This is a guest blog post that was submitted to Village 14.
Like many other Boomers, I favored legalizing recreational marijuana in the Commonwealth. Not that I wanted to partake- far from it! In my early adulthood, pot was both a blessing and a danger. It opened my life to Dionysian experiences without alcohol; it loosened my inhibitions, mostly for the good. At other moments, however, it trapped me in a suffocating apathy and even melancholy. Those days are long past. I prefer to live life with eyes open.
Still, it seemed absurd and hypocritical, given my own history, to vote to prohibit recreational use of a drug already so easily available. With some reluctance, then, I voted “yes” and hoped for the best.
Surprisingly, the issue hasn’t evaporated. In the approaching election, Newton voters address two ballot questions that both overlap and contradict each other. One would ban the presence of recreational pot shops in Newton altogether. The other, a supposed compromise, would limit the number of recreational pot shops to two to four, fewer outlets than otherwise allowed by the new state law. Even if the outright ban triumphs, nothing, of course, would prevent adults from shopping for pot in neighboring communities. Remember every legal adult, in every Massachusetts community, has the right to light a joint or consume marijuana edibles.
Which leaves me concerned and frightened. Legal pot might contain TSC levels higher than the funky stuff of my college years. As a former high school teacher, I always drive reluctantly, warily on weekend evenings in Newton. Why? I know that a significant number of high school students, some of whom also drive, get drunk on Friday and Saturday night. How much more dangerous will our roads become if student-drivers gain access to potent marijuana? Have no illusions: underage students, who have little difficulty acquiring illegal pot, will easily get the legal stuff. To be fair, adults high on pot may also pose a threat on our roadways. The Commonwealth has yet to institute a marijuana sobriety test to complement the one for alcohol consumption- a powerful deterrent to driving while intoxicated.
At a recent meeting of the Waban Area Council, on which I serve, a health professional who works with troubled young adults at McLean Hospital in Belmont argued against recreational marijuana sales in Newton. He declared that around 90% of his patients abuse marijuana. Apparently, he fears that legalizing recreational marijuana sales will increase his patients’ access to the drug. Someone at the meeting countered, with justification, that those abusing the drug already have access to it. I need not summarize the numerous arguments on all sides of the issue; you have probably heard them all.
Undeniably, adults who use marijuana moderately can live responsible, productive lives just as moderate drinkers can. Some Boomer friends of mine never really stopped smoking dope after college.
To them, the high is more relaxing and less dangerous than that of alcohol. However the electorate votes, the ballot questions will not deter many Boomers and Millennials and Generation X’ers from chilling at day’s end with their weed. Nor will their peers stop drinking alcoholic beverages, whatever the risks to their health and safety. Unless the Commonwealth becomes a police state, people young and old will choose either to stay sober or to drink alcohol or to ingest marijuana…or to do all these things at different times!
So how should I vote?
The pot on the street is already much more potent than what was around when we were adolescents, and that’s what our kids currently have access to. It’s also more likely to be laced with adulterants than what will be available legally.
From what I’ve seen among adolescents, through my sons and nephews/nieces, no h.s. student who wants to smoke has any trouble doing so. If having legal recreational marijuana being sold in Newton means they’re less likely to get stuff laced with dangerous additives, and will instead get something subject to some level of quality control. And it’s not like the students aren’t already smoking and driving drunk or stoned when they want to. In my mind, it’s more like the difference one sees when the alcohol they drink (too much, unfortunately) is legal rather than homemade swill or poisonous rubbing alcohol.
For those on the fence, I would say vote for the ban and wait and see how it goes in Brookline. If we like the stores, if none of the troubles that people fear materialize, and if they make a lot of tax revenues, then we can always re-visit later. The reverse is not true. If we allow the for-profit marijuana industry to set up shop, and the commercialization, normalization, marketing and promotion lead to outcomes we don’t like, there’s no going back. Why take the risk?
Early voting has started with Election Day just 2 weeks away. Be sure to vote.
The city council has a draft zoning ordinance that limits the areas where stores can be sited to 4 zones – not in village centers and mostly on the outskirts of Newton. It also plans to restrict the number of stores to 8. With a battle for each store similar to the ones going on now for each store, approving 8 will be a stretch.
