Here’s your very brief synopsis of what’s was decided by the Newton City Council regarding recreational marijuana at a nearly four hour special council meeting on Thursday. I urge folks who been following this as well to add updates, observations and explanations.
The council voted 11-10 (with three absent for all votes) not to remove the previously approved 2-4 retail stores question from the November ballot. The council later voted to modify the original language but the concept remains.
After that, the council voted unanimously in support of a resolution to also put an opt-out question on the ballot.
The council next voted “no action necessary” on the signature campaign to place opt-out before voters in 2019 — essentially because they just agreed to put this question on the 2018 ballot instead. (I’ll save the complexity of what would happen if the mayor vetoed the opt-out question or other circumstances, such as if Newton voters vote in support of recreational for a second time this year and the optout folks want a third vote in 2019).
The council unanimously approved a motion to put the question on a special municipal ballot on Nov. 6.
P.S. If you did not attend or watch the meeting, I’ve just saved you four hours! You’re welcome.
Thanks for the updates Greg but Newton Villages Alliance’s tweets are very informative!
I agree. The Newton Village Alliance twitter feed for meeting coverage is excellent
And for those of us who don’t follow meetings on Twitter, getting a precis was much appreciated.
Who abstained?
No one abstained. Councilors Lipof and Lappin recused themselves due to a conflict of interest because a first line relative plans to open a retail shop, at this point in another community.
The discussion was thorough, informative, and reasoned. Jerry’s synopsis pretty much wraps up the major decisions. Residents from both sides of the issue were in attendance and maintained appropriate decorum throughout the meeting. Call me old fashioned, but I’m a fan of decorum in the chambers.
I plan to ask several councilors to docket an item to fund cushions for the benches. 😉
Yes, great job Jerry! 😉
@meredith – no abstentions but three counselors absent. I think it was Rick Lipoff, Allan Ciconne and(maybe) Cheryl Lappin
Can someone give us a breakdown of the yea/nay votes re: the split vote on 2-4?
@John: here you go:
Recused: Lipof, Lappin
Absent: Ciccone
For the 2-4 question: Leary, Greenberg, Albright, Brousal-Glaser, Krintzman, Markewicz, Crossley, Downs, Danberg, Noel, Grossman
Against: Auchincloss, Norton, Cote, Kelley, Gentile, Rice, Schwartz, Baker, Laredo, Kalis
@Andreae, thanks for the reply. This will be an interesting vote!
Hopefully we will have some clarity on how to deal with contradictory questions. What is the course of action for someone like me, who believes the marketplace alone should determine the number of stores? If I vote “no” on both, I risk letting the complete opt-out get more votes than the 2-4 proposal. It’s the same dilemma for someone who wants to opt out: Should they vote “yes” on 2-4, because the prefer that to the current situation?
The city council will vote on new zoning regulations in the next few months. They include a restriction of 8 retail shops in the city, so leaving it up to the marketplace will not be an option on the table under any circumstances.
I had hoped that the only question to make it to the ballot would be the Opt Out question because I oppose the arbitrary 4 store limit, but I’ve been assured by my pro-cannabis friends that putting both questions on the ballot will make it easier to defeat Opt Out, so I guess this is a good thing. At least the Council didn’t fall for Mayor Fuller’s 3-question setup. In the meantime it’s not too early for civic minded pro-cannabis Newtonians to start thinking about running for office next year against the out of touch prohibitionists. Please, anyone wanting to challenge Auchincloss, Cote, Kelley, Gentile, Schwartz, Baker, Laredo, Kalis (Rice is retiring and Norton already has an excellent challenger) on the basis of their out of touch anti-cannabis votes, go for it!
Newtoner-In every election, the results stand on their own, but no one ever knows why an individual votes as s/he does.
I remember attending a dinner organized after the 2016 election with ten people who didn’t know one another beforehand – half were Trump voters and half were Clinton voters. We all knew the breakdown of the attendees would be evenly split between supporters of the two candidates. The first half hour all political discussions were off the table-just socializing and getting to know one another on a personal level.
We then went around the table saying whom we had voted for and why. All ten people voted for the two had different reasons for why they voted as they did. No two people voted for the two candidates for the same reason. At the end of the dinner, we all expressed surprised at who had voted for whom and the diverse reasons that motivated people to vote as they did.
I tell this story because this is the nature of elections. Voters cast a ballot, but there’s no space on it to explain why they voted as they did. Speculation about why voters voted as they did will always be part of the conversation before and after an election – in fact, there’s a whole host of people who make a great deal of money doing just that.
@Gerry Chervinsky: I count councilor Norton as “pro-cannabis”. She voted against the opt-out initially. According to her newsletter, she wanted to remove the 2-4 proposal because of the strange situation we’re in now with the contradictory ballot questions.
@Jane Frantz: Your story is rather interesting but completely beside the point. We have conflicting questions on the ballot, with a vote on one affecting the outcome of the other question.
@Newtoner — Councilor Norton opposed originally siting Garden Remedies before she supported it. Then she opposed Opt Out before voting for it. Then she supported 2-4 before voting against it. She’s by far the biggest flip-flopping naysayer on the Council, opposing construction of the beautiful new Zervas school and even voting against the city budget one year! Ward 2 and all of Newton would be much better served with a different voice, one of reason and consistency, in that seat.
Last night began with the councilors completely confused about all that was before them, along with the rest of us. The legal department changed things after the P&S committee met so the councilors were starting anew. They seemed to catch up pretty quickly.
Several councilors presented convoluted reasoning why having more than one question on the ballot would be desperately confusing to voters, including Councilor Auchincloss who, while assuming to know why voters would choose to vote one way or another cited a scenario that would confuse anyone, was actually stacking the deck to make sure the ban question would win.
Other like minded councilors joined in but thankfully others, including Josh Krintzman, saw through the bulls##t and presented concise and easy to understand arguments for having both questions on the ballot and for not wording questions so that all voting was contingent on the ban question.
The Prohibitionist councilors, as Mike Strair calls them, came up with many scenarios that sound good in the moment but don’t resonate long after particularly if other councilors remembered the incidents more clearly. Councilor Cote was adamant that the 2-4 question should not be on the ballot because it was only presented because the council did not think the opt-outers could collect enough signatures but was soon corrected.
The special election is only necessary because these prohibitionist councilors wrote their own ordinance, or the mayor did it for them, instead of acting on the opt-outers’ petition which if approved would be put on the November 2019 municipal ballot, so it could be voted only quickly. Not much time is left for educating the electorate on the validity of the questions. This rush is to give the group who supports pro retail marijuana stores in Newton very little time to get the word out. But get it out we will.
@Gerry I think you hit the nail on the head on what happened last night: The mayor and the 11 Pro-Cannabis city councilors conspired to rig the ballot question to make it difficult for Opt Out to prevail. I can’t imagine it won’t backfire. Everyone I have talked to on both sides of the issue can see what they’re doing and is assuming it must be at the behest of the marijuana interests who have more money to donate to campaigns than Opt Out does. I don’t really care if we have pot shops or not, but I don’t like this dirty politics. #FollowTheMoney
Oh please, enough with the tin-foil hats and conspiracy theories. Just because an elected official holds a position that you don’t agree with does NOT mean they’re getting paid.
