Former Boston Police Commissioner William Evans, who is now Boston College’s executive director of public safety and chief of police, shared his concerns about recreational marijuana on the NewTV show “Common Ground with Ken Parker.”
VIDEO: BC police chief Bill Evans tells Ken Parker why he supports Opt Out
by Greg Reibman | Oct 19, 2018 | Boston College, recreational marijuana | 52 comments
I’ve just spent three minutes watching this and they’re still discussing Evans’ job title. Is this plane gonna land?
If you stop watching there you’ll miss the part when Parker asks Evans “How much marijuana is in a marijuana cigarette?”
His summary comment is best: “If you have the chance to Opt Out, take it.”
More summary quotes here if you don’t want to watch the whole video:
http://optoutnewton.org/index.php/2018/10/17/billy-evans-if-you-have-a-chance-to-opt-out-take-it/
@Greg, that comment will keep me laughing all afternoon, so much so that I almost don’t want to risk having the reality to ruin it for me. Timestamp?
@Michael: 15:00
Spoiler alert: Evans does not know.
On the way there, I also stumbled across “How much does an ounce of marijuana cost” and “How much cash does someone take to a drug deal?”
Oh and “There are people who think that marijuana is cool.”
This show is far superior to Ali G and I plan on watching additional episodes; @Greg, thank you for making me aware of this hidden treasure.
And you forgot: “Is an ounce a lot?”
Greg and Michael, thanks for posting the quotes. They brightened my day.
I saw this online yesterday: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/legal-pot-and-car-crashes-yes-theres-a-link/ which seems like something the police may be concerned about.
Newton Runner, you may have just seen it yesterday but it’s from 2017. And as usual, this scare tactic just doesn’t scare anyone who actually reads the article. The 3% increase in collision rates isn’t even correlated to marijuana use only to collision claims and to the fact that it’s legal in those states. No correlation AND no causation known.
It says, “Legalized recreational marijuana use in Colorado, Oregon and Washington correlates to about a 3 percent increase in auto collision claim frequencies compared to states without such legislation, according to a new Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) study
According to the HLDI, past researchers haven’t been able to “definitively connect marijuana use with real-world crashes,” and even a federal study failed to find such a link. “Studies on the effects of legalizing marijuana for medical use have also been inconclusive,” said the HLDI.”
Like listening to two pickpocketers making fun of a policeman who doesn’t know all secrets of their trade. I’ve always believed we can learn a lot from this discussion.
@Antoly: Those officers, Chief Evans, the traffic study Newton Runner links to and Opt-Out’s main talking points are all compelling arguments against legalizing recreational marijuana.
Problem is: That’s not what’s on the ballot on Nov. 6 in Newton.
Given that adult use recreational marijuana is legal in Massachusetts and will be sold in stores in Boston, Brookline, Waltham, Watertown and many others…why should these stores be banned in Newton?
It’s cute how William Evans harps on and on how cannabis tax revenues are the only tangible benefit — but it’s not worth it.
His employer (Boston College) as a university is exempt from paying any local taxes. The city did manage to squeeze a one-time voluntary donation out of BC back in 2016 totaling about $125k — a pittance compared to annual estimated recreational cannabis revenues.
William Evans, if BC is going to criticize Newton’s tax base, how about you pony up a fair share?
Some of Bill Evans’s arguments actually sound like good reasons NOT to Opt Out…
“It’s cute how William Evans harps on and on how cannabis tax revenues are the only tangible benefit — but it’s not worth it.”
He forgot the benefit of not ruining a young person life throwing them in jail for having small amounts of marijuana. Of course he is arguing against legalization (which isn’t on the table) not retail sales
Opinions of a few other Massachusetts cops can be found here: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2018/08/cops_say_pot_legalization_hikes_illicit_dope_business
@Claire, that reminds me William Evans noted BC’s zero tolerance policy on marijuana. In my experience university zero tolerance means automatic expulsion, no exceptions. Imagine if BC would take the same get-tough approach on underage drinking.
