This is a guest blog post that was submitted to Village 14.
The Boston Globe reported this past week that the Cannabis Control Commission has started working toward rules for marijuana home delivery across the state.
No retail storefronts would be involved, and the delivery businesses could be “micro-businesses,” some of which would be owned by those who have previously been harmed by marijuana criminalization, fulfilling the state’s goals for social justice. This plan seems to solve many of the problems currently being discussed in Newton:
- There would be no out-of-towners driving into Newton to buy pot.
- Stoned driving would be reduced with regulated delivery couriers.
- Local sales taxes based on “point of delivery” would assure that Newton gets the tax revenue.
- The contentious battle over storefronts would be moot.
So, with home delivery on the horizon, who needs pot shops anyway?
We have quite a lot of wine stores in Newton despite the availability of online wine shopping, so I guess there is room for both.
But your point is valid for every non-food business: Who needs brick an mortar stores anymore? Mom and pop businesses have to offer something really special to compete. With a possibly grim future for our village centers, you’d think Newton will be rolling the red carpet for the pot shops. And then people complain about banks and nail salons.
Hi Carolyn! Well let’s see.
– Because at the Massachusetts rate it’ll be another two years before anything is actually sorted out?
– Because in those two years, gosh-knows-what citizens petitions and legal challenges will delay or prevent home delivery from ever happening?
– Because a buyer would never be able to interact with a ‘budtender’ to see/smell/touch any product they are buying in person?
– Because some discreet residents may not want to advertise to neighbors by having a minivan with a big “Garden Deliveries” logo on its side making deliveries to their home?
– Because if people are genuinely concerned that cannabis and cash is a potential magnet for crime, driving around cars full of pot collecting large amounts of cash might be a bad idea?
and my own pet peeve,
– Because many people would prefer to buy so little so infrequently, that it would end up costing more in delivery fees than what little product they’d ever intend to buy?
So let’s pose the question in reverse: If deliveries are coming, why oppose recreational retail dispensaries? Recreational cannabis is going to be here anyway, right?
@Dulles outlines some important issues, most of which should be able to be addressed with thoughtful regulations and business planning. Home Delivery could potentially solve many of the contentious issues that have been discussed on V14 by allowing for easy access while avoiding the excessive commercialization and normalization that come with storefronts, that many find objectionable. At a minimum, it provides a path for access if the storefront ban prevails in November.
@Newtoner: CAN you buy line online in Massachusetts? Last I knew it was impossible. Did the law change in the last couple years. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/04/02/wny-wine-online-mass/8IUfCoQnDHLFMEnYU3n5LK/story.html
@NewtonNewbie: there used to be a ban, but it was lifted a few years ago. 300 years too late, but it did happen!
Hi Dulles- As Laurie said, you make some important points. Here are my point by point thoughts the questions you raised:
– You should have much more faith in the CCC’s stated commitment to rolling out this new industry in a thoughtful and prompt manner. I expect it to be well less than a year before home delivery arrives. Medical marijuana’s home delivery program gives the CCC a base to build on.
-If you are talking about legal challenges to home delivery by Opt Out Newton, don’t worry. OON thinks home delivery is the best compromise solution. It assures private use options without any of the disruptive burdens on the City.
– While you are correct that see/touch/smell by customers would not be as easy, I imagine inventive entrepreneurs will address that with good product descriptions and creative approaches like offering sample packs for purchase. As to interacting with budtenders, helpful phone discussions will probably happen when a buyer wants to place an order.
-Discreet buyers will have more privacy with home delivery than by being seen walking into a pot shop on Washington Street. And I don’t expect there will be adverting signs on delivery vehicles — the CCC limits stores signage and wont let delivery vehicles be dressed put like like Good Humor Ice Cream trucks.
—Couriers deliver medical marijuana now. I haven’t seen any reports of crimes against those drivers. In part maybe that because they are so decreet and don’t have the kinds of signs you suggested.
—Delivery companies will, for social justices reasons, be true small businesses owned buy Massachusetts residents, with lower market entry costs than stores. Since they will have much lower overhead, they will be able to be much more competitive on pricing than storefronts which have startup costs in the tens of millions of dollars and investors who require significant returns on their investments.