Marijuana is legal in MA and adult retail stores will open in many communities surrounding Newton. Newton should open its own stores to receive the taxes and fees from community host agreements rather than give it to our neighbors next door.
After the vote, the city council will weigh the totals and draft an ordinance. Then this will be over. Make no mistake – Newton will not ban marijuana stores and then take up this fight again later.
Readers of V14, the Tab and neighbors know that OON and other folks who just plainly don’t want marijuana stores in Newton – or legal at all – have used unfounded claims supported by untrue or no data at all to predict all sorts of scary things will happen in order to manipulate voters. They’ve changed their arguments as each one has been proved wrong. They’ve called the 2-4 limit a sham, they’ve preyed on fears claiming children will have access, used arguments that only pertain to legalizing marijuana, claimed Newtonn would be a destination since none of the surrounding towns would have the stores and now are saying wait to see if communities surrounding Newton with retail marijuana stores have a “great experience” – these folks will never concede that any community has had a “great experience” – whatever that might be. Don’t believe their lies.
Bob – I love your question!
The major difference I continue to point out is that the drugs sold on the streets (and in our schools) is unregulated. It’s sold by thugs who have a whole host of other highly addictive drugs. You as the buyer have no idea what you are getting.
Regulated cannabis will be grown and sold in places that are highly regulated. In addition to state regulations, Newton is developing its own regulations that apply just to our community – no shops in village centers, no shops in places where children are likely to be, etc. I don’t know much about the places where the cannabis is grown, but Susan Albright and several other councilors visited on of the places about a week ago. You should get in touch with her to find out the facts related to the production of cannabis in Massachusetts.
The cannabis sold in regulated retail stores will be clearly labeled, behind locked cases, and minors will not be able to even enter the store. They can enter one of our 40 liquor stores – can’t buy anything, but can walk into it. They will not be able to so much as enter a retail cannabis shop. I will have to show an ID in order to enter a retail store. If you could see a photo of me, it might make you smile – I’m clearly not a minor.
What I suggest you do is vote on the question on the 2018 municipal ballot, rather than on issues related to Question 4 (should cannabis be legalized) on the 2016 ballot.
Contrary to what Opt Out will tell you, there will be no do-over on this. The questions are both non-binding. The city council will then pass an ordinance. I’ve attended too many city council hearings and meetings to believe in any way that this issue will be revisited.
BTW, I was at that meeting you spoke about. It’s interesting that you received his message as impassioned. I heard it as him yelling at me – the only person who’s done so at any meeting. He did attend another meeting and spoke very respectfully to me and I appreciated that.
Bob, as the other posters have indicated, your fears are unfounded. No teenager who wants cannabis at present has any trouble obtaining it. No teenager is allowed in retail cannabis stores. Finally, legal (taxed) pot is more expensive than what is currently available on the black market, which doesn’t exactly appeal to teens.
By all means pursue efforts to limit teen consumption, just understand that giving sales tax money to Brookline does not meet that description.
Great and thoughtful column Bob. Thanks.
I’ll be voting no on the ban. I hope you do to
Bob, If you live far enough from the areas where stores can be sited and you don’t care about people who live near these areas, vote no on the ban.
As in medicine, I think the mantra on this issue should be “First do no harm.” Many here have claimed with near certainty that stores in Newton will be harmless. Nobody knows that for sure, and there’s plenty of evidence out there to suggest caution. If people can conveniently purchase legal marijuana in nearby towns or have it delivered soon, why should we take the risk of bringing harm to the wonderful community we have here? At best, hosting stores will be benign with a modest amount of tax revenue. At worst, it will bring irreversible problems and we will wonder why we did all this just to get a little bit of tax revenue.
Many of the arguments in favor of stores seem a little school-marmish — you voted for this so now you have to have stores whether you like it or not. Eat your peas! As it turns out, the law allows us the choice, so I will vote to Opt Out.
I too am voting no on the ban.
