An organization called “Respect the Vote, Newton” filed a statement of organization last week for the purpose of “advocacy for the legal sale of cannabis to adults in Newton, Massachusetts.” The chair is listed as Victor Chiang from Wellesley. According to the form filed with the City Clerk, the committee was formed to oppose the question to ban.
I don’t have the paperwork for the other two but my understanding is that two committees were previously formed: one supporting opt-out and another supporting the 2-4 limit.
And there I thought that Victor Chiang was doing this out of the goodness of his heart.
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20180109/pot-group-proposes-cultivation-site-in-south-easton
Those of you who are so obsessed with this issue are being gamed by multi-million dollar capitalist interests, pure and simple. But keep on pushing the nonsense talking points of freedom and liberty, etc. Oh and compassion too. Commercialization is about compassion!
C’mon, let’s not confuse local capitalists with the likes of a Mobil Exxon. Those who oppose Opt-Out as necessary Pro-Weed (or pro big business), but rather Opt-Out’s disregard of a topic already decided upon by the voters of Newton, and the tactics they use to achieve their means. No one’s going into this eyes wide shut.
Victor Chiang is also the CEO of Cypress Tree Mgt, which wants to open a dispensary at the former Green Tea site.
Understood. And Todd Finard’s family are Real Estate Developers from Weston. But does that mean we should all be opposed to the Northland project on Needham Street as well?
So what if they have a financial interest. They have a right to petition the government.
Just to clarify: Responsible First Step Newton also opposes the ban and has been clear on that from the beginning.
@Michael – Many of your posts include digs “at those obsessed with this issue” which seem to be aimed at anyone who has spoken out against the ban. You yourself have been posting regularly in support of the ban.
Why do you keep implying that people against the ban “are obsessed” but the folks who just collected 7000 signatures and put the Opt-Out question on the ballot are not.
… just wondering.
Jerry, I strongly support the legalization of marijuana but I believe that the Commonwealth should control the distribution mechanisms and assume full responsibility for public health, public safety, and research.
In terms of the obsession with this topic, I’m sure there are a lot of conservative Republicans who are obsessed with opting out simply because it’s in keeping with their overall mean-spiritedness, desire to exert control over others, etc. Their obsession isn’t surprising and not worth debating.
What is surprising, to me, is the large number of thoughtful and open-minded individuals who have devoted so much energy to this topic and believe that it’s somehow consistent with a progressive political outlook. It’s not. The primary objective of this scheme, from the beginning, has been to create extremely large profit opportunities for a limited, well-connected few, and progressives are being gamed – by Weston Roots Management, by commenters in this forum whose family members have several million invested in grow ops, by their $200 billion backers on Wall Street, etc.
To be fair, I should characterize this topic as an obsession for both sides. I suspect that it’s easily accounted for at least a third, if not half, of the activity in this forum over the last year. I’m just disappointed that none of the opt-out opponents have ever once expressed concern about the structural economic and political unfairness that’s been built into this new market.
Victor Chiang has brought shame to his ancestors by seeking to profit from human misery.
So where was the RTV filing when they were funding anti-Opt Out activities before?
At least Cypress Tree is “honest” — they have acknowledged that want an RMD so they can get into recreational. It’s all about the $$$$$. Unlike Munkacy who originally professed to be interested only in medical MJ but, of course, now it is all about opening a Pot $hop as well.
“Responsible’ FIRST STEP – you are effectively outted: It’s all about opening Newton up to more and more Pot $hop$: 2-4 is a SHAM. Krintzman said it on the City Council record: The 2-4 “limit” is NO LIMIT and can be opened up at any time withOUT going back to the voters.
Shame on you.
@Michael,
If I am posting information you already have seen feel free to ignore. However,
here is a link to the Cannabis Control Commission – https://mass-cannabis-control.com/about-us-2/
and here is a link to the Code of Mass. Regulations, 950 CMR 500 publishing the regulations related to the cultivation, testing and sale of marijuana in Massachusetts. 950 CMR500.160 addresses the testing of marijuana and marijuana related products.
I have not spend a lot of time reviewing the commission or the regulations, but at a quick glance it does appear to me that the Commonwealth is taking an active role in connection with distribution, agriculture and testing.
I was wondering when the big moneyed interests would jump into this. Now we know.