If the ban passes in November, you can bet that Opt Out proponents will curb stomp any effort to start a delivery service inside Newton’s borders. Opt Out Newton spokesperson Carolyn Gabbay even suggesting it reminds me of the old Peanuts cartoons of Charlie Brown and the football. Why, one could call this whole post about deliveries a … sham.
As for the other points:
– “No out-of-towners driving into Newton to buy pot.” They also won’t be driving into Newton to shop for clothes and gifts, pick up bagels, eat a meal, and do other things that put money into the pockets of local businesses.
– “Stoned driving would be reduced.” Impaired driving is a long-standing problem that won’t go away with or without recreational dispensaries. Maybe we should be looking at the (gasp) 42 liquor stores in Newton?
– “Local sales taxes based on ‘point of delivery’.” first we need to assume someone from Boston, Brookline, Framingham, Watertown, Belmont etc. will deliver into Newton someday, years from now. They certainly won’t be willing to fight lengthy city traffic for a casual $5-$15 order. The (over-21) recipient has to remain at the address as long as it takes for the product to arrive, to verify ID, sign for it and hand over cash that could include a steep delivery surcharge for drivers going well outside their boundaries.
– “The contentious battle over storefronts would be moot.” In about 2 weeks in one way or another the contentious battle over storefronts will be resolved anyway. Opt Out Newton picked this fight. In victory or defeat, we will then see the next “contentious battle” front. I’ll bet a dollar on court challenge, and another dollar that no matter what happens, more’s to come from Opt Out Newton.
The fact that adults may one day be able to have cannabis delivered to their home does not justify why adults should not also have the option to make their purchase at a properly regulated, secure, retail store if they so choose.
Voters in Massachusetts — and in Newton — voted to make recreational marijuana legal. Adult use stores will be opening in Boston, Brookline, Watertown, Waltham, Framingham and other communities. These stores will be closely monitored and secure.
We live in a free market. This is a legal product. Let law abiding adults decide where they want to make their purchase.
P.S. I’m still waiting for someone to explain why Newton shouldn’t have adult-use recreational stores, which is what’s on the ballot on Nov. 6, as opposed to the many arguments we keep hearing about why adult-use marijuana should not be legal in Massachusetts, which is not on the ballot on Nov. 6.
Greg, you’re not getting an explanation because their isn’t one. Nothing opponents have said is against having adult retail stores in Newton. Instead they are attempting to confuse the ballot question with legalizing marijuana – it’s already legal. I haven’t read or heard one argument that applies only to opening retail stores in Newton.
OON and other opponents’ arguments are all misdirection.
Greg, we haven’t finished this one.
You wrote
<>
You know well it has not.
Correction:
Greg, we haven’t finished this one.
You wrote
…“cash only” stores would be a big risk. Fortunately that issue has been resolved
You know well it has not.
Anatoly: Medical and adult-use recreational retailers statewide do indeed have challenges handling cash because of federal restrictions. But that’s a problem statewide, and presumably nationwide, not a specific reason why Newton should opt-out onn Nov. 6.
Greg: Violent crime associated with marijuana cash businesses is more likely to happen where the businesses are located. Do you disagree?
Anatoly: I’m not aware of any robberies, violent crimes, major crimes or petty crimes from cash only medical establishments statewide are you? These businesses are pretty savvy about creating their own safeguards (pun intended).
And again, you are making the argument for a state ban, that’s not what’s on the ballot Nov 6.
Everybody-sorry to be so delayed in following up. I wasn’t cleared to respond to my own thread until this morning.
Dallas-thanks for your comments. I was afraid that this thread might not be that interesting to people because home delivery is such a perfect solution. Glad I was mistaken about that.
First, maybe we can keep the Snark out of this thread. There’s been too much of that going around anyway on V14. I think we can all be thinking people without ad hominem rejoinders even if this is something of a hot button issue for many
So let me respond to your new points (or counterpoints) Dulles
– Yes, of course out-of-towners drive to Newton to shop. And I hope they will for those other products you mentioned. But they don’t partake of those purchased product in a fashion that endangers others. I’m not saying that every pot purchaser will toke up in the car before they drive home, but some number will and that only adds to our risks on our own city streets and school crossings as pedestrians and other motorists.