I haven’t heard any fact based reason to fear such a store. Since marijuana is legal in MA and surrounding communities are opening stores, any problems that might come up associated with legal marijuana will also affect Newton. Newton having stores will not reduce the harm – if in fact there is any. The stores will bring with them local taxes and community host agreement funds.
I live near Garden Remedies and have no qualms about them addng an adult retail marijuana store.
My wife and I recently returned to our home in Newton after a 4 year sojourn in Seattle where recreational marijuana was legalized. There was a cannabis store just up the block from our apartment — I walked past it almost every day — and others not very far away. Here are some observations.
– In Seattle, the cannabis stores looked and felt like high-class retail outlets: clean, well furnished, nice display cases and lighting, etc. Unlike the concerns of the Opt-Out folks, these stores did not attract lowlifes or young people hanging out around the entrances getting high. To the contrary, based on just my casual observations, the majority of people I observed walking in and out of these establishments were older people, often those experimenting with various products to address uncomfortable health ailments like chronic pain. It opened up a world of possible and readily accessible over-the-counter alternatives to pharmaceuticals. Anecdotally I heard comments of how various products really helped improve quality of life.
– In Seattle there was not a sudden epidemic of radically increased marijuana usage by teenagers. The news was not filled with horror stories from teachers or the police. There was not suddenly a huge increase in car accidents because more people were out driving while high. If anything, Seattleites would look at this conversation with some bemusement and kind of wonder what the ruckus is all about. In sum, there was no discernible downside to legalization and retail distribution.
– For those who use marijuana, no matter what their age (high schoolers, boomers, etc.), it is already readily available. But today the revenue from sales goes into the pocket of organized crime which is incredibly bad for our society. We learned that a century ago with alcohol prohibition, and we continue to experience those same negative effects today.
– In addition, having cannabis distributed legally and regulated is far safer than what is available on the street which is sometimes laced with all sorts of toxic substances. This fact is incredibly important for public health.
– I can empathize with those health care professionals who are concerned about the negative health effects of marijuana usage. But, if as a society we really cared about better public health, there are far more harmful lifestyle practices that members of our society indulge in without question compared to occasional marijuana usage. That is what we should be discussing.
In sum, our real-life experience in Seattle makes very clear that whatever public health downside might exist over legal cannabis usage, the benefits of legal distribution in Newton outweigh the drawbacks.
Bob, you seem to have a nuanced view of the situation. Given what you said, I’d consider a “no” vote. Your last paragraph makes me think you have a handle on the reality of marijuana which isn’t scary at all.
I will be voting No on the ban and Yes on 2-4. I’d prefer that neither question was on the ballot and I believe that implied in a yes vote to recreational marijuana was that people could actually purchase it.
I don’t partake, never have and don’t anticipate that I will in the future. Mostly my motivation is to defeat the ban. I have two reasons:
1) Many of the same people who are always calling for more money for the schools are happy to walk away from the new revenue source that would aid the schools without raising more taxes and a possible override. I don’t have children in Newton schools but I am happy to pay my sizable real estate tax bill to support the schools. But if the ban is implemented and the new revenue source is discarded, I can’t say I would feel the same way.
2) I really dislike the tactics of the Opt Out Folks. I have found their arguments at best deceptive and believe they are trying to have a “do over” on the vote to legalize recreational marijuana.
I realize that the two questions are independent and non-binding, but I truly want the ban to fail and would like to see it receive fewer voters as that it would make it harder for the City Council to implement a ban
Just my two cents.
I regret that society allowed big tobacco to normalize cigarettes.. has caused nothing but trouble. How many decades elapsed until they realized all the death and destruction it would cause?
I reject recreational weed on the same basis, big weed companies are normalizibg recreational weed to line ceo pockets with no concern on long term impacts..
Looking forward to an increase of people blowing smoke on my face when I go out.. not!
Bugek, smoking pot in public is still illegal, so you’re unlikely to have people blowing smoke on your face when you go out.
Anyone who thinks that passing pot to minors will be a casual thing once retail stores are in place could be in for a rude awakening (or up to 1,825 rude awakenings) — in prison!