Link to CMR:
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/03/27/935cmr500.pdf
Thanks Lisap, I agree that the Commonwealth is actively involved. But in my opinion a truly progressive and thoughtful framework was the one that the province of Québec implemented in response to federal legalization, where the Québec National Assembly created a Crown corporation that is solely responsible for marijuana sales and regulation (in the same way as its parent company, the Société des Alcools du Québec, is solely responsible for hard liquor sales and regulation).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9coise_du_cannabis
With the key element, for me, being the SQDC’s exclusivity over the market.
Anyway, it’s all too late now as the industry has bought a swell and highly-profitable framework in perpetuity for themselves.
And here comes the Astroturf. Paid political pros. Fancy signs and paid media. Letters written by hired gun consultants.
The only grass here is the stuff Victor Chiang wants to peddle in Newton.
As a non big-moneyed observer, I wish more folks could leave the option open that there are a lot of would-be customers who just want to see retail operations open up in convenient locations. For me, I could care less who owns and runs the stores so long as they open up and I am able to purchase high quality lab-tested goods. I support any business advocating for their right to open up operations.
Whichever business owner, activist, or political official can most quickly effectively advocate for as many shops as possible to open as soon as possible will gain my support.
RSFN backs the responsible roll out and regulation of adult retail cannabis shops in Newton. The state regulations are clearly outlined by a Cannabis Control Commission. The regulations are stringent and clearly state that municipalities may impose local regulations that are suitable to the community in question.
Retail cannabis will have tighter regulations than medical cannabis dispensaries, which are so extensive that only about 30 are open in the entire state.
There has been talk about a third ballot committee forming since it became known that RFSN backed the 2 to 4 limit as a means of opening retail shops in a measured, thoughtful manner.
@Michael,
Thanks for sharing that info! I’m not sure that this is a genie that can be put back into the bottle here in Massachusetts, but I will say that I very strongly prefer a government regulated industry to the enormous criminal enterprises that have historically run the marijuana trade.
Irresponsible First Step has found its big moneyed ally. I’m sure Victor Chiang wants to limit the stores to two so he can have a duopoly with Garden Remedies.
Thanks to Victor Chiang for stepping up with the aptly named “Respect the Vote, Newton.”
There are 25 elected “leaders” in Newton who were responsible for implementing the 2016 vote that legalized adult-use cannabis. Not one of them respected the vote or the voters enough to do their jobs. In fact many of them including Mayor Full-of-it, actively worked behind the scenes to derail implementation of the voter approved law. The City Council’s handling of cannabis reform has been disgraceful dating back to 2012 when they blocked sick and dying patients from obtaining prescription cannabis in Newton…
Now the City Council has made a further mess of things with two competing ballot proposals that offer no clear way for voters to reaffirm support for the 2016 vote. That unfortunate fact has been the focus of my attention for some time. I consulted an attorney to represent my personal interest as a voter, and considered legal action over this unfair ballot structure that disenfranchises the 25,516 Newton voters who voted “yes” in 2016. Out of concern for the “law of unintended consequences,” I’ve decided to reserve any legal action that could result in one of these ballot proposals being moved to 2019. I’ll focus instead on assuring implementation after the November vote, should that be necessary.
In my opinion opt out never had a chance in a straight up or down vote. Newton voters have a cannabis friendly track record. Reaffirming the 2016 vote would have been a well financed campaign. Pro cannabis voters were mobilized by City Hall’s blatant attempt to steal their votes. A large percentage of the people who signed the opt out petition would not have voted that way at the ballot box. The prohibitionists would have been smoked again in November…
Now, honestly, I’m just not sure how this shakes out. The presence of that compromise proposal on the ballot has changed an otherwise predictable voting dynamic. “Responsible First Step Newton” is neither “responsible” nor a “first step.” The name of the group is insulting, as it implies that fully implementing the already voter approved 2016 law would be irresponsible. If this compromise proposal passes it will cost Newton hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars per year in lost revenue…
It’s hard for me to be critical of the people behind the compromise proposal, because we share the goal of defeating the prohibitionists. I just wish these good folks had held firm to the courage required of their conviction. We had an opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of fear and ignorance. Compromise will only insure this debate goes on for years. I will be urging people to vote against both ballot proposals.
I don’t typically share personal information on V14, but in the last 9 months, I’ve had extensive contact with the medical profession and learned of the long arm of the Big Pharma industry, which produces and markets highly addictive opioids and makes tens of millions of dollars a year from them, if not more. If we’re going to go after an industry that’s making huge profits from known additive products, how about adding Big Pharma to the list?