@Marti and @Jane — So will the the “Pro retail cannibis” group be getting the word out to vote down both opt-out and 2-4 so that the city can have 8+ dispensaries? If a resident feels that having 8+ in the city asap is best for the city, is “Responsible Start” the right ballot committee to send money to, or will it be advocating to limiting Newton to as few as 2 dispensaries?
What ballot committee has standing to write the case for 2-4 on the ballot summary circulated to residents? It would seem odd for a group advocating for retail Cannibis would have standing to make the case “for” Newton limiting to as few a 2 dispensaries. I would think the group that is against dispensaries would be the right one to make the case for limiting them right? Is it more complicated that that?
I think what was most telling last evening was the extensive need for straw votes for councilors to know the implications and context of their subsequent votes. The residents won’t get straw vote results to guide their choices. And they won’t have $10K poll results either.
Sarah, you’ve got it entirely backwards. (And I think your are addressing the wrong person.)
The mayor wanted the question banning marijuana retail stores on the ballot before it was discussed by the city council. The “dirty politics,” as you call it, is coming from the prohibitionist councilors who think having both questions on the ballot will hinder the success of the ban question. It eliminates their being able to use the “pot store on every corner” slogan to sell the ban. They’re the ones trying to stack the deck against anything other than an outright ban.
Opt-Out is the group with money. I don’t know where it comes from but it’s funded their movement and advertising.
Marijuana interests exactly! Not the people who like smoking out. The people who make money from it. They want a Garden Remedies/Elliot Street duopoly. And that was what the city councilors pushing the 2-4 agenda wanted all along.
Jack, I’m not sure who will be writing what. Responsible Start consists of members who would like to see the 2016 vote carried out as is but realize that if the only question on the ballot is to ban or not retail outlets in Newton, the opt-outers can spin their slogan into there will be a pot store on every corner. They were not above misleading the public to get their signatures so we cannot count on them running an authentic campaign with valid reasons to vote for the ban. The anti councilors last night were not above twisting the truth to get everything off the ballot but a ban, or conditioning any vote for another question on the ban vote.
The city council will more than likely be capping the number of stores at 8 but as it stands now, there are 8+ stores allowed so that can be spun into 100s of stores.
My personal preference is for marijuana to be regulated like alcohol but that isn’t going to happen. I would be happy with just the one question if I thought both sides would play fairly but that’s also not going to happen. I am willing to look at having 4 stores if that is what’s on the table instead of an outright ban.
As for confusing the electorate, my suggestion is to vote yes to ban MJ stores if that is what you want and vote yes to having 2-4 stores if you want any MJ stores in Newton. Any is better than none.
@Marti – “Opt Out Newton is the group with the money. I don’t know where it comes from”
It seems to me that opt-out Newton has the most transparent funding in Newton ballot campaign history due to their contribution method:
https://www.gofundme.com/newton-city-council-let-us-vote
Is the “responsible” group will to disclose who paid for their $10K poll? They could only legally fundraise a day or 2 before it went out, so unlikely its “grass” roots small dollar donations. It sounds like an influencing “push poll”, so it falls under campaign finance laws.
@Marti,
You do an injustice to our Councilors when you call the prohibitionists. Those in favor of the single ballot question were pushing for it so that they could clearly interpret the voters wishes. Those in favor of 2-4 did all in their power to ensure 2-4 prevails at the ballot. Those councilors pushing 2-4 said that having 2 ballot questions would not confuse voters, but then found Councilor Schwartzs’ clarifying amendment confusing.
I’m looking for to the election in the a years time. I suspect a good number of the people who signed the petition are new to Newton politics, and they will remember those who opposed their wishes for a clear ballot and they will not be forgiving.
Laughable that people could be so obtuse or dishonest to make a statement that Opt Out has all the money when millions of dollars are already rolling in from the big weed groups who stand to make millions more off their investment if Opt Out is defeated. Please tell me what Opt Out supporters stand to gain from defeating big weed other than safer streets and a safer environment for our kids and families as has been supported by our first responders and many respected medical experts in our community. The same can’t be said for the opposition. As per usual, follow the money if you dare…
One important point made at last night’s meeting is that the default isn’t opting out. The default is laid out clearly in the statute overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2016: 8 retail stores.
Giving voters the option to reduce the number of stores allowed from the default of at least 8 to 2-4 or 0 is a perfectly reasonable and in my opinion ideal scenario.
Another point made last night that I found convincing: The City Council hasn’t actually passed a zoning ordinance yet, so under the current law the limit isn’t 8. There is no upper limit. So when opt-out supporters say there could be a retail store on every corner, that will technically be correct. 2-4 clarifies for voters that there is an option to add limits without banning.
For those who want the full details of every vote last night, there’s this.
@Marti — I imagine that Opt out has been making their best case for the last several weeks as part of signature drive and I don’t imagine their pitch will change much. Their website speaks to concern over 3-4 specific proposed locations and not “every corner”.
http://optoutnewton.org/index.php/why-sign/
Rather than attack an argument they are not making, it would be better of the debate over next several weeks tested the points they are making above (e.g. health impacts, impact on youth use, etc).
Again, the confusing thing here is whether Jane’s ballot committee is going to make the case on the negative attributes of dispensaries that should convince voters to reduce them from 8 to 4.
@Bryan – How are you voting on this? Do you not support having 8 dispensaries in Newton? Do you feel it is in Newtonville’s best interest to have perhaps one of only 2 approved dispensaries in city with its traffic circulating onto its 11 space lot on Court St?
As a long-time fan of our local politics, I’m immensely frustrated that I am missing all this because of my September travel schedule.
– Who is/what is “Responsible First Step Newton”? I’m glad to hear of it (and saw Jane Frantz, who I don’t know outside of V14 posts, is chair). But I am also big on transparency and that disturbs me like it did with OON when they first appeared, and with RtV. Right now RFSN is a mystery and that has to be corrected ASAP. What was this phone poll, and how do we know it cost $10,000? Is anything about this survey posted online?
– We all win if this issue is a catalyst to get more people to run for elected office, join a committee or otherwise volunteer at city hall. We all share the City of Newton – and our city benefits from your participation. Far beyond just this pot issue.
– If Compromise fails I’ll be disappointed personally. But I’ll be satisfied that it was brought to the marketplace of ideas and failed on its own merits. By contrast yanking a question back off the ballot at the last minute to satisfy a lobbying group I believe would have set a very bad precedent.
-brian washburn
@Dulles, agree with every part of your post. In particular, we deserve to know who is financing “Responsible First Step Newton” or at least whether their donors stand to gain financially from having stores before being asked to support their position. Additionally, if having stores is the “Responsible First Step,” what is the Second Step? Is there a Third Step?
You know whenever somebody adopts an euphemism eg Responsible First Step as a moniker, then the opposite is true. Patriot Act anyone? This is straight out of Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”
Responsible First Step Newton (RFSN) filed papers just last Monday. My efforts last week were focused on informing supporters of the 2 to 4 option that the city council passed – just 8 weeks ago – of a vote it planned to take on September 6th: a vote to remove this option from the ballot. I did so as a citizens and not as part of a ballot committee. Unfortunately (and as you can well imagine), that effort was very time consuming.
NFSN will run a full campaign, and information about that and the ballot committee will be forthcoming now that the city council vote is settled. I was blindsided to find out about the council effort to remove the 2 to 4 option from the ballot – on September 4th, just one day before the city council first took up the matter. Three days later and one day after the city council vote, the formation of a ballot committee began in earnest and I agreed to be chair. The following Monday, papers were filed at City Hall establishing the committee.