For those who think they can go outside the tight-set boundaries of decriminalization and legalization, the state still reserves the right to nail their butt to the wall.
https://www.ledimensions.com/library/2018%20MARIJUANA%20CONSEQUENCES%20CHART.pdf
– Sell pot within 300 feet of a school or 100 feet of a public park? Arrested, up to $5,000 fine and you *will* go to jail for a mandatory minimum of two years.
– Giving cannabis to, or knowingly letting someone consume cannabis who is under 21? Arrested, fine up to $2,000 and up to 2 years jail time.
– Trying to make BHO concentrates at home? Arrested, up to 2 years jail time, fine up to $2,000.
– Selling pot illegally to anyone, or selling paraphernalia to anyone under 21? Arrested, up to 2 years jail time, fine up to $5,000.
[and so forth]
Bugek, if someone is blowing cannabis smoke at you in public, you can call the police on them. I’d think they’d be happy to issue a $100 to $300 citation to the offender. Cha-ching!
I too was at this meeting for the same reasons. I have been on the fence while listening and studying the issue. Two things have helped me decide:
Pot is potentially detrimental to the under 25 brain and we need to know more – article from Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-pot-really-does-to-the-teen-brain/
Banning the stores will slow down the “normalization” of pot smoking in Newton which I believe will impact a small number of young people, apx 10 – 15-year-olds. Is that worth it? Absolutely! Just like Bob, I inhaled some back in my day, therefore, I have some first-hand knowledge. So from my POV, I think we should put on the brakes any way we can and vote YES on the opt-out and NO on the 2-4. People say think of all the $$$ and I say, some money you shouldn’t take.
@Allen, I appreciate your insight into how stores are working in Seattle. I have gotten similar feedback from Seattle friends. However, they see stores as a mixed bag. The stores themselves, especially in higher income areas, are usually nice. However, they have seen a marked increase in the acceptability of recreational marijuana, leading to a quite dramatic increase in use. This “normalization” seems more prevalent in towns that have stores. They have said that towns with stores also have more marijuana smells in public, and other issues. I’d be interested in seeing if that meets with your experience as well.
Laurie – Have you been to Seattle to see the stores? As you know, I’m not a fan of comparing the regulations Massachusetts will have to other states, but here we have a post from someone who has extensive first hand experience in Washington and it provides a different perspective than we’ve heard before.
As for that word “normalize” – I hear that a lot from OON people. Like it or not, Cannabis use is normal right now and has been normal in Massachusetts for decades – normal in the high schools and normal in many homes. What it hasn’t been is regulated and what we need to do is regulate it. Banning it just makes it all the more enticing – and therefore more normal.
A few comments:
* I have visited Seattle several times in past 2 years and the most dispensaries don’t stand out at all. Some do in areas they compete with directly with another nearby (do a google image search). Smell and public use are more prevalent than you see here (although it increasing here as well). Aneqdotally there is more pan handling around dispensaries due to cash transaction change availability, not the product. I think they have roughly 40, which per capita is about the same as 4 here.
* Reflecting on the safety issue, it is a bit circular to think that dispensaries will increase safety of product consumed by youth AND to think dispensary output won’t be diverted to youth. We can’t have it both ways.
* This vote authorizes the council to pass ordinances, it does not require it, or prevent them from reversing a ban or limit ordinance later. Given the majority of the council opposed opt-out prior to the petition, it is plausible the council could yield to low turnout arguments if opt-out passes. The proposed charter required 20% turnout and I wonder if current state races will drive high turnout, and of that turnout, how many voters will pull the municipal ballot to reach that proposed threshold.
The charter subcommittee discussed the 20% threshold this evening and decided to not included in draft home rule proposal. It was noted that in a special election scenario (similar to today), the side against a measure might be incentivized to NOT vote at all rather than vote NO, in order to drive turnout under the proposed 20% threshold.
Not too far off Jack. Seattle has 122 licenses issued and 15 pending.
48 of the active licenses and 12 of the pending licenses are for retail dispensaries. (Source: WA liquor & cannabis board)
So Seattle is tracking toward 60 recreational retail stores in the foreseeable future. Statewide? More than 500(!!) retail store licenses active and pending. 1,947 pending and active licenses for all activities in sum. Wow.