— On point of delivery sales taxes, I am merely responding to the argument that has been made by some of the proponents of pot shops that we will be losing revenue to Brookline if we dont have them too. Newton should keep the revenue that Newton is entitled to for purchases here but I don’t think we have to try to acquire revenues by becoming a destination location so that we can capture the revenues from residents of other cities-at least not for this product. If we really wanted out of town revenues that badly, we could have competed to become the casino destination city. But we didn’t because some businesses are just incompatible with Newton‘s character as a safe and family friendly residential community And, frankly, Dulles, I don’t think this is your best argument because what you are pointing out is that Newton does stand to become the metro west supercenter destination for pot
“I’m not saying that every pot purchaser will toke up in the car before they drive home, but some number will and that only adds to our risks on our own city streets and school crossings as pedestrians and other motorists.”
So is it better if they buy their weed in Watertown, toke up in the car, and then drive home? At least if the shops are in in our neighborhoods people could walk to them.
Beyond their ignorance… the thing that really gets me about these prohibitionists is their arrogance. Where do they get off thinking they have the right to dictate how other people live? It’s disgusting! No different than the ignoramuses who opposed other social changes in the past. You don’t compromise with people whose principle argument lacks logic and plays to baseless fear. Vote “no” TWICE!! That’s the only way to shut them up.
Mary-Out of town purchasers won’t walk to pot shops in Newton. For the proposed location on Rt9 and so many neighbors in strong opposition I don’t think the walking is what is going to dominate at that stores. Nor do I think that is the business model that is intended. By the investors. Likewise, Washington Street is not a strolling location.
Mike-is there any possibility that you can respond without using name-calling? Let’s try to keep this thread civil please
Carolyn, without Mike Striar this blog would be boring. Let him do what he does best. Everyone has a unique talent.
Greg, “cash only stores would be a big risk” are your words, not mine. What did you mean?
No, I’m making an argument for the local ban. A pot shop robbery cannot happen in the city with no pot shops.
@ Greg many people here have stated here why they don’t want stores in Newton on many occasions. In addition to the many reasons why marijuana stores are not desirable anywhere, including Newton, the reason why we don’t specifically want them in in Newton is the following: once the for-profit marijuana Industry sets up shop in Newton, they will commercialize it, normalize it, market it, and promote it which can only lead to drastically increased use among all a age groups but particularly among the young and the vulnerable. Marijuana use won’t go away without the stores but it will definitely be more prevalent, more normalized and more difficult to extricate if we discover it was a big mistake. Relying on home delivery does avoid most of these issues.
I voted No twice on the marijuana questions. This whole argument is beyond ridiculous. Let the market decide.
Carolyn, since this is a quest post, perhaps you could refrain from having the arrogance to, at least twice, tell commenters how to respond. Maybe just appreciate your being able to post your argument.
Every argument presented against having adult retail marijuana stores in Newton is either a fear projection – lead to drastically increased use, violent crime – or will occur whether marijuana is sold in Newton or not.
With stores in towns surrounding Newton – driving to and from stores, driving while high.
If the marijuana comes in trucks or is grown in the home, none of these things will be prevented – if indeed any of them happen. Retail stores will be convenient, highly secure and cause no more problems than if they were next door.
I’m with Mike in being fed up with being told by arrogant people using fear based reasoning what is best.
Vote No on both questions to respect the will of the voters and allow stores to sell regulated marijuana to adults in Newton.
Marti –
Are you really saying that you think it is “arrogant” to ask people to be polite?
I’m sorry, but I think that’s a pretty sad commentary on the quality of discussion that the vehicle seeks to foster.
Carolyn Gabbay, I says what I means. Like an annoying parent, you’re dictating to commenters how we should react when you arrogantly spell out made up reasons adults in Newton should not be able to go to marijuana retail stores but instead have it delivered. Delivery doesn’t exist. Just another ploy.
Sarah: Cannabis is completely normal. I’ll say it again: cannabis is completely normal. People of all ages use this legal product for all sorts of reasons and there is nothing that you or any of the prohibitionists can do to make it “abnormal.” The only thing you and your ilk can do here is keep tax money out of Newton.
Kids don’t need stores on Rte. 9 to know that cannabis is “cool.” They can simply look at the instagram account of any celebrity or listen to the lyrics of most music. Kids aren’t allowed to purchase cannabis at stores and wouldn’t pay the tax markup even if they could.
Honestly, find another crusade that has a small chance of doing some good in the world.
@Carolyn Gabbay– Civility goes out the window when one side of an issue is trying to take away the rights of the other side. Particularly when those rights were won at the ballot box.