The average Big Pharma CEO is paid $45 million a year. The industry spends $3 billion a year marketing to consumers, $24 billion marketing directly to heathcare professionals, and $240 million on lobbyists. Imagine the good that could come from $27+ billion dollars directed to medical research instead of marketing to consumers, healthcare professionals, and lobbyists?
These comments about the cannabis industry are a diversion from the issue that’s on the table in Newton right now. I am of the belief that what’s necessary in Newton is a highly regulated retail cannabis industry – with both state and local regulations that are tailored to our community and strictly enforced.
For now the 6th time, I will state on Village 14 that RFSN will not accept any money from the cannabis industry. We are working very hard to get our message out: let’s have a thoughtful, responsible rollout of the retail cannabis industry. If anyone from the industry sends us money, we will return it.
OON has way more funding than RFSN. By a wide margin.
@Jane Your comments about the pharmaceutical industry are a diversion from the issue that’s on the table in Newton right now. Big Skunkweed is directly relevant. They wrote provisions that towns had to opt out, because they learned their lesson from other states, where communities had to opt in.
Your slogan “Regulate. No Ban.” is deceptive. Everybody that’s been following this issue closely knows that the Massachusetts marijuana statute severely restricts local regulation. For example, Newton can not restrict the sale of the marijuana gateway products (pot cookies and marijuana candy). Another provision courtesy of Big Skunk.
Hi @Jane,
I’m hoping you may soon set up a web site or other way to contact RFSN as an organization?
As someone who has no personal financial stake in the outcome (only a sincerely held belief that regulated and capped market entry is the best way forward for the city I’ve called home for 25+ years), I’d like to contribute… and am hoping RFSN gets a presence for donations and participation set up soon.
The existence of “Respect the Vote, Newton” was created in response to OON, aka NIMBY.
I don’t see much difference between Responsible First Step Newton and this new ballot committee financed by Big Marijuana. RSFN is providing the veneer of grassroots organization and backing of Newton pols and RtV is providing the “Second Step” of big money backing. I personally don’t want to be a tool for moneyed interests.
Geeze, I sure hope the entire focus of the opt-out campaign isn’t going to be based on this tiresome, repetitive carping about “big marijuana.”
Actually, check that, I hope that’s their entire focus because I can’t imagine that theme is going to resonate much with undecided voters who are much more likely to be persuaded by the loss of millions in local tax revenue to neighboring towns.
Recreational marijuana is legal and coming to Massachusetts. We might as well not turn our backs on millions of dollars for city and school services.
As proposed in our zoning, recreational retail shops here won’t be larger than 5000 square feet. That’s not big anything.
Dulles- The website is up: Nobannewton.org. As you may know, we’re a new grassroots organization formed after the city council vote to retain the 2 to 4 option on the ballot. Please check out our growing endorsement list. We’re about to add content to answer questions about state regulations and the possibility for local regulations as well, but are being extra cautious about fact checking and talking with people who can verify information. We have lawn signs available as well. You can contact us at [email protected]. Our website were created at low cost (wix.com) and we designed the lawn signs. Because I know the question will be asked, I’ll answer it right off: I paid for the lawn signs.
The people involved in RFSN are working extremely hard to get up to speed in a short period of time. I’ve done little else since September 6 but work on this ballot initiative and despite our efforts, we’ve hit some bumps in the road as all campaigns do. I was informed just this afternoon that the Tab would not be printing the three letters we sent to them well before the deadline for this week’s edition. In addition, my letter from the week before was titled “Banning Marijuana Shops”, despite the fact that the letter was about voting no on Question to Ban and yes on Question to Limits – a misleading title at best. But we carry on and continue to have conversations with residents throughout the city.
Dang – Our website was created…
Greg, can this promise of ”millions in local tax revenue” be substantiated somehow? Is any independent and professional analysis available?
Massachusetts Department of Public Health released in June “Marijuana Baseline Health Study Report of Findings”. It says: “In general, the estimated median local tax revenue over the first two years of retail sale ranges from $72,835 in suburban communities with a low population density, to $582,899 in urban communities with a high population density”. Not millions in any case. The part of report entitled “Incidents of Impaired Driving and Hospitalization” is also worth reading.
@Reibman By your logic, that 50 sq ft drive-thru Starbucks off Route 9 in Natick is not Big Caffeine.