So the chief of police at BC supports the continued long time practice of students buying illegal drugs from thugs. Great to have that on the record.
And the nerve of anyone from BC saying the money is “not worth it”. Maybe if BC paid its fair share in taxes we wouldn’t need additional revenue from other legal sources.
@greg I would turn around your question and say if all those nearby towns will have the stores, why do we need them here? There are potential problems too numerous to mention here, and the potential revenues are modest. If Brookline has a good experience with it, we can always reconsider in the future. The reverse is not true.
Actually, I’d be very interested in see a list of those problems that are Newton specific as opposed to overall concerns about the legalization of recreational marijuana in Massachusetts.
Also, I don’t believe the revenue is insignificant, especially when you consider that adult use recreational stores in neighboring communities will attract law abiding Newton residents as customers if they can’t do their shopping here.
If Mr. Evans thinks this money “isn’t worth taking”, then I certainly expect him to go to the President and Board of Trustees at BC and advocate for a significant increase in the funds the college sends to Newton. That land that BC sits on is worth a whole lot more than $125,000/year.
Why would we send the revenue to Brookline, Belmont, Watertown, Framingham, Cambridge, Somerville, and Natick when we are cutting our school allocation this year, and even more so in the two years after?
These cutbacks are’t just numbers – they are services, programs, personnel,etc. Where, Sara, do you propose getting the money to make up for the budget cutbacks in Newton? Specifics, please.
thanks @marti bowen for the info
Jane,
We should ask “rich uncle” Boston to pay their fair share of education costs for their residents who we accept into Newton schools. Boston is a city of Billionaires and Millionaires.. they should pay what they owe
So Marti. As I understand what you are saying, the so called increase in accidents in Colorado are not based on any testing that was done at the scene of these accidents to determine if either victims or those at fault had marijuana in their systems.
That’s pretty much what I thought. Am I right??
Newton Runner, why don’t you search Google for “car accidents marijuana legalization” and see for yourself the latest news on the topic?
We should first ask the wealthy college right here in our city to pay its fair share as they let their police chief go around saying what money is worth taking.
What was BC thinking letting Evans talk about money not worth taking? Is this institution so tone deaf that they don’t realize while they’re not paying their fair share, we have a growing budget crunch? Do they simply not care?
As for the information being given to parents of elementary school children who are being told the revenue isn’t worth it, are they being told that the lower allocation of funding to the NPS is going to affect their children’s schools? And that the allocation will be even lower in the following two years? “The money” funds programs and services, and cuts tend to hurt the elementary schools the hardest.
It is simply mind boggling that BC allowed this interview to take place. I’ve never been one to ask for this institution for more funding, but the sheer arrogance of allowing this interview changes my mind. Time to pay up, BC -I assume you think your funding is worth taking.
Colorado has had an incredible increase in population in the last seven years-an increase of 100,000 in Denver alone. That would be 100,000 more people living in the same amount of space. To extrapolate the cause of any changes occurring in Colorado to one factor is a misuse of statistics.
In addition, Colorado has completely different regulations for retail cannabis shops. As of 2017, there were 3 times the number of cannabis shops in Colorado than there were Starbucks. In Denver, the number of cannabis shops outnumber the combined number of MacDonalds and Starbucks. Comparing Colorado to Massachusetts is like comparing apples to oranges.
Greg makes a valid request to “see a list of those problems that are Newton specific as opposed to overall concerns about the legalization of recreational marijuana in Massachusetts”.
I think defining the scope here as “Newton” is somewhat vague and misleading. I think few residents will oppose a pot shop on Wells Ave or home delivery only dispensaries. I think the impact will be local, maybe limited to a couple of miles radius or so. I think many people here, who argue against the ban, know very well they live far from any area where the existing zoning will allow a pot shop.