Mike –
The logic problem I have with your most recent comment is that it ignores the fact that 2016’s Q4 — which was drafted and promoted by marijuana interests — specifically included provisions for Local Control so communities could ban (or limit) recreational pot shops in their locales— as has been done by 100+ other Massachusetts cities and towns.
The philosophical problem I have with your comment is that I don’t think the concept if having “civility go out the window” just because of legitiamte disagreement on a topic of civic concern helps anybody examine issues.
Where on earth did the idea that people are going to buy cannabis in a store and go to their car and use it right there. Do people go to liquor stores, then sit in their car and drink wine? It’s the most outlandish of the arguments against cannabis shops.
Sarah – “commercialize it, normalize it, market it, and promote it.” Please read the Cannabis Control Commission sections on the restriction on the marketing of cannabis. We need to work from facts, not from completely unproven assumptions.
Normalize it? Are you kidding me? Every kind of illegal drug can be found right in our high schools – sold by thugs who’d love to get your kid to buy even more addictive drugs. The kids even know which are the best boys and girls rooms to get their drugs. There was a fire alarm set off just the other day from someone using an illegal substance in the boys/girls room of choice. People simply aren’t being realistic about that fact. Illegal drug use is totally normal in Newton and people have their heads in the sand if they think it isn’t, or if they think, “not my kid”.
What’s not normal in Newton is regulated cannabis that is tested, clearly labeled, with warnings on the package as tobacco has.
Every argument that Opt Out has used relates to the 2016 election. This ballot question relates to a different issue – Adult cannabis shops. Sarah and Carolyn – can you give one good reason why adult cannabis shops should not be available for adults? Kind of like the way the 40 liquor stores are available to adults but not minors.
Thanks so much to Mike Striar and (my former teacher) Jane Frantz for standing up for what the people voted for. You two are completely spot on.
Thanks, Steven!
Marti – In the words of Charlie Brown: “Good Grief!”
Jane – You’re right there is already far to much pot in schools. Adding more supply has been proven in other states (Colorado for example) to lessen adolescents’ perception of harm and increase use. And for those (maybe not you) who suggest that having regulated pot shops will reduce the black market or increase the ourity of the pot to which kids have access, (a) lack markets have increased (the word US attorney Troyer uses is “exploded”) in Colorado and (b) kids’s access will remain as coming through illegal channels. Their current dealers sell much more cheaply than the $300/ounce at Garden Remedies (they don’t pay taxes or comply with regulations) so they continue to get their pot from unregulated sources. And any dealer that buys from a regulated pot shop will have to add adulterating extenders to turn a profit — and profit is the objective they have in common with the marijuana investors in legal pot shops.
BTW – Colorado has had 40 recalls of regulated and tested marijuana for pesticides and mold and 63% of regulated and tested marijuana in California as been found to be adulterated too.
Carolyn, common sense is all that’s needed to counter your post’s arguments.
There would still be out-of-towners driving into and out of Newton to buy their marijuana – from neighboring towns.
Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs will continue.
Local tax and host agreement revenue on brick and mortar stores is established – not so on delivery.
The “contentious battle over storefronts would be moot” if made up reasons not to have them stopped being spouted.
Now, moving on to the scare tactics
Massachusetts will have all marijuana grown to sell in stores tested for contaminants. A major advantage over the illegal stuff. Early on pesticides were found in some marijuana before Colorado had begun requiring testing for pesticides and other contaminants.
In Massachusetts, as in other states, selling marijuana to those under 21 is illegal. Retail stores in Newton will not change that.
It’s laughable to call implementing the 2016 ballot question legalizing marijuana a “mad rush.” 2018 is ending and no adult use marijuana stores have opened – only a few have been licensed. The Newton City council voted to have a one year moratorium until 2019 to study the laws and regulations before writing their own. Towns surrounding Newton have approved several retail stores. Newton has drafted a very restrictive zoning ordinance to site the stores.
November 6 is the end of it. The city council will weigh the votes and write an ordinance. This “contentious battle” will be over and will not be allowed to begin again. There will be no wait and see.
In the immortal words of Craig:
Craig, IMHO your statement “Cannabis is completely normal” just shows lack of respect (let alone interest) for other cultures. Imposing your cultural norms onto nondominant communities is known as cultural imperialism. Would you condemn parents for telling their children that marijuana is “abnormal”?