@Anatoly — great find on the tax projections from the MA Dept. of Health!! No wonder NONE of the proponents or City Councilors or the Mayor ever get specific about tax revenue projections. That’s peanuts! We’re taking on all these potential problems and social and law enforcement costs for those measly tax dollars? Ridiculous!
Laurie/Anatoly – As you know, that estimate of tax revenues is dwarfed and outstripped by the costs — even just adding one police officer to the force, not to mention beefing up drug education in our schools (for which there is no plan or budget as far as I can tell).
Mike Striar – you have said in other threads that the taxes Newton would get from Pot $hop$ would not be just ~$75K, but millions. If you were right about that, the volume of pot that would need to be sold is massive. Massive.
I really don’t want my tax dollars to be spent to subsidize the costs imposed on us by Pot $hop$ from which the pot-preneurs are going to make millions!
Mike – People criticize me for a lot of things. Lack of courage isn’t one of them.
Newton is a city. That makes us an urban community.
Jane, if you still insist on millions, please substantiate. Otherwise, let’s tell the voters honestly that the projected revenue is, at the very best, one eighth of one percent of the city’s budget.
I’m quoting your statistics. Urban communities can expect $582,899. We are an urban community.
And that’s it for today.
Well, let’s divide $582,899 by $395 million, which is the city’s 2018 projected revenue, and we get .15 of one percent. If you prefer instead a quarter of one percent, I personally am open to negotiation. What is important is to give the voters the best estimate based on facts, so they can decide for themselves if the gain is worth the trouble.
@Jane that $583k is over two years so ~$290k a year. Given that was the higher end of the range that would seem to mean Boston, Cambridge, etc. We are likely above the average but short of the high end of that range.
Let’s accept your acceptance that Newton will reap a whooping $290k a year. That’s more than $3 person in lower property taxes or more spending on government services a year. Hey this is great! With that $290k I am free to violate those recycling rules! I’m going to start throwing those leftover pizza boxes from when I get the munchies in the green bins.
Garden Remedies has estimated $750,000 a year in revenue to the city for the combined local options tax and host agreements for both medical and adult use recreational sales at its one location, according to the city. The three percent sales tax goes to the general fund. The three percent host agreement revenue will be used to address the impact of marijuana in Newton, regardless of where it was purchased.
If one store can add 3/4 of a million, then it’s pretty easy to extrapolate that up to eight stores would mean millions annually. For a perspective on what that could buy, the TAB reported today that finally bringing full day kindergarten to Newton (something so many people agree is long overdue here) will cost an added $1.3 million.
Garden Remedies pays 3% tax plus the city negotiated an extra temporary 3% host community agreement fee for the first few years. So in a few years that estimate will be cut in half.
The state is pushing back on cities from negotiating extra fees above 3% (activists call it “extortion”), so it’s doubtful Newton will be able to negotiate extra temporary fees from future retailers.
Greg, before we start extrapolating as you suggest, do you consider Garden Remedies estimates an objective assessment? Do you have an impartial analysis that supports the millions claim? And even if true, this is a little more than $20 per household per year. I’m not impressed.
Greg – Some money just isn’t worth taking. But you can’t just look at revenue without also looking at costs. Nothing is free in life.
Even at your estimated amount — leaving aside Sarah’s very important point about the upcoming 50% reduction to that figure — that won’t cover the costs we will experience, such as added officers on the police force, other 1st reponders and improved/expanded drug education in schools — plus other long term embedded societal costs.
Amherst did the cost/benefit math for their community and very clearly concluded that justbthe cost of adding police and EMS to their local services alone more than outstripped anticipated revenues.
Any BTW the amount of pot that would need to be sold to get to the revenue figures younestimate would be MASSIVE.
@Greg Reibman,
Hoping you know the answer — isn’t it likely that additional funds will also come to the city from the Commonwealth via local aid to cities and towns in addition to the local revenue stream?
@Lisap: I have no idea. But it’s hard to imagine why the Commonwealth should share marijuana generated tax revenue with communities that don’t site adult-use retail stores. And of course, the state always has a long list of its own needs for more revenue.
Meanwhile, cities and towns have the ability to respect the voters and opt-in to the 3 percent sales tax on the in-city sales, plus negotiate up to a 3 percent host agreement to cover a wide range of issues generally associated with use and business operations. With 2-4 establishments the city believes the revenue could be a few million dollars annually for Newton. (And, like I said, for example, finally bringing full day kindergarten to Newton would cost $1.3 million.)