At this point, we’re working as hard and as efficiently as we are able in an effort to put together information for the community. Every aspect of this ballot committee and its campaign will proceed as is typical of every other such committee, including fundraising.
At the outset, I need to explain my limitations related to fundraising and discussing it publicly. As a long time public employee (NPS ), I’m not allowed to solicit funds or participate in the fundraising aspects of any campaign in any way. In the many local campaigns I’ve been involved in over the years, I not solicited funds, have known nothing about how funds were raised even when I was on a steering committee, who was on the fundraising committee, the amount raised, or who donated. I find out that information as everyone else does – from the OCPF report. My final statement about this: I do not consider this to be a constraint – I’m a strong believer that public employees should not engage in fundraising or accept gifts of any kind.
At this point in time, the following two statements come from me:
-I’m a great believer in transparency in local government and the people who are currently involved in NFSN knows my expectations and are in full agreement.
-I have never – not once – been on a campaign that disclosed specific fundraising information before the OCPF report. Over many years, not one opposing campaign has disclosed that information before the OCPF report.
At this point, I have just one request: this is not “Jane’s committee”. Responsible First Step Newton (NFSN) is a ballot committee, with a steering committee in place that’s in the process of planning the campaign for the next seven weeks. As we move forward, please refer to it as it’s official ballot committee name. Thanks in advance for those who respect this request.
I look forward to a robust, fact-based campaign that’s respectful in tone and focused on the issue cannabis (marijuana) retail establishments in Newton.
I went over that statement multiple times and found 3 typos in the 5 seconds after I pressed Send. As the chair of this committee, I promise to be more careful in the future.
Jane, how would I go about volunteering for NFSN
Could someone point me to where I can see everyone who has funded Opt Out
@Jane thanks for sharing the background of Responsible First Step Newton and your role in it. Since the OCPF doesn’t require your ballot committee to disclose donor information until 8 days before the election, can you ask whomever is in charge of fundraising to address whether your group will accept funds from those who stand to gain financially from your efforts? I, for one, would like to know before considering whether to get involved.
Claire-I will have contact information later this afternoon or early evening and will post it on V14. Thank you!
I’m an opponent of the Opt Out ban and am hoping there’ll be a vigorous campaign waged against it but I’m concerned by what I see so far. “Responsible First Step is a horrible moniker, saying nothing about what the committee stands for. Both sides can claim they’re responsible, and of course the words “first step” imply that there’s at least one more shoe to drop. Something along the lines of “No Ban, Yes Limits” would be far more appropriate, and hopefully will be what we see on lawn signs. Then there’s the question of campaign leadership. Who put Jane Frantz in charge? I’m concerned that her heavy handed manner, her past track record leading the losing side on both the NNHS rebuild and the charter campaign, and the campaign limitations she acknowledges as a public employee will make it harder for the pro-cannabis side to succeed. Can multiple ballot committees support the same side? If so, maybe someone else wants to come forward who’ll be better able to bring folks together in victory.
It’s clear what Opt Out Newton’s mission is just from its name. I’m looking forward to hearing what Responsible First Step Newton is trying to convey with its name.
Gerry wrote “I’ve been assured by my pro-cannabis friends that putting both questions on the ballot will make it easier to defeat Opt Out” – exactly.
Here is what I said at the Council meeting Thurs night:
I’m going to name the elephant in the room.
Many people think that having 2 options on the ballot, the opt out and the 2-4, will favor the 2-4. So if you want to have recreational marijuana facilities in Newton, you want 2 items, bc you think that will favor the 2-4 item winning. Why?
Councilor Auchincloss gave examples with numbers. I’m just going to say it this way. Say you want to ban them, but JUST IN CASE the ban doesn’t go through, you would want to limit the number, so you vote for that too… one could imagine the 2-4 getting the most votes even if that’s not what most people want.
Alternatively one could imagine people who want NO limits on the # of shops to also vote for the 2-4 to ensure that opt-out doesn’t win.
In both cases the winner would be an option most people don’t want!
So what I and many other councilors are suggesting is we have ONE question, and one question only, on the ballot THIS November, ie whether to ban pot shops or not, and then assuming the ban doesn’t get a majority a votes, then NEXT November we could vote on whether to limit the number of them, but in the interim people could submit applications to open one.
It’s not about people being “smart” or not. It’s about people being forced to think about how others will vote when deciding how they themselves will vote, and the option with less actual support, actually winning.
in fact one could imagine smart people might be MORE likely to employ game theory, so this is an even bigger problem in Newton, with all our multiple degrees!
As Councilor Schwartz said, look at how confusing this is for us, and we have the luxury of talking about it for hours. Our voters in the ballot booth will not have that luxury.
Also I would like to clarify, I personally favor having recreational marijuana shops in Newton. And I say that as someone who lives mere blocks away from Garden Remedies.
But I don’t favor orchestrating the ballot options in such a way as to favor my own preferred outcome.
Not to worry, Gerry. We have a great group working on this. We certainly welcome any time you can devote to the campaign. As an aside, you may recall the cost of the NNHS building soared $60m within 8 months of the election, just as I claimed it would during the campaign. At the time, the city said it would cost $141m and I said $192-$198m. Also, I was on the charter commission; the campaign was separate from the charter commission, though I did work on the campaign as well.
In past years, I was on the steering committee for the 2013 successful override campaign, very involved with both Mayor Warren’s mayoral campaigns, on the steering committee for Bridget Ray-Canada’s school committee campaign and Andreae Downs city council campaign.
I’ve also had a hand in many other successful campaigns: Matt Miller, Steve Siegal, Susan Albright and Deb Crossley, just to name a few of the current electeds.
When you are politically involved in elections, you win some and you lose some. It’s part of the process.
You guys are really over-thinking this. If the vote splits 3 ways between Opt Out, the 2-4 question, and those of us who plan to vote NO on both questions, then neither question will get a majority so both will lose. No one ever gets a majority in a 3-way race. Regardless of how it works out, voting NO on both puts a pox on both their houses. Why are we voting on this again?!?
Sarah, it’s not a 3-way race. It’s not even a 2-way race. Each question is a Yes/No that stands on it’s own. If one of them gets more Yes votes than No votes, that question prevails. If both get more Yes votes than No votes, then the one that gets more Yes votes prevails. Not sure what you’re getting at with this “majority” issue.
Sarah, you’re looking at the questions as if they are tied together. They are separate questions.
The two questions will be tallied individually. Each stands alone. In one question a number of people will vote yes or no. Of those votes, either yes or no will have a majority of the votes. Same with the other one. So both questions will have a majority of votes either yes or no.
If you decide to vote no on both questions, each question will still end up with a majority of yes or no votes.
According to the meeting, if both the 2-4 question and the ban question have a majority of yes votes, then the question with the most votes making it a majority wins.
Let’s assume half vote yes and half vote no on both questions. If a bunch of us vote No on BOTH instead, then it siphons off potential yes votes, neither one gets more than half Yes, and both fail.
Emily, what was the elephant in the room? Everyone was talking about the same thing. There is no reason to imagine what voters might do, especially because it’s impossible to know why anyone votes the way they do. It’s just a waste of time and amounts to a lot of gobbledygook.
The councilors who wanted amendments to the questions treating the ban question as the main one with the 2-4 dependent on whether the ban losing were attempting to stack the deck.