Having said that, I’d like to start the list Greg’s requested with the following Evans’ statement: “There is a lot of violent crime around marijuana. It’s a cash business”. A recent Globe story (https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/06/16/cash-only-possible-for-first-pot-sales-mass/ENYjiCnoCiIseTMmsAwifI/story.html) supports his point and says: “Robberies have been a problem in other legal-marijuana states where operators can’t access banking, including in Washington. There, one owner said recently his stores had been robbed a total of 10 times, to the tune of about a quarter-million dollars; in one incident thieves drove a car through the door of his shop”. Such problems look local, i.e. could be prevented with the local shops ban, even when recreational marijuana is legal in the state.
Can we discuss this and then add more to the Greg’s list?
@Anatoly: I appreciate your willingness to respond to my question. And Chief Evans and you are absolutely right “cash only” stores would be a big risk. Fortunately that issue has been resolved.
I was surprised that Chief Evans was not aware of this development.
Greg, I guess Evans (unlike you) knew the following: according to the Boston Business Journal, excluded from GFA’s field of membership are people and businesses in 17 Middlesex County municipalities, including major cities like Cambridge, Somerville, Newton, Watertown and Waltham. Alas, doesn’t work for us.
More credit unions will step up. In fact, I’m aware of one that just amended its charter so it could service Middlesex County.
It is unfortunate that RFSN continues to advocate to suppress the 1st amendment rights of members of the community, either by insisting they remove credentials associated with their expertise or, in this thread above, suggesting that their employer be financially penalized for the expression of their views.
Greg — The city has posted the ballot question informational mailer. How about a post on that?
http://www.newtonma.gov/documents/election/Mailer%20Layout%204%20panel%20as%20of%2010-01-18.pdf
I don’t think RFSN is applying the most persuasive arguments in their favor. To me there are two important reasons to consider not opting out:
1. Cannabis has very important medical, uses yet continues to be stigmatized. Accessibility is limited and patients who would benefit are often deterred from doing so by fear of possible repercussions of being registered as a user on the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Information System. Broader retail availability will reduce/eliminate that issue and further reduce stigma.
2. The thriving illegal supply chain for cannabis brings with it a gateway to more dangerous drugs to community youth. While this supply chain will not be eliminated, governments tend to prioritize elimination of things that get in the way of their tax revenue, and blind eye lack of enforcement will be reduced.
In terms of weakness of the RFSN argument, the group doesn’t provide a link to the youth use study cited in the summary, or their website. Their website also continues to lack any rationale for voting for 2-4 (although the ballot summary has one). One rationale is that 2-4 will avoid shops clustering in a couple areas. One might interpret 2-4 as allowing shops to be clustered in 1-2 areas and kept out of certain parts of town. Very favorable financial assumptions seem to put the financial benefit at ~$64/household is that correct? That doesn’t seem like the leading rationale.
The “respect the vote” argument made good sense when the campaign was to discourage the city council from putting things on the ballot. Now it is just confusing. Should we reelect the president to respect the vote of 2016? My guess is after the election if opt-out prevails, the argument will be “26,000 voters voted in favor of legalization, but now a tiny minority of X thousand have voted to opt out in a very low turn out election. The original vote must be respected.”
Sigh… here we go again Greg. One side compiles accusations based on studies with cherry-picked data. For every study there is a counter-study that show the opposite effects.
On the topic of dispensaries exacerbating crime, if it’s such a slam dunk how about we look at the Massachusetts experience? The state approved medical marijuana in 2012 and we now have 40 dispensaries in the state. There should be an established track record of how they’re doing. How many of them have been robbed or been scenes of violent crimes?
I don’t know the answer. But it seems like an honest way to look at this question of crime surrounding cash-only dispensary operations that’s relevant to Massachusetts.
I’m not suggesting that anyone’s free speech be suppressed, Jack, and I think you know that. We disagree on this issue, and that’s the some total of it.