Go for the full eight shops and perhaps that revenue doesn’t double but it undoubtedly increases. Plus, every recreational shop in Newton potentially represents one fewer empty storefront and all the property tax revenue, business and employee spending locally, etc. that comes with that.
Or would folks prefer some more banks and nail salons?
As for the prohibitionists who keep talking about the costs related to legal marijuana, yep, those costs are coming because Massachusetts voters wanted to make marijuana legal. Other communities will be licensing shops no matter what Newton does. Do we just want to give those several millions to neighboring towns while still have to absorb those related costs?
@lisap
There are additional taxes on marijuana sales that go to the state and some will come back to cities and towns as local aid. However, the amount each town gets is not dependent on whether or not they host recreational marijuana stores or not.
Hi @Sarah,
Yes, I am aware. It will be part of the so-called “Cherry Sheet”. Marijuana will be subject to a 6.25% sales tax, a 10.75% excise tax, apart from the optional local tax of 3%. So, as far as revenue goes, a the State will receive a 17% total tax on marijuana which is pretty significant tax rate, and why I was curious whether Greg had any insight as to what that may look like on the Cherry Sheet.
Opt Out people — given that recreational cannabis has been legalized for all of Massachusetts, ALL of the social / law enforcement intangibles pass along to ALL communities now! So whether we’re opted in or opted out, any additional costs still will pass along to us. Opting out will not negate any of those costs. (If we think we need additional drug education in our schools; officers on the police force; medical first responders, we will still need to fund them — because we’re all part of the great state of MA the effects of legal recreational cannabis can come from any community surrounding us…)
I’m not a frequent commenter, but I’ve followed this debate. I’m pretty middle of the road. I think that most Newton citizens are pretty rational. Capture the tax benefits associated with cannabis shops (but really push the limit on capturing the tax benefits allowed per state regulation). Limit the number of shops to a rational number (with the understanding that there’s so much NIMBYism here anyway that the number would be curtailed by that regardless). Fund city programs with these extra funds. (I would bet that this is a tempest in a teapot that, once settled and pushed into the mainstream, will be quickly forgotten. Although I may fondly forever refer, at least silently, to cannabis as skunkweed!)
ANP – Where have you been for the last 8 years?! Please keep posting. I love your common sense approach. The city could use more of that, and a bit of humor to boot.
@Greg: “For a perspective on what that could buy, the TAB reported today that finally bringing full day kindergarten to Newton (something so many people agree is long overdue here) will cost an added $1.3 million.”
And that cost should be borne by the City regardless of whether the recreational marijuana facilities are allowed. We talk about the much needed revenues that these establishments will bring to the City – but the “much needed revenues” have been expected. The added increased “density” that the City will absorb from developments like Washington Place, Northland, Riverside, and the teardown of single family homes with multi-family homes – will increase the need for more services and that will drive the need for increased funding. The City should be prepared for to meet these needs, if they permit these developments, regardless of whether these marijuana establishments are permitted or not.
Amy: I only used the full day kindergarten price tag to provide an example of what a million dollars (actually $1.3M) buys these days. Seems useful since most of us don’t ever get to spend that kind of money so it can feel kind of abstract.
My larger point is that this is significant revenue. In fact it would be the largest new revenue stream (other than property taxes) since the local meals and hotel tax were approved in 2009.
@Greg Reibman:
“Garden Remedies has estimated $750,000 a year in revenue to the city”
The source please. Is this estimate and supporting data public record? Can we see it?
“With 2-4 establishments the city believes the revenue could be a few million dollars annually”
Same questions. And what does “the city believes” mean? Who personally believes? Please be specific.
The very statistics you quoted. Urban communities are expecting to take in much more revenue than smaller communities. You said it yourself. What part of “City of Newton” is hard to understand? We are an urban community.
Amy – Are you suggesting that we’ll need an override?
@Abe Zoe –
To be clear, that is equally true of the ban referendum question. The City Council could enact a ban in response to the referendum winning and could repeal it any time without going back to the voters.
The two referenda questions are non-binding and do not require any action on the part of the city council. As many may recall, the city passed two referenda by a 2 to 1 margin that called for a reduction in the size of the then Board of Aldermen. The BOA took no action either time.
Any ordinance can be changed at any time. This statement that has been repeated over and over about the 2 to 4 option applies to the ban as well.