About kids who know how cool marijuana is, I already answered to you once, but I’ll repeat in case you missed it:
In return, let me share my knowledge about other real kids that you are obviously unaware of. They don’t have much time for watching Instagram “influencers” because they are enrolled in every challenging class they can find: advanced math, violin, gymnastics… They sue Harvard over admissions. Coincidentally, their parents believe Tai Chi or yoga is a better way to recreate than “recreational” marijuana. And their number is growing I think.
Carolynn – You just made my point. Illegal drugs are normal in Newton and sold all over the place. Normal in the sense of the word commonplace, typical, ordinary. How about normalizing regulated cannabis? Letting kids know that there should be standards for cannabis as there are for alcohol; sending the message that they shouldn’t be buying who knows what from thugs.
Adult cannabis retail shops won’t add anything to the supply of illegal drugs at our high schools. Those black market drugs are unregulated and have nothing whatsoever to do with regulated cannabis.
Sorry, Jane, but you’re just not learning the lessons of what has been documented to have happened in Colorado and Oregon.
Each state has its own regulations. Comparing Massachusetts to Colorado and/or Oregon is comparing apples to oranges. The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission has taken two years to develop a comprehensive document that outlines every aspect of how adult retail cannabis shops will be regulated in the states.
Colorado, on the other hand, went totally overboard. It has three times more cannabis retail shops than Starbucks. In Denver alone, there are more retail shops than Starbucks and MacDonald’s combined. In Massachusetts, since the legalization of medical cannabis dispensaries, we have about 40 in the entire state and have yet to open one retail store two years after the referendum passed.
So I’d say, quite to the contrary, Massachusetts did learn from the mistakes of Colorado and Oregon.
Jane – you make an interesting point about the reasons not to join a mad rush. I would further that point by suggesting that we in Newton would do well to let Brookline experiment first and see what experiences are there befoee we jump into this arena.
I have reviewed the CCC’s regulations in detail and my feeling is they are far from comprehensive or rigorous.
Both ballot questions are non-binding (not just the Question to Limit as has been stated). After the election, the city council will pass an ordinance determining the limit of shops, from 0 to 8. So saying two years from now that Brookline, Belmont, Watertown, Natick, Framingham, Cambridge, Somerville, and Boston are doing just fine and receiving a lot of revenue from these shops so we’d like to have a few too, is pie-in-the- sky thinking. As they say, that ship will have sailed.
Newton will have lost out and we’ll have to find other sources to raise revenue that according to the mayor, we desperately need. The school allocation has already been cut for next year, and will be cut even more in the two years after that. Please name just two other revenue sources that will be acceptable to Newton residents. I can’t think of one. The revenue from 2 or 3 retail shops (4 is a pipe dream if you ask me) will cost the vast majority of residents not a penny because they don’t use cannabis. The revenue from every other source will hit either all residents or large swathes of the population and will hit those living on fixed incomes or are economically vulnerable the hardest.
@Jane, There is no reason that we can’t start allowing storefronts in Newton in a few years if we look at Brookline and think they are having a great experience. The city Council can place another ballot question on the ballot at any time after 2years. In the meantime, people can drive to Brookline or have home delivery if they want to buy recreational marijuana.
You think the city council is going to place another ballot question about cannabis retail shops on the ballot again? I’m speechless. It will never happen.
This is one and done.
Anatoly: nobody is imposing cultural norms on anybody, and if I cared about such nonsense I would call your statement offensive. I find fast food abhorrent and yet I somehow manage to drive by a McDonalds every day. To continue this example, the harm done by McDonalds so far exceeds even the wildest projections of legal pot that it really calls into question how we are spending our time here.
Your kids that are busy with violin classes and suing Harvard won’t be affected by retail pot storefronts in the slightest, and they are welcome to recreate however they wish. Nobody is suggesting we ban any of these things (well unless they are Asian and trying to get into Harvard).
This whole argument is about one thing and one thing only: groups of misinformed do-gooders trying to abridge the will of the majority. You aren’t “helping kids” or “keeping stoned drivers off the road (newsflash: half the drivers on the roads are either drunk or zonked on opioids)” you are imposing your ignorance onto lawful citizens of Newton.
Speaking of harm done by substances readily available to adolescents, does anyone care that for young women drinking alcohol, especially binge drinking but even drinking in moderation, is a risk factor for breast cancer?