If the ban question were written so that if it loses, the council would be required to rapidly wrap up their zoning amendment to allow 8 retail stores in Newton, then that one alone would be my choice. But these questions only give the council the authority to act. If the ban loses, the council can still move slower than molasses as it always does when the voters want something the council does not.
Since the city council voted NAN on the Initiative Petition and instead wrote their own question, or rather the mayor did, they can hold this special election to rush the vote giving the least amount of time to educate voters about the outcome of each question.
It boggled my mind that the councilors’ reasoning for voting to put the ban question on the ballot was because Opt-Out collected the signatures to bring the question back to the council – when it isn’t their question being accepted but instead another one written by the council. These shenanigans were only to rush the process.
City Council will review the draft zoning amendment regarding the siting, operation and permitting of recreational sale facilities of cannibis on Monday, September 24th. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/91448
Sarah, whether or not most voters vote no on each question, there will still be either more no votes or more yes votes on each question. If there are more no votes, then no wins. If there are more yes votes, then yes wins – on each individual question. There will always be a larger number of either yes and no votes – unless the very unlikely scenario of a question having equal yes and no votes.
The scenario does exist in which each question receives more no votes than yes, then the no’s win on both questions. Are you saying that is a good strategy to get 8 retail stores because then the council will have to accept 8 stores? That could work or not because, as I said earlier, there is no way to know why people vote the way they do.
At any rate a no vote on the ban will keep the ball rolling toward having MJ retail stores in Newton.
@Marti, yes I’m saying the best way for the law to finally get implemented as written is for as many people as possible to vote NO on both so that both questions fail. Then the City Council will be required to allow 8 stores as the law intends.
Emily explained well the problem of ballot mechanics. I want to also address the fundamental issue: industrialized THC is not going to be good for MA.
This isn’t a dispute with legalizing consumption. This is about spending 60 years fighting Big Tobacco — only to then open the door to Big THC, which is dangerously concentrating and candifying that chemical while using the language of social justice as a smoke screen. They are going to make big money at the expense of public health.
https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_cort_surprising_truths_about_legalizing_cannabis
Jake – That’s not the issue we’ll vote on in November. If you have public health concerns, then you need to approach that issue in an arena in which it will be addressed most effectively.
Big THC already exists right here in Newton and throughout the country as a black market industry.
Large legal companies and powerful lobbyists and lawyers are indispensable attributes of Big Tobacco (and of Big THC). So the black market, no matter how big, doesn’t fit the definition.
Of course, the black market exists, but how big it is and how it’s going to interact with legal shops, I’d prefer to learn from the police who should know better. If my memory serves me well, the former Boston police commissioner Evans in an interview said that legal dispensaries attract black market dealers.
A campaign chair that can’t raise money? LOL. If you guys want pot shops, you guys should find a leader better suited to the task.
In both the city council meeting and on this board, there seem to be two types of people. People who know not making 2-4 conditional on opt-out is an outstanding strategy to muddy the waters, but find a way to speak to it with a straight face as if its not, and people who don’t actually realize how flawed it is. I personally can’t tell the difference between the two.
@Jane — I happened to listen to the same ted talk Jake linked to last week as it came up in the “Ted Talk Daily” podcast and was going to post it here as well. I think the issues it raises should be part of the campaign discussion.
@Claire — I have no idea what opt-out’s finances are or how much of it is captured in their online donation list, but here it is:
https://www.gofundme.com/newton-city-council-let-us-vote
It is very transparent where opt-out got most of the ~$11K they raised there.
RFSN on the other hand appears to have had $10K for a city poll on day 1 (the going rate, at least based on what Yes paid for charter poll) that I’ll speculate likely made it clear that 2-4 could not go on the ballot conditionally or else opt-out would clearly win. RFSN I speculate anticipates that opt-out will get a clear majority, so they hope “Prohibitionists” will also reflexively vote for 2-4 and give it a LARGER majority when married with pro voters who vote for 2-4. I’m just curious how they campaign for that with a straight face as supporters of cannibis….
I answered the $10k poll and it seemed clear it was a “push poll” to lead you to decide that the 2-4 store question was a good idea. Clearly some entity (RFSN or others) with a lot of money is pushing the 2-4 store ballot question. Since RFSN is avoiding answering the question of how they are financed, we are left to guess. The most likely candidates for the spending would be someone or some company who expects to make a LOT of money from having a limited number of stores and reduced competition. For this reason alone (I don’t care if there stores or not), I plan to vote NO on 2-4.
NFSN filed papers forming a ballot committee on Sept. 10. The poll was conducted on Sept. 11th and 12th. I thought it was obvious that we had no part in the poll after I explained the timeline of events, including the fact that I was blindsided on September 4th to learn that the city council planned to propose removing the 2 to 4 option. You don’t even need to go so far as the funding: we didn’t have the time to do the leg work to get a poll out in seven days. Jack – you can continue to pass along your opinions, but that doesn’t make them facts. To state this with even greater clarity: NFSN had no part in the poll and I have no idea where Jack came up with the idea that a ballot committee that was formed 48 hours prior to it was behind it.
Opt Out is free to run the campaign that it plans to. We also will run our own campaign, but it will not be governed by how OO decides to proceed. Our campaign will focus on the two questions on the November ballot, as well as informing voters that the city council’s proposed zoning ordinances includes a cap on the number of retail establishments in the city.
@Jane, thanks for clarifying that the poll was not from Responsible First Step Newton (the mystery remains…). Will someone from RFSN finally answer the question of whether you have or will accept donations from people or companies with a financial interest in the outcome? If you keep refusing to answer, we can only make assumptions.
Sarah – all you’ve been doing is making assumptions and then repeating them, hoping they’ll stick. It’s ridiculous. You’ve been trying to hang the “$10k Poll” on RFSN for almost a week now – a figure and assumption that you pulled out of your &%$$ – to support your “big THC is funding them” rhetoric. Your assumption gets debunked, you have no evidence that RFSN has any more money than you do, yet you’re still banging that drum. It never ceases to amaze me how some people can’t seem to fathom the idea that other people simply have a different opinion or perspective on an issue – there always has to be a conspiracy or nefarious financial angle.
In this case, there is a potential nefarious financial angle: the Garden Remedies / Elliot St skunkweed duopoly that Irresponsible First Step and the City Council Cannabis Cabal want to hoist upon Newton.
Irresponsible First Step still has not answered the question whether they will take campaign contributions from groups with a financial interest in the outcome.
The map on Opt Out’s GoFundMe site pretty much represents the fear based campaign they are running. It has all the schools circled and then weed icons all over that map. The legend indicates that the weed icons represent everywhere they are saying is “zoned for a pot shop”
https://www.gofundme.com/newton-city-council-let-us-vote
We have not accepted donations from people with a financial interest in the two companies. As I mentioned, we plan to strategize a path forward for our campaign, but that does not preclude the possibility of other organizations supporting either side of the vote forming ballot committees or running a campaign.
I hope people will refrain from jumping to conclusions not based in fact. However, this is not my first rodeo and understand that making judgements about people supporting or opposing the two questions go with the territory.
@Jane, if I can parse your statement, you’re saying RSFN has not yet taken money from the 2 companies that want to open recreational stores in Newton but will not preclude taking money from them or other individuals or entities who stand to profit from the result of these ballot questions. Is that right?
Has anyone asked the same question from OON?