@Jane: “Amy – Are you suggesting that we’ll need an override?” –
Yes – or be prepared to see cuts in programs and services.
I’m having a hard time squaring “Respect the Vote” with advocating for restrictive limits on the number of potential shops. I think that adds to the confusion unnecessarily.
I think creating confusion was indeed the real goal of the 2-4 option inventors.
@Doug Easy to square. Victor Chiang of Cypress Tree wants less competition.
Doug, Respect the Vote is only advocating for voting No to the Ban – as I understand their message.
The 2-4 restriction question was docketed by councilors who heard the early Opt-Out promoters saying that 8 stores were too many. They did it to attempt to reach those voters who said that they voted for the retail sale of marijuana and did not want to ban adult-use marijuana stores in Newton but thought 8 stores were too many.
RFSN is advocating for a No vote to Question to Ban and Yes vote on Question to Limit.
Respect the Vote is advocating for No vote on Question to Ban.
People from various parts of the community who oppose the ban and the limit began talking about forming a third ballot committee right after RFSN filed papers advocating for the “no fewer than 2 or more than 4” option. It was even brought up on V14 as a possibility.
The ballot questions will be treated as all ballot questions are in every election:
1. The two questions are separate and distinct.
2. The tally of votes will follow the same rules as any other ballot question.
3. If either ballot question receives less than 50% of the vote, it loses.
4. If both receive more than 50% of the vote, the ballot question receiving the largest number of votes wins.
5. If neither ballot question receives 50% of the vote, then the message to the city council seems pretty clear that residents oppose a ban and a limit of 4 retail cannabis shops in the city.
6. The ballot questions and instructions are written in simple, clear language.
I frankly don’t think that Newton has a chance of getting more than 4 retail shops, so the 2 to 4 option is the right choice for me.
To add to Jane’s comments, 2-4 goes back to the June public comments where so many concerned citizens stated they found 8 retail stores unacceptable. I (and others) were sympathetic to that, and figured maybe there’s a number that is acceptable that’s between 0 and 8. I advocated for limits when the ban was first proposed. I advocated for limits when the first proposal was shot down. I advocated for 2-4 when the ban measure collected its required signatures. And I am advocating for 2-4 stores now.
I don’t like the idea of an 8-store free-for-all, where the City of Newton has to open the floodgates to all comers with a valid application. Under 2-4 we issue 2 licenses to start. Garden Remedies provisionally gets one of them (I don’t know that I agree, but be that as it may). So we have one available retail license. Let the applications be filed, and select among them taking into account store location, the nature of its ownership, and its proposed operating details. Some time in the future, City Council may review the city and state experiences with retail rollout, and decide to release a third license — or not. First, we’ll see how 2 stores work out. The same with the fourth license.
I realize some folks are not willing to accept any recreational retail store in Newton under any circumstances. But if there are to be recreational retail stores in Newton, controlled entry with local market competition ain’t the worst way to do it. No mysterious cabals, no “big weed” briefcases full of cash passing hands, no sham, no secret plans remove the cap after the vote. Just common sense.
8 to 10 times each week, I drive past Garden Remedies on Washington Street on my way to and from the Y. I keep looking for the addicts with needles in their arms who I was told would be flocking to the area once the sale of medical marijuana was underway. I also keep looking for the muggers who I was told would be ready to snatch the bewitching weed from unsuspecting patrons of this wholly disreputable and corrupting enterprise. And I keep looking for the run of the mill “dope addicts” I was told would be passed out on the sidewalks or breaking into homes in the surrounding neighborhood. It’s kind of disappointing in a perverse kind of way to see just how dull and pedantic this area has remained despite the . In fact, the only contentious behavior I see in the area is the shuffling of cars competing for space to get into Cabot’s. Now, what they have there is truly addictive.
Bob,
Thank you for sharing your observations. No one is opposing this medical marijuana business, and if it doesn’t create any problems, why not keep it as is? The patients are served. Dr. Munkacy can fully concentrate on her mission “to take the excruciating test of endurance a patient may be forced to go through every day, and change it to a life of comfort that is hopefully pain-and-symptom-free”. What is wrong with that?
@Anatoly– Glad to count you among the supporters of medical marijuana. In your informed opinion, how many medical dispensaries do you believe should be permitted in Newton?
@Mike – As many as medically necessary.
@Anatoly– I’m asking for your layman’s opinion. More than one?
@Mike – whether you ask for an informed opinion or a layman’s one, the answer is 42.