The City Mailer from the Newton Elections Commission regarding the Ballot Questions on Cannibis can be found here.
Thoughts?
City mailer on cannabis questions – now available
by Amy Sangiolo | Oct 20, 2018 | Elections, recreational marijuana | 25 comments
Everything about this revote ballot spells disaster for proponents of legalized cannabis in Newton–from the positioning of the two competing questions–to allowing Opt Out Newton’s false narrative of what a “no” vote means.
Mike-Respect The Vote represents your point of view (vote no on the ban with no reference to the question to limit).
I suggest you get in touch with them and work on that campaign.
Jane– Unfortunately there is no group that represents my position–which is to implement the law as it was passed by the voters in 2016. I respect the motivation behind the compromise proposal, but its effect has been to diffuse and confuse cannabis supporters, who must now vote “no” twice in order to reaffirm their “yes” vote in 2016.
Mike-Respect The Vote refers to the 2016 vote.
Respect The 2016 Vote. It’s exactly what your position is. Go for it! You have the passion for this position and it will be your only chance to contribute to the cause for which you’ve advocated for years.
So let’s discuss: I’m with Mike Striar on wanting both proposals to fail, but naturally I prefer 2-4 stores to zero stores. How should I vote? As is clearly stated on the ballot, the question with more “yes” votes takes precedence if they both pass. Therefore, my inclination is to vote yes on 2-4, in an effort to prevent the ban from getting more votes.
Neither question is binding – Opt-Out points out that the 2-4 question is non binding but leaves out that the ban question is too. Questions are separate and distinct. Vote the way you want the vote to turnout. Hedging a vote by attempting to guess what other voters might do is risking not getting a desired result. To return to the Yes vote in 2016, the MA, CCC and local regulations, vote NO on both questions.
Newtoner, if you want both questions to fail – vote No on both.
@Newtoner, what Marti said. Vote yes on 2-4 if you believe the City Council should limit and regulate market entry.
Vote ‘no’ on for 2-4 if you want more stores, and don’t want City Council to be restrictive, choosing among applications based on the type of investor, the proposed site, and promises of local community interaction and accountability.
Can someone provide #s (examples of vote totals for each question) that would get us to “Respect the Vote” – retail allowed in Newton to a max of 8 stores? Unfortunately even with the mailer, this is all very unclear. And I have followed all of the proposals closely.
ANP, really? I think you’re messing with us.
Any ballot question, state or local, that receives less than 50% of the vote loses.
So if Question to Ban AND Question to Limit receive less than 50% of the vote, they lose. Then the limit of stores would revert to 8 as has been proposed in the new zoning ordinances. That number is established by state law. We have 40 establishments that sell alcohol, so 20% of 40 = 8.
The voter will have the choice to vote for one, two, or none of the local ballot questions, just as you can on the state ballot with the three referendum questions.
The only difference is that the two local questions relate to the same topic, but that doesn’t change how the outcome will be determined.
@marti – not messing with you. Trying to figure out whether there’s a scenario where my No No vote harms the pro-retail side. (I think it could if people ignore the opt out vote and vote no on 2-4?) (unlikely, yes, but I have followed this closely and still managed to get myself turned around and back again. I also advise friends and family on voting decisions so want to get this one right.) I think I’ve talked myself back into my original 2-4 position. (And NO on opt out) Not ideal but a good start. Thank you!
ANP, it’s only confusing if you listen to those telling you it’s confusing. Just vote for the outcome you want. It’s impossible to determine how others will vote so attempting to guess and voting to hedge your vote “in case … “ whatever scenerio you come up with just undermines what you really want.
Are you on the pro-retail side? I’m not sure you are from the way you state it but if so, Then vote NO on the ban. If you have confidence in your NO vote on the ban, then vote NO on the 2-4 – if not hedge your vote by voting yes on 2-4.
Just posting some data on “increased car accidents” possibly caused by pot legalization.
Suggests a 5.2% increase in accidents since legalization in Colorado, Oregon, Washington published from a NON BIASED organization “Insurance institute for highway safety”
https://www.insidercarnews.com/iihs-not-hot-on-recreational-pot/
Bugek, even if the study did correlate marijuana causing collisions to marijuana being legal, which it does not, it is not relative to Newton opening marijuana adult recreational retail stores. With stores in municipalities all around us, such as Brookline, Waltham, Watertown, Weston, etc, Newton would still be affected.
The ONLY difference is whether or not Newton receives the monies from taxes and community agreements by siting these stores in Newton – not close to Newton.
Hi @bugek, I posted about this at greater length elsewhere on V14. The studies were put together to present at the “Combating Alcohol- and Drug-Impaired Driving Summit.” It was a foregone conclusion the data had to express concern in some way, and of course we should all be concerned about impaired driving. Without access to their methodology, I scratched the surface on data sources and it’s immediately fishy. Recent Colorado state accident rates show they went down slightly year over year. That’s why the whole “relative to other states” business — has there been an increase in accidents in absolute numbers? How did they parse the factors that they did account for? We don’t know.
Impaired driving is a concern – ranging from pot to alcohol to opioids to cell phones. But I don’t know how this pertains to Newton’s ballot. We already voted to legalize marijuana in all of Massachusetts, whether we have the stores here in Newton or not.
Dulles,
To the general public, it could seem plausible that increased weed use does cause increased traffic accidents. Certainly, it would be hard to argue with a straight face that it decreases accidents..
I will say one thing, if you are into conspiracy theories then perhaps the iihs created this study to give insurance companies an excuse to raise premiums in pot states.. will it lead to even more increase premiums for towns selling recreational weed? Who knows?
Mmqc,
The relevance to Newton will be increase in recreational users driving through Newton to buy.
We hope they are responsible and dont smoke and drive… no one can say for sure. Its up to newton if they are willing to see it in action or decide the risk is not worth it
Bugek, misdirection – We will “see it in action in Newton” regardless so there is no additional risk. In fact with stores in Newton, Newtonites will not have as far to drive. There is no reason not to have these stores in Newton.
Recreational marijuana users will be driving in and through Newton, whether there are stores in Newton or not. The ONLY difference will be the monies Newton will receive when the stores are located in Newton.
@bugek, Again I don’t want to re-post what I’d already addressed elsewhere. I’m intellectually curious of all the data sources the authors used and how they crunched the numbers together, that’s all. Far as I can see, they ain’t tellin’.
Bugek, so then people will just drive to surrounding communities, still requiring them to go through Newton.
Bugek – Several weeks ago, the New York Times had an article about the incredible growth in population in just the states you mentioned. It was attributed to a more affordable housing stock and that people had been priced out of the NY, San Fran, markets. The one statistic stuck with me: Denver alone had had an increase of 100,000 people in just seven years. Think of how that changes that city in so many ways. Taking statistics out of context doesn’t provide insight into the cause for the change.
More people living in the same amount of space will change a number of statistics, including an increase in the number of car accidents.
@Marti – I am pro-retail. And pro-retail in Newton.
ANP, that’s great. Sorry for the confusion.
@ANP– I agree, the City Council has created a confusing situation. Voters who want the 2016 law implemented as it was passed should vote “no” on both ballot proposals.