I’m not saying either group should or shouldn’t but transparency on this issue is important.
@Jane OK so far you have not accepted donations from the two would be recreational skunkweed shops. Thanks for clarifying that. Does this mean you will not accept any going forward? How about other entities with a financial interest in the outcome e.g. the group that wanted to open the store at the old South Pacific location?
When you caveat that other organizations can form committees that just smells like a local skunkweek super PAC that you “won’t coordinate” with.
The ballot committee to fight the BAN of retail adult-use retail stores in Newton has only recently become a committee and had its first meetings. It’s just this week starting the procedure for the treasurer to open a bank account, to establish messaging and put together logistics. No money has been raised or spent.
It’s at its very beginnings so anyone making statements, expressing opinions or presenting assumptions is wrong on all counts and is attempting to spread lies about a ballot committee that has just begun so the commenters obviously want NO retail stores in Newton.
Just because opt-out has a go fund me page, there is no reason to assume that it is their only source of funds. There is no way to know at this point.
It’s disheartening that So many Newtonites are willing to spread conspiracies, assumptions and opinions without any knowledge of the facts.
As Josh Krintzman put it at the council meeting, we’ve already voted three times on marijuana and all three times marijuana issues passed. MJ was decrimilized, medical MJ was legalized and in 2016 recreational adult-use MJ was legalized purportedly to be regulated like alcohol. The CCC established regulations. Those arguments are settled.
Right now the only question is will we have retail adult-use MJ stores in Newton and reap the benefits of the 13% tax allowed in community agreements as well as other funds generated from those agreements. Do we want local control and financial benefit or do we want our neighbors controlling both the community agreements and gaining the extra taxes? They will certainly thank us if that is the outcome.
Sarah, give it a rest. Can you really be that confused or are you actually just continuing to muddy waters because you want an all out ban at any cost. Or maybe you represent some other financial interest yourself.
Jane did not say RFSN might be taking money from those with a financial interest in having MJ in Newton. She said that there could be other groups, interests in Newton on either side who do take money from anywhere. Surely you can see that RFSN has no control over what others do.
Bruce, you either have no facts so you just want to suggest anything about financial interests and anything else to create mistrust or you have facts and don’t want anyone to know what you are doing. Again RFSN has no control over what other entities do or don’t do, including you. Maybe you paid for a poll yourself or are a moneyed interest contributing to opt-out behind the scenes. See, it can go either way when facts don’t matter.
I took a couple of days before commenting in order to process all that has transpired. The two words that keep coming to mind… ignorance and fear. It’s the mindset that drives these prohibitionists. And it’s why the compromise proposal was a mistake from the beginning. The truth is that the prohibitionists would never have won in Newton with a platform based on ignorance and fear.
More than two months ago I hired legal counsel to protect my rights as a citizen, as they have been under assault by this city’s elected “leaders” since the 2016 law was passed by voters. She was instrumental in getting the false charges the prohibitionists brought against me dropped. Over the next 72 hours I will be considering all legal options against the City, based on the fact that this ballot structure violates the rights of those who voted in favor of the 2016 law.
Two of our elected “leaders” have commented on this thread. I will respond to both…
Emily Norton has proposed the prohibitionists dream scenario. Try for an all out ban in 2018. Failing that, try for a reduced number of shops in 2019. Emily’s comment indicates not only a lack of understanding about the cannabis industry, but a lack of basic business knowledge as well when she suggests “in the interim people could submit applications to open one.” No business person in their right mind is going to invest the hundreds of thousand$ required for the application and permitting process with yet another revote hanging over their heads in 2019. Never mind the fact that her suggestion demonstrates a complete lack of respect for voters who should not have to wait years for a successful ballot initiative [2016] to be implemented.
Then there’s Jake Auchincloss. who claims “This isn’t a dispute about legalizing consumption.” But in my opinion that’s exactly what it is about for Councilor Auchincloss. He was one of few Councilors who spoke out against the 2016 ballot initiative in advance of that vote. At that time Auchincloss echoed Republican Governor Baker’s position that cannabis should not be legalized for adult use. Auchincloss is a prohibitionist to his core. He uses ridiculous terms like “industrialized THC” and “Big THC” that display a complete lack of understanding about cannabis in general. The only hope for Jake is a good proctologist, who can help him get his head out of his ass.
@Marti, RSFN DOES, in fact, have the ability to control who donates to your ballot committee by making a decision on whether to accept contributions from people or entities who will financially benefit from your actions, as does OON. It’s a relevant question that keeps getting dodged by your group.
First, welcome back Mike. I’m truly sorry for your legal troubles.
Now again, Sarah, please learn to understand what you read so you don’t keep commenting on things not said. Or perhaps you are just a troll. If so go troll somewhere else. There has been no dodging – at least by RFSN. I can’t speak for opt-out. RFSN is not MY group but I do know they have not accepted nor do they plan to accept donations from anyone who has a financial interest in bring MJ retail stores to Newton. Been said several times now. Clear as can be.
What I did say is that RFSN has no control over financial contributions TO OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES, BALLOT COMMITTEES OR GROUPS from those with a financial interest in bringing MJ retail stores to Newton. It’s such a ridiculous assumption.
@Mike Striar Your family is in Marijuana business. Whatever you said is totally biased. Please be more considerate about the Newton residents who settle here for a safe and healthy environment. The 2016 ballot question did have a note indicating local government have rights to put limitation on retail recreational marijuana sale in their town. OptOut is a grass root campaign which is initialed by Newton Citizens. Even though you and your family are super rich, you are nothing superior than us.
@Marti, if RSFN is not your group, then why are you making claims about what it will or will not do? Someone in charge at RSFN should clarify if they will or will not accept donations from people or entities that will profit from their efforts. Either way is fine, but voters have a right to know.
Why does it make a difference if Mike Striar has family in the marijuana business? I have nothing to do with my family’s businesses or careers and I think that’s how it is for most people. I think it’s odd that this keeps being brought up as a strike against him when it’s pretty irrelevant.
Sarah, Enough. If you can’t discuss something else, I will have to block you from this thread.
By not my group – I mean it doesn’t belong to me. Also quite clear. I have already answered your questions more than I should have and so has Jane, although you continue to misrepresent what either group has said.
Yeeyoo, Mke Striar perhaps has more of a right to comment on this subject than you do – as far as we know you and your anonymous persona surfaced just in time to attempt to discredit what he’s been saying for years.
Since we don’t have any idea who you are, what makes a spokesperson for opt-out’s being a grass roots movement. You could have a financial interest in not bring retail MJ stores to Newton.
I’m new to this discussion forum stuff so forgive me if I make a faux pax here by asking:
Marti Bowen – you seem like an active participant in the site. I do not understand why you resort to calling Sarah a “troll” just because she obviously disagrees with you and raises some valid questions. If you have the force of logic behind you positions you shouldn’t need to resort to name calling. Haven’t we learned anything from the spectacle that the President has stooped to when he doesn’t have a rational argument and only an abundance of vitriol to spew at citizens? But I digress…
Mike Striar – what are you planning to sue the City for? Isn’t it within the province of the City Council (and citizens) to put questions on the ballot about this issue? It seems to be a fundamental part of the local control process in the Question 4 provisions. Please explain why you say that and what your suit would as for in terms if a remedy for what you think is improper.