As for the “punishment” of BC – The lack of funding BC provides to Newton has been a subject if serious controversy for many years. They should be paying more for property that is worth millions of dollars. For a BC employee to use his position to say that Newton should get its funding elsewhere is galling. If BC paid its fair share, maybe we wouldn’t have cutbacks to the school system for the next three years.
As for the use of Newton employee’s using their credentials on a political endorsement, I stand by my statement. It’s never been done before and it’s inappropriate. I suggest that in the future, the city develop a policy to govern this practice. RFSN has the names of employees on our list as well but we would never use their employment credentials.
It’s not unfortunate, Jack. We simply have a difference of opinion and that should be acceptable in society today. What’s unfortunate is that it isn’t.
Jane — You explicitly asked above that Boston College be financially penalized for allowing the former Boston police commissioner to be interviewed on this topic. Was that just a sarcastic comment or a suggestion to our city officials?
In a previous ballot question campaign I was involved with, there was a sustained concerted effort to insist that all traces of one particular endorser be removed from one side’s website once they accepted a city position. So what’s the policy — no employee endorsements or no credentials?
And, as I said above, there are good cases to be made for your position, so I wouldn’t put our opinions that far apart.
Jack – RFSN is running our own campaign and up to this point, neither side has gotten into a negative discussion the substance of the ballot question – adult retail cannabis shops in Newton.
In fact I have no complaint whatsoever with OON, with the exception of what I consider to be a disrespectful lawn sign that uses the word “sham” to describe the opinion/position of their neighbors.
Attacking one another leaves the community nowhere good after Nov. 6th. Let’s keep this campaign focused on the arguments of the ballot question.
The data analyst in me is keen on these IIHS/HLDI studies, to know the methodology used with the data. They had to throw out some control factors to compare rated drivers (e.g., driver ratings are based in part on zip code). The demographics of Colorado and Nevada vs. the likes of Utah or Nebraska differ in many ways.
The studies were put together to present at the “Combating Alcohol- and Drug-Impaired Driving summit”, which makes it something of a foregone conclusion that the data had to manufacture concerns. I quickly looked up recent Colorado accident statistics, and saw they had a slight decrease. I suspect that’s why this whole “relative to neighboring states” language. There are valid reasons to do this, but the study had to run the data this way to suggest conditions are getting worse.
Personally, I would look again and tightly control for each state’s age population. Urban areas of Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and California attract young adults, and young adults are accident magnets. But anyway, fun with statistical data…
Bob, yes, you are right.
Cannabis reform is poised to suffer a major setback in Newton two weeks from now. I hope my fellow proponents of legal marijuana recognize the urgency of this moment. If Newton falls to the prohibitionists it poses a threat to legalized cannabis throughout Massachusetts. Make no mistake, that is the prohibitionist’s mission–reverse the 2016 ballot initiative that legalized marijuana in Massachusetts…
The prohibitionists got some unexpected help from two city councilors touting “compromise.” That compromise, a completely unnecessary concession to ignorance, handed prohibitionists a partial victory before they ever earned a thing. Worse, it has confused the heck out of voters, and in that confusion the seeds of an upset are rapidly taking root…
The threat comes from people voting “yes” for the heavily endorsed compromise, and leaving the opt out ballot blank. That’s how the prohibitionists could steal this election… with the compromisers inadvertently helping them win…
I continue to encourage people to vote “no” on BOTH ballot proposals. Voting “no” on both proposals is the only way to reaffirm your “yes” vote from 2016.
The two ballot questions are separate and distinct-you don’t vote for one OR the other. You vote for both the Question to Limit AND the Question to Ban.
I can’t imagine why anyone who favors the opening of 2 to 4 stores would vote for the ban. That simply makes no sense. I’ve spoken to many people who plan to vote no on both because they would prefer to go to the 8 store limit.
Voters don’t always fill in their entire ballot. My concern is that just enough pro cannabis voters leave their opt out ballot blank to tip that vote to the prohibitionists. This could easily happen due to the positioning of the two questions on the physical ballot. Some people will vote for 2-4 and leave the opt out ballot blank.