We do an abysmal job of educating our youth about the dangerous behaviors they are encouraged to engage in, from unhealthy/poor eating habits, lack of exercise, and the use of illegal drugs and alcohol. This overfocus on one unhealthy habit at a young age at the expense of others does a disservice to every high school and middle school student in the city.
Craig’s immortal argument is silly. In my immortal words:
Craig summed it the underlying issue eloquently. And accurately.
Sarah: Define “great experience.”
@Greg, we can all go to the new enormous marijuana emporium slated to open in the old Pier 1 store in Coolidge Corner in Brookline to see if we think that would be a good addition to Newton. In a few years we will have data on taxes, accidents, addiction, teen use, etc. from Brookline. If we think they have a good thing going, we can always add it to Newton. There’s no first-mover advantage in this.
These arguments about waiting a few years are totally irrelevant to the two November 6 ballot questions – just two weeks away. Voters will either vote for a ban or not as well as either for a limit of 2-4 stores or not. Votes will be totaled and the city council will weigh those votes – then write an ordinance for Newton concerning adult marijuana retail stores. Neither question is binding.
Sarah, Newton is as far from a first-mover as it can get. Why continue with the lies?
There is no compelling data tying the opening of legal marijuana stores in other states to the cause of accidents, addiction, teen use, etc. There won’t be for Brookline either.
Sarah – This is how long the city council has taken to deal with special permits, ordinances, and bans in the recent past:
Dog parks: 5 years!
Leaf Blowers: 2 years
Accessory apartments: 14 years!!
Austin St: 5 years
Washington Place: 2 years.
There will be no do over on this issue and anyone who thinks there will be hasn’t followed the issues listed above. The City Council works very slowly under the best of circumstances. The fact is Opt Out would be right back at it again and what councilor wants to go through this again?
This is one and done.
By the same token, Jane, there will be no do-overs if we get it wrong by opening up the City to pot shop entrepreneurs…
Sarah: Would you stipulate that there is already a functioning black market for cannabis sufficient to supply teen use? I’m 41 but when I was in high school pot was readily available — without the benefit of cell phones and social media direct messages. Are you suggesting that adults will buy cannabis at retails stores at a price higher than the black market, and then resale said cannabis to teens at an even higher price? And if adults in Brookline were inclined to do this, they couldn’t simply go two T stops into Boston to buy cannabis?
The only reliable data we are likely to have on any of your criteria is for taxes. And the one thing we can be certain about is that number will be greater than zero. If you are willing to have stores in two years, why not get that money now? There isn’t an athletic field in Newton that couldn’t use $10k worth of leveling, grass seed, and maintenance.
We are really selling our kids short if we think that a few retail stores in Newton is going to compel them to put down the books and put away the soccer ball and give their life over to edibles. There is a liquor store on every corner and teenage drinking rates are at decade lows.
Correct Marti – Neither is binding.
Actually, they are required because of the way the marijuana industry drafted Question 4 and MGL 94G so as to create as many barriers as possible to Local Control.
That alone should tell you something about the Big Marijuana industry’s influence and intentions.
Another lie. When the question was written by advocates for legalizing marijuana, some with ties to the industry and some without, it was written so, if passed, all of MA would be able to implement the will of the voters.
As you and others who spread these unfounded fears continue to point out, prohibitionists insisted on adding to Q4 a way for municipalities to change the number of stores allowed in their community. Because it was so easy to do, the CCC changed the regulation to include that the process must follow a municipality’s charter.
That’s what is happening here in Newton.
Marti – You are simply factually wrong on that.
Marijuana-impaired traffic fatalities (not just accidents— fatalities !) are up 151% in Colorado since legalization there. Source: US Attorney for Colorado.
Marti – It’s interesting that you called somebody else out for supposedly propagating a “lie” when you are so dead wrong (pun not intended but apt) on the facts
I did simple Google search just now and found this in the USA Today published on 10/19:
Caption: Car crashes on the rise in states with legalized recreational weed
Summary: Traffic accidents are on the rise…specifically in states that have legalized recreational marijuana, according to a new study. Veuer’s Sam Berman has the full story.
Quotes from the story: “Car crashes were up as much as 6 percent in states where the recreational use of marijuana has been legalized, said two studies.”