Bruce Wang – I don’t know which is “better” — a concentrated duopoly, as you characterize it (which would tend to burden the neighborhoods where those stores may open as recreational) or a broader array of stores spread throughout the City (which would, presumably, be in commercially zoned areas, but given Newton’s layout would seem to have to impact all residential areas with traversing traffic from buyers coming from out of town from places that are barring shops). Maybe this is less of a question for you than others since you seem to prefer barring recreational shops in Newton along the lines of the prohibitions in ither communities.
Jane Franz- you seem very interested in this subject. Can you please explain why you helped to form a “First Step” committee. What is it that you want this election ballot (presumably the 2-4 question) to be a “First Step” toward?
Thanks for catching me up on an obviously contentious issue.
Marti,
Please let us know if you block Sarah. Then, I’m going to ask her question until you block me too.
@Mary Mary Quite Contrary Sorry to hear that you are so disconnected from your family. I think Mike Striar stands firmly with his marijuana advocate family from his offensive, self centered comments here.
Btw, would it be reasonable to ask what is the perceived conflict of interest as it pertains to Mike Striar?
Can it be disclosed and people can just decide for themselves if its an issue?
Its also fair to ask the same question of opt out folks. Perhaps they own millions in stocks of the top cigarette/ ecig makers and drop in sales in newton (population 88k) alone is enough to impact its half TRILLION dollars in annual revenue.
I’m actually very close to my family, but I have no involvement with their business dealings. How nice of you to resort to an ad hominem attack, though.
@Sarah
“Someone in charge at RSFN should clarify if they will or will not accept donations from people or entities that will profit from their efforts. Either way is fine, but voters have a right to know.”
You are correct, voters have a right to know where political donations come from and how they are spent. The OCPF carefully regulates this and local ballot question committees will have to file a finance report preceding the election. You will need to wait, along with everyone on all sides of this issue, until then.
Funny. If what YeeYoo said is an ad hominem attack, then what referring a City Councilor to proctologist is?
I just started to read and participate in this discussion site, thinking that it might be a fair venue for resdients to express points of view and have open discussion.
But I have to say that it seems very strange to me, and inconsistent with free speech objectivity, for it to be the case that one of the discussants who has a strong personal perspective on the issues (namely Marti Bowen) is not only an active poster but also has the power to block another discussion participant (namely Sarah) just because she does not agree with her point of view.
Sarah didn’t say anything off color, whereas Mike Striar did in his post about Councilor Auchincloss — yet no admonition to be civil and no threat of discipline was directed to him.
I will have to re-evaluate and consider whether this forum has any real ethics that make it worthwhile for a citizen’s participation or the moderator is just running an echo chamber for her own viewpoint.
This is exactly why I want a chance to drive a stake through the heart of these prohibitionists with a straight “yes” or “no” revote. Not because they’ve falsely accused me of all sorts of things, but because their entire argument is based on fear and ignorance. Anything short of a straight-up rebuke at the polls is going to allow them to keep spewing their illogical nonsense. [I know “illogical nonsense” is a redundant term, but it seems completely appropriate].
@Jane — thanks for clarification. Opt-out newton had disavowed the poll and RSFN was the only other ballot committee subsequently registered. Seems like a campaign finance issue although perhaps hard to trace now if the firm doing the poll was not identified.
Still curious if RSFN is advocating for or against having 8 dispensaries in Newton and why? Should we be concerned with having 8 rather than 4? Is RSFN against dispensaries?
With regard to other discussion, its worth noting that two of our city council members are recused from cannibis issues due to having family interested in business. I’d also note that a business has moved out from Elliot St in ancipation of a dispensary. The market rewards speculation in uncertain situations and people will invest.
I don’t understand why many here seem certain the survey was conducted by a ballot committee. Media entities frequently conduct surveys. So do private businesses, individuals or investors, who in this case, might be looking to decide if they want to invest in this market.
I’m not saying that’s what happened here or not. I’m just saying there are other possibilities.
Dr j,
This is a private blog with the majority of moderators and post submissions being very pro MJ.
In my opinion, its not a great place to get a pulse on the average Newton residents opinion on MJ. But for all other issues I find it very helpful
@Jack Prior– The City Councilors who recused themselves did so appropriately, because they have a sibling who is part of a group with a license application in Newton. Conversely, I am not an elected official in Newton, and my brother [a state licensed grower] is not an applicant in Newton. Also, for the umpteenth time… I have no financial interest in ANY cannabis business.
The application on Elliot Street is for a MEDICAL dispensary. It was filed before the prohibitionists on the City Council showed their hand in attempting to put a revote on the ballot…
I’m a pretty good businessman and I know a little bit about the cannabis industry. I stand by my assertion that no business person in their right mind is going to invest in Newton with a 2019 ballot question threatening every penny of their investment…
These prohibitionists have already cost the city million$ by creating an anti-business atmosphere for cannabis entrepreneurs. 24 City Councilors, and not a single one of them stood up to support a law that was passed by the voters. So much for the theory that more councilors means better representation.
You leave your computer for hours and look what happens!
NSFN will not be accepting donations from people involved in the cannabis business. Period, as Sean Spicer would say.
I do not know why “people involved in the cannabis business” should not be permitted to donate to a campaign. Naturally this is NSFN’s decision but should nurses or others in the medical field not be permitted to donate to the nurse staffing limits ballot initiative? Should restaurants that don’t want to see the trans gender bill pass not be permitted to donate to that campaign?
Dr J, welcome.
Unfortunately, you are among the new posters who have trouble understanding what you read – if indeed you read the comments you complain about at all.
Sarah having a different opinion that I have has nothing at to do with anything at all. I enjoy reading perspectives that differ on V14. As you I am sure recognize, Sarah has been asking the same question over and over again even claiming her question has been dodged. In fact, the question has been answered on this thread numerous times. Enough is enough.
@Jane, THANK YOU for the clarification! It is important to me to know if there are any conflicts of interest. I’m inclined at this point to vote with you and vote no on both questions.
Just curious … now that RSFN has answered that question to everyone’s apparent satisfaction, is the same question being posed to the OptOut folks?
Marti Bowen – your reply to me was rather nasty. I don’t believe I asked an inappropriate question/made an inappropriate observation. At least one of your “regulars” agreed with me on that.
I don’t see Sarah’s postings as being at all unfair. She wanted an answer and (finally) got it. She was persistent seeking the answer, but she was not being strident or nasty (unlike the posting from Mike Striar or, for that matter, the one you just directed at me).
I would think that if you are going to take on the dual role of moderator and discussion participant it would be appropriate if you would please try to be more measured and polite. I did nothing to incur your wrath, but I am learning (quickly) that there are some people in this group who seem to have a hard time being collegial when their perpective is not adopted by others.
In the words of the immortal Aretha Franklin: Try a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Sara – I never said how I am going to vote on the two questions.
.
@Jerry, Opt Out Newton has stated this on our website, fundraising page, and other places, but it bears repeating: We do not accept donations from individuals or companies that might profit from our campaign. I’m glad to hear from this thread that Responsible First Step Newton has the same commitment. We look forward to a respectful and informative campaign so voters can make a choice that is best for Newton.
@Greg, companies or people that have a financial interest in the outcome certainly have the right to donate money and express their views, as per the Citizens United decision. We do, however, think this should be disclosed in advance and not just in OCPF filings right before and after the election. If there are other ballot committees that pop up for this purpose, we hope they will disclose whether they accept donations from marijuana or alcohol interests, or others with some financial skin in the game. Looks like there are plenty of eagled-eyed folks on this site who will keep people honest!