Portland and Colorado have 165 and 169 retail licenses respectively (based on older news reports, not the latest stats).
But 2-4 in Newton? Preposterous!
Here’s a really interesting statistic. Portland (with a population approaching 650k) has 90 liquor stores (again based on older news reports). Compare that to Newton, with more than 40. But I guess no one is concerned because – alcohol.
I graduated from one of the public high schools within the last 5 years. It is very true that anyone in the public high schools would likely be able to find someone who could sell them pot with just a few text messages to friends. It was much easier for students to get pot than it was for alcohol, as the black market did not require ID. Myself, and many of the students I graduated with find it ridiculous that the opt out movement thinks having recreational stores will someohow make it easier for minors to access pot. It couldn’t be any easier as it is.
I, will certainly be voting against the ban, and I pray for the opt out campaigner that goes knocking door to door campaigning for a tax override if the ban is successful.
Read Mike Sem’s comment again. He tells the true story about minors access to unregulated marijuana –
Marijuana retail stores in Newton will not increase use among minors for several reasons – marijuana is already easily accessible to minors, the stores will be much more secure than liquor stores, minors will not be allowed in the stores, the cost in stores will be much higher than the black market so getting an adult to buy it for you is a non starter.
@Dulles
Apples and oranges since Oregon sells wine and beer in grocery stores – i.e. liquor stores are just for liquor
Newton is not a big city like Boston, Denver, or Seattle. It has none of the big-city attractions. Newton’s reputation of one of the safest city in America is all we have. Newton’s appeal and status are based on this reputation. Take it away – and Newton becomes “the rich man’s Quincy”. Even a small chance of damaging this safety rank represents a possible substantial financial and quality-of-life loss for everybody. Is the bone thrown by the pot entrepreneurs worth the risk?
What’s wrong with Quincy?
Quincy is a very nice community. My son lived there as did my niece. It has a beautiful waterfront walkway that has enhanced the quality of life for all residents.
Can we just stop saying negative things about neighboring communities? Somerville, Brookline, and now Quincy. They’re all nice places to live for different reasons. As is Newton a great place to live and it’s great to feel pride in your community, but why do we have to do it at the expense of other communities?
While Dulles’ stats may be skewed, I do agree with his point that Newton is ignoring the serious consequences of alcohol use, especially among minors. It is known to cause all kinds of health problems, including cancer – and breast cancer in particular. Educating students and their parents about the serious consequences of drinking at a young age, and especially binge drinking has been a lost opportunity in this debate. But “that train has not left the station” and I hope as cooler heads prevail after Nov. 6th that we can develop more robust educational programs for students.
@Anatoly Kleiman
Hmm – You and I have a very different views of Newton. I’ve been here 10 years and love it here for a long list of reasons. Being “one of the safest cities in America” wouldn’t even be in my top 10 list. Those national rankings of towns on various axes are just plain goofy.
Yes of course we all enjoy living in a safe town, just like all the towns around us. If you really think that adding a few retail shops will somehow turn Newton into an “unsafe” town then I think at this point we’re just talking past each other and living in different universes.
What Jerry said.
We’re talking about a very small number of legal, tightly regulated, business that will be operating across the state. Anatoly your hysterics and fear-mongering do nothing to advance your position,
I agree with Jerry. That was an absurd comment
I think Paul Krugman a few years ago in his NYT op-ed “Republicans Against Science” coined the term “anti-knowledge party”. The Newton pot shops advocates are acting like our own little anti-knowledge party now. A climate change research study? The big party responds: “Fake science. Ain’t feeling no climate change in my air-conditioned mansion”. New concerns about marijuana social costs? The little party answers: “Reefer Madness. Fear-mongering. People enjoy weed in the comfort of their homes with no problem”. I was hoping for a mutually beneficial debate where the sides call experts, present facts and arguments, and learn from each other. That obviously didn’t happen.
Anatoly: Once again, you are attempting to re-litigate the legalization of marijuana, an issue that was resoundingly approved by Massachusetts and Newton voters in 2016. That issue is not on the ballot on Nov. 6.
