Per my reading, you identify a specific and realistic concern in your statement, “The pro skunkweed contingent seems to think the demand for skunkweed is inelastic.” As someone who advocates the normalization of marijuana in society and our community, I do not perceive that there will be a significant change in the prevalence of pot users compared to pre-legalization.
May I reflect on your opinion, “To me less pot in the community is better.” I have absolutely no perception of their being pot in our community. I am only aware of it because I am told. There are no general indications that I have observed that have ever indicated to me the presence of marijuana.
I’m grateful for our chat together, Bruce. I hope your day’s good!
@Jims Since Question 4 passed in 2016, I see more and more people high at social events around town. More each year than the last. Ironically, the anti-pot people don’t see it because they don’t know what to look for. As somebody who has smoked more than his fair share, I see it in the eyes, hear it in the timbre of the conversations, and, of course, smell it on the clothing.
I was pro-legalization, but I voted against Question 4 because I felt it would be hypocritical to vote for legalization and not want it in my community. After researching the issue more, I have found myself in favor of Opt Out because I am pro-decriminalization, but anti-industrialization of marijuana. Did you know 100 years ago nobody died from smoking tobacco? It’s only after it got commercialized and industrialized to make a product stronger and more addictive that it started killing people. Big Marijuana is following the same playbook as Big Tobacco. I remember during grad school that the pot was SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than the pot in college. I am reading that the THC levels are now many times higher than years ago.
This discussion reminds me of an editorial by David Brooks who is the token conservative opinion writer for the NY Times. He’s smarter than I am and also a significantly better writer. I encourage everybody from both sides of the debate to read it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/opinion/brooks-weed-been-there-done-that.html
@Bruce– Of course you encounter more people at social events smoking marijuana. It’s legal. People don’t have to hide it anymore. I’m curious if you can offer a single shred of evidence for your hyposthesis that there’s more marijuana being smoked in Newton since the 2016 vote?
@Striar I’ve known these people for years. They didn’t start sparking up again post-school until after 2016.
Bruce Wang wrote: “I’ve known these people for years. They didn’t start sparking up again post-school until after 2016.”
Or…they didn’t tell you they were sparking up until it was legal.
@Bruce– I think a lot of your impressions about marijuana are based on opinions rather than fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is no more valuable than yours. Your opinion that more people are smoking cannabis in Newton since 2016, has absolutely no basis in fact.
@Gail Most of them have said to me “I have not done this since school.” I also have a few friends in the community that are regular cannabis users and have been for years, and come to parties at my house baked. My friends have heard all my Cheech & Wang stories from back in the day and know that I am not a reefer madness type person. They do know that they need to pregame before they roll in.
@Bruce Wang
Bruce,
Well – I’m going to have to think about what you’ve written. I will freely admit that unless someone is suffering significant intoxication, that I do not think I can perceive the effects of pot, or any intoxicant used moderately.
I’m definitely not arguing you’re wrong, or that your impressions are wrong. I simply don’t perceive it myself. I’m not sure if I am utterly blind to minor intoxication in others, or if I attribute the signs of minor-t0-moderate intoxication to other causes.
I do know that I simply don’t see much change in behavior when people get high – dopey folk still are dopey, strict folk still are strict. There’s a little more smiling, I suppose.
In any event, the fact is that you are able to perceive it, and you have an opinion about that. I won’t invalidate that.
Why not write it in a way that people will understand. Isn’t the whole idea of asking the people to do so in a way that is not confusing or misleading?
Something like this?
Recreational Cannabis – choose ONLY ONE of the following three options (if more than one option is chosen your vote will not count on this issue):
1. Implement the 2016 vote in full, where the number of recreational cannabis stores in Newton shall be between 2 – 8 establishments.
or
2. Create an ordinance that will limit the number of recreational cannabis stores in Newton to 2 – 4 establishments.
or
3. Create an ordinance that will ban all recreational cannabis stores from operating in the City of Newton.
@Patricia — Your suggestion makes lots of sense but, unfortunately, the Law Department has advised that it is not possible to organize ballot questions that way.
Can someone (Dulles, Bryan, someone from the mayors office) help me understand the benefit of not having the 2-4 vote conditional on the opt-out vote?
If most people don’t want to opt out, then Newton wont’ opt-out and vice versa. With the 2-4 vote conditioned on opt-out, Newteon can resolve separately whether we want to limit to 2-4. That’s democratic and clear to the “smart Newton voter”.
On the other hand, if 2-4 is not conditioned on opt-out, then the questions are NOT independent. While everyone likely has a clear opinion/vote on opt-out, don’t they risk their vote on 2-4 overriding it?
On the other hand
The Mayor’s 11th hour proposal made no sense — as was clear at the P&S Committee meeting when Councilor Greenberg tried to reason through the Mayor’s proposal and became hopelessly confused by all the permutations driven by 3 standalone questions (as mandated by the law department’s advice) and the voting rules Councilors Albright and Krinzman pushed.