DR. J..
Whether you find respect here or not, depends on what side of the debate you are. Get used to it: if you are on the “wrong” side, you’ll be lectured and disciplined by Marti, like Sarah and you were, like I was when she condescendingly declared once: “Anatoly, you are talking around in circles”. Just ignore, as I do.
The moderators don’t enforce their own rules. They tolerate (enjoy?) cheap 5th grade level bullying. Especially popular is making fun of people surnames. “Mayor Full-of-it” is Mike Striar’s favorite. Another poster had been making fun of a French surname of one of the councilors until the latter left the blog – no moderator got in his way. I could go on.
You may ask why I’m here given this bleak picture. I’m not so naïve as to think my arguments would be of interest to weed devotees, but their fabrications should be debunked for the benefit of (many?) people who use this blog in the read-only mode. Besides, the city doesn’t have a lot of forums for discussing and storing opinions.
When @Jane says “NSFN will not be accepting donations from people involved in the cannabis business. Period, as Sean Spicer would say.” I hope she means that corporations are people too! A la Citizens United
Good catch Bruce!
@Jane unequivocally stated yesterday that RSFN won’t accept donations from “people in the cannabis business” but left unmentioned whether they will accept donations from COMPANIES or other organizations in the cannabis business.
I’ll wait for the answer.
It’s been so much fun having the prohibitionistas on V-14. I hope they stick around after they get smoked in November. Maybe take up another cause that also infringes on individual freedom. Should theaters really be allowed to show R-rated movies in Newton? How about outlawing baggy pants on guys? Or maybe just go for the big one, and try to ban alcohol sales in Newton too?
Could someone point me to the contributors of NFSN?
Let me give this one more try:
NFSN will not accept ANY donations from people or companies associated with the cannabis industry.
Jane,
“Will not”.. you also need to include the phrase “did not”…
Don’t worry @Mike Striar, skunkweed brought me here, but it’s pointing out logical fallacies that keeps me here. As long as you keep making them on whatever topic whether it’s skunkweed or 9/11, I will keep pointing them out. In this case, it’s false analogies. R-rated movies and baggy pants do not present what economists call externalities. Skunkweed does. An externalities are costs to society that do not get factored in an exchange of goods and services. It’s the phenomenon that libertarians tend not to understand.
Now the potheads’ favorite moan “But the alcohol” is the most similar, but there are important differences.
First, there is no court permissible test for driving under the influence of marijuana.
Second, alcohol does not present the same edibles problem for children. If young children somehow accidentally taste alcohol, they will spit it out. Not the same with THC-laced cookies and candies. Your favorite law prohibits towns and cities from restricting the sale of marijuana cookies and candies.
Third, alcohol does present a host of evils. It’s too embedded in the culture to reverse. It’s not too late to halt the industrialization of skunkweed such that it gets embedded into our culture.
If OptOut prevails, it will not prohibit you from smoking Train Wreck. You get to blaze away either way. Just go buy it in Brookline or mooch some off your brother.
And yes, I don’t know what I’m talking about. /s
Calling it Skunkweed is a great way to get people from both sides to see your argument.
(Just kidding; it’s not).
Also, swooping in to correct “logical fallacies” is a tough title to hold when you then bring in the “edibles will be marketed to children because candy and cookies” argument – or, if you prefer, logical fallacy.
Let’s not even get into the FUD distractions, such as saying a proposed site 3/4 of a mile from a school is magically in a school zone, among other silliness.
If people want to vote out legal recreational cannabis sales, then it appears there is a path on the ballot. It makes no sense to re-litigate cannabis itself, which was legalized by a very solid margin in this city and state.
The only thing I want to know at this point, assuming both questions remain on the ballot, is: – if both get voted down, then the status quo reigns, correct?
@Doug Haslam I did not say edibles will be marketed to children. My point is if there’s more supply of it, it is more likely to get accidentally consumed by children.
Yes if both get voted down, then the status quo reigns.
“if there’s more supply of it, it is more likely to get accidentally consumed by children” – like alcoholic drinks packaged like energy/soda?
@Bruce Wang– I sincerely hope you do stay on V14. I think most of your comments are an excellent representation of the prohibitionist mindset. Double down on ignorance and fear. Keep spreading your gospel. It’s like free advertising for legalization proponents.
@Bruce Wang – You seem to be contradicting yourself.
You agree that these retail outlets will not be marketing or selling to children. You say that a Newton retail ban won’t stop Newton adults from imbibing, (“just go buy it in Brookline”). So how does a ban on retail stores have any bearing on kids one way or another? The only thing it does is force the businesses that will pay the most local taxes to go to neighboring towns instead.
This isn’t about traffic. This isn’t about kids. This isn’t about police resources.
One last try with a Shermanesque statement: NFSN has not in the past, and will not in the future, accept donations from people or companies involved in the cannabis industry.
Pat – NFSN will comply with all OCPF reporting guidelines for receipts and expenditures. I encourage you to become familiar with them.
Bruce – The vote on November 6 is focused on two, and only two, questions:
Do Newton voters want to ban retail cannabis shops?
Do Newton voters want to limit the number of retail cannabis establishments to no fewer than 2 and no more than 4?
@Jerry Reilly The demand for marijuana is elastic. The less local supply, the less local consumption and demand.
Hahahahahaha, Bruce Wang. That’s very funny. The demand for marijuana is inelastic. People buy it on the black market now, and they will continue to do so, or buy in nearby communities that permit RMJ shops.
Perhaps this is too simplistic a solution for a complex problem, but if I wanted to put both MJ questions on the ballot (I don’t want either of them on the ballot), I would word them as follows to avoid any confusion:
Question No. 1 Do you want Newton to prohibit recreational marijuana establishments in the city? Yes or No.
Question No. 2 If you voted “No” on Question No. 1, do you want Newton a limit of no fewer than 2 and no more than 4 recreational marijuana establishments in the city. Yes or No.
Ted – As I understand it, the two questions had to stand alone.
Bruce – Marijuana has been sold all over Newton on the black market for decades.
@Jane I know some dealers. Let me know if you need a hookup.
@Ted— your proposed question structure makes eminent sense. The exact same set of linked questions you proposed was submitted by Councilor Schwartz at last Thursday’s City Council meeting, but was narrowly voted down. Some subset of Councilors thinks it’s better to have 2 stand-alone questions that are in direct conflict with each other. It’s a head scratcher.
Bruce – As I’ve stated before on this blog, I do not smoke cannabis and or drink alcohol.
@Jane, on what basis do you say the two questions had to stand alone? I mean aside from political pressure exerted by the mayor and certain councilors?
@James: that was a legal determination based on the city charter.
Just searched Google on “marijuana legalization black market”. The first page of returned results contains:
Despite Legalization, Marijuana Black Market Hides In Plain Sight : NPR
pot dealers on why legalization won’t kill the black market
Why Canada’s pot legalization won’t stop black-market sales | Reuters
California’s Weed Black Market Ramps Back Up – Bloomberg
Marijuana’s legalization fuels black market in other states – USA Today
The Failed Promise of Legal Pot – The Atlantic
California has approved legal pot, but black market growers thrive
Foreign cartels embrace home-grown marijuana in pot-legal states
Fake news?