“According to research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute, the frequency of collision claims filed to insurers were higher in four states where marijuana is legal: Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.”
“The studies were presented Thursday at the Combating Alcohol- and Drug-Impaired Driving summit.”
“The Highway Loss Data Institute study focused on collision claims between 2012 and October 2017, and compared against four control states where marijuana remains illegal: Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming.”
“A separate study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety focused on police-reported crashes before and after retail marijuana was allowed found Colorado, Oregon and Washington saw a 5.2 percent increase in the rate of crashes per million vehicle registrations, compared with neighboring states.”
“States exploring legalizing marijuana should consider this effect on highway safety,” said David Harkey, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Highway Loss Data Institute, in a statement.
Carolyn, read my comment more carefully. “No data tying marijuana …” No causation. Not even any correlation.
As to the studies you cite, they prove your’e just spreading unfounded fear.
National Institute on Drug Abuse also states that “the role played by marijuana in [traffic] accidents is often unclear, because it can remain detectable in body fluids for days or even weeks after intoxication and because users frequently combine it with alcohol.”
The limitations of the data make it impossible to know for sure how many of the documented incidents were directly caused by marijuana use. Unlike alcohol, for example, testing positive for marijuana doesn’t necessarily mean a person is under the influence of the drug at the time of the traffic accident.
In the Denver Gazzette on Aug 24, 2018:
The number of highway deaths involving Colorado drivers who had marijuana in their system grew again in 2017, a new state study shows.
At the same time, traffic fatalities in which drivers had enough marijuana in their bloodstream to be deemed legally impaired dropped sharply, from 52 in 2016 to 35 last year.
The reason for this seeming contradiction: Marijuana can remain in the bloodstream for weeks, so a positive blood test may not mean a driver was stoned at the time of a deadly crash.
Positive test results reflected in the NHTSA data do not indicate whether a driver was high at the time of the crash since traces of marijuana use from weeks earlier also can appear as a positive result.
In the Denver Westword on October 4, 2018 – an interview with Bob Troyer, US DA
Some of the data you cited in your op-ed, particularly the state’s youth usage being 85 percent above the national average and pot-related traffic fatalities increasing 151 percent, doesn’t tell the whole story. The most recent Colorado Healthy Kids survey from 2017 shows youth use is 1 percent lower than the national average, while the Colorado Department of Transportation points out that the traffic fatalities increase doesn’t differentiate having THC in one’s system and THC being an active intoxicant. (Those numbers are much, much lower.
I get that the 151 percent increase in traffic fatalities is not proof that retail marijuana legalization caused each one of those accidents. Troyer
Let’s review the track record.
– Opt Out Newton claims not to oppose medical marijuana. Yet it firmly opposed the medical dispensary on Elliott Street and hardly misses an opportunity to attack Garden Remedies.
– Opt Out Newton lobbied City Council hard to try and rescind the 2-4 measure after it already passed, arguing “nobody wants it” knowing that was not true.
– The submitter of this thread is well aware that both ban and 2-4 use the exact same legal measure (MGL c 94G section 3) to set a non-binding cap; the difference is where the cap is set, at 0 or 2-4. Well aware of that fact, that person published a letter in the TAB (“Opt Out of Pot Shops”, 6 Oct) calling 2-4 “… a sham. Pure and simple. A SHAM!” with “NO LIMIT!”
Opt Out Newton calls the compromise effort a “sham” as a centerpieces of its campaign. Put it all together, and I don’t find the argument to vote for a ban today, because there will be pot delivery in the future, at all credible.
Carolyn – Oh, yes, there will be do overs if a shop doesn’t follow state and/or local regulations. The shop stands to lose its license.
As has been stated before, Colorado has had a huge increase in population in the last 7 years because the housing market is more affordable. More people in the same space is going to change a lot about a place, including car accidents. The statistic about car fatalities came from the Department of Justice, and was not a study related to health concerns.
In addition, each state makes its own regulations. Why are we talking about other states’ regulations when we have our own? Not to mention, why are you harping on a state that, by all accounts, allowed way too many stores to open in too short a time. Three times more cannabis shops than Starbucks. More cannabis shops than Starbucks and Mcdonald’s combined in Denver.
Let’s focus on Massachusetts. Our state passed this referendum 2 years ago! Two years since the 2016 referendum passed the legal use and sale of cannabis and we have yet to open one retail shop in the state, and you claim we’re rushing headlong into opening shops.