What is the Mayor up to after? After watching (and lauding) citizens collect nearly 7,000 signatures for a clean YES or NO choice, why is she trying to confuse everybody and stand in the way of the voters making a clear choice? Why is she outdoing the obstructionist the Albright/Krintzman “Army of None” (no signatures for their proposal!)?
Maybe there’s something fishy going on? There was a tall blonde man sitting with the Garden Remedies/Munkacy/Buchbinder team and talking (strategizing?) with them all night at the P&S Commitee meeting. It sure looked like he was on their team. But at the end of the meeting he went over to the Mayor’s Office and took out his keys. What that just a coincidence? What’s really going on? Does Mr. Tall Blonde work for Garden Remedies/Munkacy/Buchbinder? Does he work for the Mayor? And most of all, who does the Mayor work for: Newton citizens or Garden Remedies/Munkacy/Buchbinder?
Abe,
She is simply hedging her bets for her future run for congress or governor. She might need the big weed money in the future to fund her campaign…
All politicians do this, look how quickly setti warren flipped on homeless housing in waban when the rich residents hinted no more check$
@Bugek – Is RuthAnn Fuller crazy thinking that she can cozy up to Marijuana Money to make a run for Congress or Governor? Setti Warren got (way) out ahead of himself dreaming dreams of higher office and look how that worked out for him — and he didn’t even pull a stunt like this one by Mayor Fuller.
Mayor Fuller’s 11th hour grandstanding stunt of trying to make a confusing hash (pun intended) of the November ballot has only managed to unite both sides – ProPot and OptOut – in hating what she’s tried to pull. She better back off.
If Mayor Fuller thinks she can cross the veritable army of Opt Out volunteers who, in record time(!) collected ~7,000 voter signatures for a CLEAN BALLOT so that Newton voters can say a crystal clear YES or NO to pot shops, she better forget about dreams of higher office — she will be hanging on to her current one by her fingernails.
The Opt Out Army is highly motivated — and is highly organized. If Mayor Fuller keeps trying to frustrate voters and keeps trying to block the CLEAN BALLOT with this stunt, they will be justifiably livid.
Can you say: RECALL PETITION? I bet the OptOut Army (and petition signers) can…
Abe – There is no recall provision in the current charter. In addition, the city council passed the option to have no fewer than 2 or more than 4 retail cannabis establishments in July and the mayor signed it. Why would anyone consider a recall of the mayor for doing her job even if it was possible? The city council and the mayor merely followed the typical procedures when passing that ordinance.
The Opt Out supporters may think that the total ban should be the only question on the ballot, but at the July city council meeting another group of people advocated for the 2 to 4 option. Because it passed and was signed by the mayor, those people saw no need to contact the councilors again – and rightly so. Why would anyone continue to email or call councilors to say “I still really like the ordinance you passed last month”?
As one who’s very active in the city, I can assure you it never crossed my mind to write to councilors about recreational marijuana establishments after the July meeting because the question had been settled with a vote and a mayoral signature.
I have reason to believe I’m not alone. I spent all day Tuesday, from 7AM to 8PM, at polls talking with people most of whom are also very active in the community. We discussed a number of local and state issues, and never – not once – did anyone mention the marijuana questions that would be on the November ballot. I didn’t find out the council had a proposal to be discussed on Wednesday and Thursday until I ran into a councilor later that night at an post-election event.
If councilors want to remove an ordinance on a controversial issue that affects the entire city, then it behooves them to do so after it has been well publicized and public hearings have been held. Needless to say, the proposals should never have been submitted in August when many people are away and the meetings shouldn’t have happened the week after Labor Day when people are returning to school and work from vacation and aren’t cued into local political events. I respect the difference of opinion on the merits of the issue that I may have with councilors who want a total ban, however, I do not respect the tactics some councilors have used in the last ten days.
Back for a day in my month of planes trains & automobiles — did I miss anything? 😐
@Jack Prior: I’m not a legal scholar, but I think the “conditional” process as you describe may have been used to extend complimentary ballot questions. e.g., Question A: Fund Needham street reconstruction? Question B: (conditional on the reconstruction), Give Stop & Shop a permit to open on Needham Street? If Question A is not approved, Question B cannot go forward.
Ban and Compromise are conflicting ballot questions. For this process the Massachusetts State Constitution (and other states) spell out superseding initiative: The measure with the most votes supersedes. Massachusetts uses one of two slight variations of superseding initiative that exist around the country. There is an established body of law around the concept.
What you describe — If Question A wins, it automatically defeats conflicting Question B regardless of the vote — more accurately is “subversive” (ie. If Question A wins, Question B automatically loses).
Besides not being law of the land, has anyone found precedence in US voting history where this approach was used with two conflicting ballot questions? I’m asking because I don’t know — maybe there is.