Greg,
“…cash only stores would be a big risk” are your words. Looks you are joining me in hysteria.
Jerry once again nails it.
@all: Retail wins? Here’s the next battle. (these stores were common in my visit to Colorado)
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2018/10/brookline_pot_plan_not_good_fit_for_area_opponents_say
Actually if this approved Newton doesn’t need retail. You only have so many stores of any brand at that size.
@all: One more concern:
Auto Insurance: Since the state insurance department allows the insurers to set the rates by zip code, we could have insurance rate hikes as noted:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2018/10/study_auto_insurance_to_feel_contact_high
Anatoly – The facts related to use of illegal drugs have been presented too many times to count: illegal drug use amongst minors is “normal”. Minors can get it multiple places in and out of school.
Each state makes its own regulations and laws regarding adult retail cannabis shops. We’ve used data from Massachusetts where state regulations will govern our shops. You continue to use data from states with completely different regulations that don’t apply to Massachusetts at all.
I’m with Mike Sems – a few text messages, a money exchange completed discreetly in the hallway or cafeteria, the information where the drug can be found in the boys or girls room that’s a bit off the beaten path (usually hidden on the inside of a ceiling panel, just in case you’re wondering) and bingo! The sale is complete.
Teens don’t have two essential elements that might change their behavior: first, a robust program that educates then about the dangers of alcohol and illegal drugs on their brains and bodies. The 3% impact fee from the sale of regulated cannabis could fund such programs.
All teens know is the black market – that’s what’s been “normalized” for our teenagers and I can’t see what good comes from that.
To the contrary Anatoly, I am hungry for data. I am a data dork. IIHS/HLDI studies claim a 5.2%/6% increase in crashes in states that have legalized recreational cannabis (OR, NV, WA, CO) relative to control states that didn’t (ID, NE, WY, MT, UT). Can I get access to the source data? [no] Can I review the methodology used? [uh-uh].
I can’t seem to find recent national state by state accident statistics online. I did find accident statistics in one state (Colorado), which show rather than going up, car accidents went down slightly year over year (I believe 2016-2017). Hmmm. There are ways to account for that, but it’s weird in the face of IIHS/HLDI claims that accident rates increased.
So what numbers can I get my hands on? IIHS/HLDI publish fatalities statistics state by state through 2016. If you look up the numbers and run them yourself, mile by driven mile, the fact is:
You are more likely to die driving on ID, NE, WY, MT and UT roads than in OR, NV, WA or CO.
https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
So why is that? The point here is that when data is presented, one needs to ask the questions: Are we interpreting the data correctly? Are we focused on the right things? Without available data sources and an open published methodology, people need to be skeptical of bias. Not just parrot what an organization like SAM (or for that matter, NORML) might claim.
Dulles, you chose to ignore one detail when responding to my post, namely, I wrote “…where the sides call experts”. Local experts are especially important at the time when you can instantly find on the Web data to support either side of the debate, and when to assess correctness of this data one needs to have an actuarial science degree.
Many local experts – doctors, law enforcement – testified in support of the ban or endorsed it. The only MD voiced her opposition to the ban publicly (unless I’m missing something) is Dr. Munkacy.
Does not disregarding these expert opinions demonstrate contempt for knowledge?
You know, Anotoly, the local doctors must know the extent of damage that alcohol causes young brains and bodies and have never once mentioned it. They could very well have come out with a statement about the effect of all substance abuse on the adolescent brain and body, but they didn’t. They made a big darn deal about just one of the many substances young people are abusing. Leaves me to believe that there’s an agenda here.
You can get a highly addictive opioid from all of those doctors, but no one’s pointed that out. Have these doctors ever prescribed opioids to their patients? Just curious. Prescribed opioids are a known source of the beginning of an addiction that begins a downward spiral.
Just curious – what’s the difference in price of a prescription to an addictive opioid and a dose of cannabis that will take care of the pain? Over the course of this past year, I’ve found the price of just about any medically prescribed drug to be mind boggling.