Not to mention USA Today is hardly a reputable news source. It’s the paper they place at your doorway in a hotel.
Why don’t you just say it: you don’t want retail cannabis shops in Newton because it doesn’t suit the way you view Newton. It’s probably closer to the truth.
Open question… Has anyone independently verified the signatures that the City Council used to justify putting opt out on the ballot? I know they were certified by the City. But has anyone else taken a look at those signatures? I’m not raising this as a point of debate. Just asking a factual question.
On a more productive note, regardless of whether the ban passes or not, I think Opt Out Newton has assembled an impressive to-do list that can attract a super-majority of residents.
– Review and improve youth drug education and prevention. We know alcohol and drugs are in our schools and are abused by minors, and that’s a serious problem. Legal or illegal, ban or no ban, we need to see what works and what doesn’t to educate effectively, to reduce demand and reduce harm to teenagers and kids.
– Impaired and unsafe driving. Massachusetts is home to the country’s worst drivers when we’re sober. Seems to me that local law enforcement has been less visible in traffic ticketing the past 5-10 years. Officers parked at some of our major intersections could probably hand out tickets as fast as they can write them. Spot enforcement could remind vehicle operators that yes, there are in fact traffic laws.
Paired with that, there is impaired driving already happening in Newton. If we want to protect residents from impaired drivers we need to consider how to detect them more proactively and get them off the streets, whether or not there are pot shops or liquor stores we will always need to deal with impaired driving.
– Addiction treatment and mental health. I’m not sure how we as a community can deal with these issues. It would seem an issue for courts to detect and order rehabilitation to help someone in need get their life back in order, in lieu of a prison sentence.
– Newton’s >40 liquor licenses. Does Newton really benefit from having over 40 liquor stores within its borders? Greg Reibman might not like my point of view here, but we as a community could direct City Council to stop issuing new licenses and reduce as liquor stores go out of business. Maybe in 10 years we could be at a number that’s more reasonable given Newton’s population.
Anyway, some thoughts so that we’re not just arguing past each other.
Dulles — What a perfect, constructive comment. Thank you!
You have found common ground and your comment is an excellent note on which to close out the discussion on this thread.
Greg – How about it?
Logic doesn’t work with the prohibitionists. They are not interested in logic. Debating their propaganda point by point only lends credence to their baseless distortions of the truth…
Prohibitionists are driven by unfounded fear and ignorance. They regurgitate the same nonsense we heard from cannabis opponents before the 2016 vote, that instructed lawmakers to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.” Rather than stand up for the voters, Newton’s elected “leaders” decided to stab us in the back– gaming the system to empower the prohibitionist driven revote…
I genuinely dislike the prohibitionists, but I truly despise the elected officials who should have known better than to let fear and ignorance have any sway over public policy.
Marti – I find it unfortunate that you were unwilling to stop the taking past one another and let this thread end on the constructive note that Dulles graciously shared with everybody.
If I’m not mistaken, you play a moderator role on this blog. As far as I can see the issues have been articulated over and over again. Clearly, things have reached the point of fruitless repetition, rather than elucidative discussion.
Neither side of the discussion will convince the other to change their outlook at this point. So it is time to stop flogging this issue just for the “fun” of it and close out this discussion thread.
The nation witnessed today the sad and scary results of fueling divisions and divisiveness. We should be able to so better than that here in Newton.
Let Dulles’ constructive comments and forward looking commin ground list of rhings we all need to collaborate on be the final word here.
Carolyn, its truly amusing you choose to call me divisive for debunking your claims while providing links to the source material. It’s you who started this thread with unfounded arguments and then moved on to use unproven data as scare tactics.
Carolyn wants the discussion to be done when she says it is finished.
Amazing how much opposition to retail cannabis in this thread is concentrated with folks who live near Garden Remedies. I don’t fault them; they think their home values will suffer. I wonder how many of us would change our tune if all of the dispensaries were magically transported to other parts of town. It’s not really a NIMBY issue. NIMBYs oppose things that they use, like cell phone towers and airports.
I believe the right question on the ballot would be “Do you want a pot shop in your precinct”? Then the city could place the shops according to the will of the people.
Zzzzzz
ISO new V14 content so I’ll have something interesting to read during the Red Sox commercial breaks.