@Mike Striar,
“Or maybe just go for the big one, and try to ban alcohol sales in Newton too?”
No, let’s go for a small one: just ban Sam Adams beer. Shall we start a petition?
I feel you are running out of ideas. I’d like to offer one that will fit nicely with your arsenal: those fearmongering and ignorant prohibitionistas are actually marijuana stock short-sellers who will profit greatly from the pot shop ban in Newton. Isn’t that cool?
@Anatoly, Newton residents are being asked to allow recreational pot shops, with all their attendant problems, in order to curb the black market. Thanks for pointing out that that justification is dubious at best. As the market expands for marijuana, there will still be nefarious black market dealers trying to siphon off some of that growing market. So, the only justification left is that pot shops in Newton will be more convenient than going to Brookline or other towns that have decided to allow the marijuana industry to enter their towns. I, for one, don’t want to change the character of Newton for that minor benefit.
I have yet to see the entity identified that put up the 10K. Why not? What are you afraid of?
@Laurie Palepu – You’ve got that completely backwards. Recreational pot shops are legal businesses as per the voters of MA and Newton. No one is being asked to allow pot shops. We had that vote already. They are allowed.
What’s happening now is that the OptOut folks are asking the citizens of Newton to ban pot shops – under the specious argument that a few different retail stores will somehow “change the character” of the entire city.
Are you referring to RFSN, Patricia? If that is the case, I will answer the question for the 6th time, each with a more explicit explanation than the one before:
1. RFSN did not have anything to do with the poll in any way, shape, or form. The timeline of events should make this clear and obvious – we filed papers the day before the poll was conducted.
2. Trust me, I am not afraid of anything that can happen in this campaign.
And I will add once again: Many potential entities other than a ballot committee could have funded that poll, including, perhaps, a businesses that might seek guidance before deciding if they should do business here or a media organization.
Also: That $10K figure that has become somewhat legendary here is a number someone cited based on a prior poll. It could have cost less. It could have cost me. There is no way of knowing.
OptOut Folks really need to stop harassing Jane Frantz. It is beyond tedious.
A friend asked if there is a third ballot question committee being formed – one that is for a NO vote on both questions. If there is one, can someone post a link to them so my friend(s) can sign up?
@Pat Irwin – my suspicion is that the poll was conducted by the mayor. All of city hall thinks of leadership as looking for a parade and jumping in front of it. This is why they’ve pissed off both sides. The only people they’ve satisfied is the 2-4 crowd which consists of the people who profit from a duopoly and the Faustian Bargain people aka Irresponsible First Step.
@Amy Sangiolo A no on both questions ballot committee? Look here:
https://www.leafly.com/sativa/green-crack
A comment was removed because it appears to have written by someone who is already commenting under a different name. Sock puppeting is not permitted.
Amy made an interesting suggestion above. A ballot question committee supporting a “no” vote on both ballot questions. Unfortunately, having to vote “no” TWICE in order to reaffirm a “yes” vote from 2016 disenfranchised many Newton voters. It’s the scenario I’ve warned about for months. So along with counsel I’ve spent the better part of this week evaluating all legal options against the City. I’ll announce my decision here by Monday. But if we end up being stuck with two competing ballot proposals, I think it’s a tough task to run an effective campaign that asks people to vote “no” on two different questions…
That’s exactly why the “compromise” 2-4 proposal should not have been put forward. That proposal hands an undeserved partial victory to the prohibitionists, who could never have won a straight up or down vote to opt out. The voters here are too smart to buy into a campaign driven by ignorance and fear. The prohibitionists are making the exact same arguments that have already lost them two ballot box votes in 2012 and 2016. In my opinion the compromise 2-4 proposal has actually made it MORE likely opt out could win. Not based on any merit, just simply based on the math.
Mayor Fuller’s office forwarded this to Village 14..
Mayor Ruthanne Fuller did not commission the recent poll regarding marijuana and doesn’t know who did.
She did not receive the poll on her telephone, she has not seen it, and she has not taken it.
The first Mayor Fuller heard anything about it was on the day of the City Council vote last Thursday.
The only poll coming from City Hall will be in the near future about Newton Power Choice.
Ellen Ishkanian
Director of Community Communications
I think we need to all take a deep breath. There are six weeks to the election. Here is what I’d request of both sides:
1) Ask yourself if you’d say a post you are writing directly to the person’s face.
2) Focus on your arguments, not your anger. I get that this issue (that EVERY issue) touches some third rail of pain or emotion, and frankly that can be important to know, but it can’t be the only thing. And if you post often, it shouldn’t be the only thing I can identify from your posts.
3) If you are new here, stop insulting the online forum. Yes, it isn’t perfect. But no one makes money on it, it is a community board. Realize that these are your neighbors, with families and friends and beer preferences. Ain’t nothing perfect on the interwebs. Anyone can post here, just follow the rules. Insulting the forum is like whining about the refs. Feels good in the moment, feels pathetic to read it later.
4) Not everything is a conspiracy theory. For the love of all that is holy, this issue matters WAY more to you than it does to most (this is true for almost EVERY issue). Sometimes fate happens. Sometimes weird coincidences exist. Feel free to point out the weirdness. But by the 20th time you’ve accused someone of being involved in a pizzagate style cabal, I start to wonder about your quality of posts/connection to reality. In the words of Rabbi Gene Wilder in The Frisco Kid “I don’t think that man is 100%”
5) And if you feel yourself getting angry, take a break. Really. Go away for a while.
6) Don’t cheat. Don’t Doxx people. Don’t call them at work. Don’t confront their kids. Don’t ask them the same question 5 times. Don’t post under sockpuppets. Don’t take advantage of being anonymous to be someone you are not, or be a jerk. In short, be kind, and remember good people are good people, even if they are explaining why they are right and you are wrong. If you can’t be a good person while doing such explaining, either you are (a) wrong, or (b) not such a good person. C’mon now.
And as I’ve said MANY times, I hope folks keep posting after their particular reason for posting ends. We’ve picked up some great participants that way.
Cheers to all. I’ll be in the back just eating popcorn, and waiting for the next issue I know something about to chime in on.
–Figgy
@Figgy, I share this only because sometime you can come off as a little pompous…you sound a little pompous
Have to say, that’s a first. Been called silly/wordy/nerdy/jerky but not pompous. Never really viewed that as my style.
Well…crap. Well, feel free to ignore the post if you want. Definitely didn’t mean to be pompous, just a little weary I guess of the back and forth. And with so many new people posting on one particular issues, so many similar issues pop up in every major discussion. My apologies if my tone hit anyone the wrong way. But I still think my points hold. I’ll just try to be a little less..pompous next time.
My main point is that we are a community and in the end we will be a community, even if we strongly disagree on particular points. So be nice and focus on convincing folks. That better?
(Speaking of my points, it would be nice if you could read the post too, Claire. Not exactly…kind, no? Honest, I guess. But a bit mean too.)
fignewtonville,
In your penultimate post I counted the number of imperative sentences and the number of word “please”. The ratio doesn’t look good. Just a piece of friendly advice as usual.
Fig – I agree with much of what you’ve said, but by the 6th time you’re accused of lying and taking money that you didn’t take, you’re more likely to get exasperated. But I take your words to heart and will try to post with a more measured tone and use more objective language when responding.
Geesh. The reaction to Fig’s very reasonable advice tells me it’s past time that we’ve closed this thread.