I also want to mention how disgusted I am with those tax dodgers at Boston College spending money on this campaign in Newton. The Catholic Church in Boston already spent $850K opposing cannabis legalization in 2016.
@Mike and Jane: do you know for a fact that BC is donating money to the Opt-Out campaign and/or has an official position on the two ballot questions?
If not, let’s not mislead people by suggesting that
Let’s also not conflate our tax exempt property laws with whether or not we should respect the vote of Newton residents who voted in favor of adult-use recreational marijuana. (There’s been no vote on changing property tax policy.)
I have a lot of respect for what Chief Evans did as Boston Police Commissioner but happen to disagree with him on whether or not adult-use recreational marijuana retailers should be allowed to operate in Newton. All of his arguments really apply to legalizing marijuana in general and that’s not on the ballot on Nov. 6. But unless we learn otherwise, I’m assuming he was speaking for himself in regards to the Newton ballot questions, not for Boston College.
Greg, BC opposed the legalization of marijuana and doesn’t want marijuana stores at all, but definitely anywhere around them. Evans was speaking in his official capacity on Parker’s show. BC’s employees shouldn’t be telling Newton what money to take or not take – it certainly doesn’t pay to Newton what it uses in services and aggravation. It should pay more in PILOT fees.
Newton’s employees also should not be standing publicly, in their official capacity, with a group telling Newton, voters and taxpayers that the monies Newton would receive are too small to make a difference – encouraging Newton not to take the money. All while Newton is advocating for building more housing and cutting monies going toward schools in the new budgets. Are they speaking for Newton?
RFSN has been very clear in our message: Newton should regulate retail cannabis shops, not ban them. Our message is simple, direct, and clear.
To the readers of V14: Greg has been trying to veer RFSN off message for some unknown reason for several weeks with threads that don’t relate to the ballot questions Newton will vote on.
Greg – This is what I said: “They (BC) should be paying more for property that is worth millions of dollars.” It’s a statement I stand by.
A final disclaimer: RFSN had nothing to do with the comments that ridiculed the two people in this interview.
I have nothing more to add to this thread.
Geeze Jane: Are you suggesting that I should not have shared the Bill Evans interview just because it had an Opt-Out favorable message? That’s never been the way I decide what to post or not post.
And also, while I disagreed with him on many points, Evans was just fine in that segment. But Ken Parker came off as entirely unprepared for that interview and earned the ribbing. It was cable access TV at its most cliched.
Evans is the salaried Chief of Police for Boston College. I doubt he would take such a public position on an upcoming vote without approval from BC. It would have been Evans responsibility to make clear IF he was speaking as a private individual.
@Greg, after having watched the interview in full, I respectfully disagree regarding the host’s level of preparation.
Sure, he seemed quite confused about Evans’ job title. But at minute 27:50, as Evans discussed his concerns about public safety, Ken was able to interject with some indispensable background information for viewers.
Parker: “People talk about, the biggest public safety issue will be: you’ll be very frightened if you happen to be a Dorito.”
Evans, unamused: “Right, right.”
BC is taking a stand against a pot shop – medical and recreational – to be located at the former Mary Ann’s. https://www.universalhub.com/comment/693659
No, Greg, I objected to the fact that you ridiculed the two people in the interview and encouraged others to do so as well.
And please, knock off with the “Whahd I do wrong?” thing. You knew exactly how you were going to handle that video and then you just did it.
OON and RFSN may be on different sides of a political issue, and we can argue passionately for our position, but ridiculing people in the public square is crossing a boundary.
Actually Jane I only ridiculed one of the program’s participants. But really he didn’t need my help. He was colossally underprepared for an important and newsworthy interview with a prominent law enforcement figure.
Boy, I’m glad V-14 wasn’t around when I did my show:)….you guys are tough.