Have any of these doctors ever accepted a sample of a drug from a drug company? It’s a common practice and these doctors should have no trouble saying no they haven’t if that’s the case. If they have, then they need to own up to it.
Many city employees have a connection with a wide range of high school students. The police chief has experience primarily with kids who are in a bad place emotionally or behaviorly. Might that not color his opinion?
One day I asked my son if he knew the principal of his school well and his response was immediate – “No, and that’s the good news.” I’m glad that Newton has employees that are on top of kids who may be heading in the wrong direction, but our experiences may skew our perspective.
I hope everybody enjoys the upcoming 4-6% increase in our auto insurance rates courtesy of the marijuana industry.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2018/10/study_auto_insurance_to_feel_contact_high
Here is the whole article so nobody accuses me of cherry-picking the information. It is captioned “Study: Auto Insurance to Feel Contact High” and it reads:
Massachusetts drivers can expect to see their auto insurance rates go up thanks to legalized pot — even if they don’t smoke it themselves, industry experts say, with a new study showing car crashes are on the rise in states where recreational marijuana is sold.
“You’re looking at an increase of around 4 to 6 percent in overall coverage,” predicted James Lynch, chief actuary at the Insurance Information Institute.
The new study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found car crashes are up by as much as 6 percent in Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — all states with legal pot sales — compared to neighboring states that haven’t legalized weed for recreational use.
“There’s a pretty direct correlation,” Lynch said of the insurance study’s findings, noting that insurance rates will rise to cover the cost of increased accident rates. Lynch predicted that Massachusetts residents will see their rates go up within the next one to two years.
The opening of retail pot shops in Massachusetts is expected soon, as state regulators approved final licenses for two shops earlier this month.
“We want to make people aware that there is a social cost involved,” Lynch said.
The IIHS study compared Colorado’s accident rate with Nebraska, Wyoming and Utah, and compared Oregon and Washington with Idaho and Montana.
Mary Maguire, a spokeswoman for AAA Northeast, said the association is “certainly concerned” about the study and a potential increase in car crashes in Massachusetts. She said AAA is looking into the impact on roadway safety and trying to create “common sense regulations” to keep drivers safe on the road.
IIHS analysts controlled the study for differences in the rated driver population, insured vehicle fleet, the mix of urban versus rural exposure, unemployment, weather and seasonality. According to IIHS, collision claims are the most frequent claims that insurers receive.
Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commissioner Britte McBride said employees of marijuana retailers should take interest in preventing impaired driving.
“We require owners, managers, and employees to be trained on subjects like detecting impairment and the physical effects of marijuana on the human body and provide that information to consumers. Drivers who consume marijuana must educate themselves about the risks and take precautions, including making plans for sober transportation, for the safety and protection of everyone on the road,” McBride said in a statement.
Marijuana is still an illegal controlled substance under federal law and driving under the influence of pot is illegal is all 50 states.
Thos study was done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and reported by James Lynch, chief actuary at the Insurance Information Institute.
C’mon, Abe. A study done by the insurance industry saying insurance companies are going to raise insurance rates in Massachusetts even before one retail cannabis shop has opened? And we’re expected to buy take this seriously?
May I highlight the final sentence: “Marijuana is still an illegal controlled substance under federal law and driving under the influence of pot is illegal is all 50 states.” Get that, folks – don’t drive drunk or high. It’s illegal.
Jane- None so blind as those who will not see!
Having stores in Newton will not change anything for those young people who smoke way too much and are being treated at McClean.
They are already buying all the pot they want and the only thing that stores would change for them (if they are over 21 that is), is that they can buy (if they can afford it) a regulated (i.e. cleaner) product. If they are younger, they will continue to do buy on the black market.
Having stronger cannabis means that you have to use less to achieve the same result. It doesn’t make the product unsafe. Cannabis sold in stores will be sold by knowledgeable people who will advise their customer how to use the product. Again, the stuff sold on the black market is a wild card. Who knows how potent it is, or what’s in it for that matter.
Tax revenue from sales could (and should IMO) be used to fund a comprehensive drug program that will show results in lowering teen usage.
These prohibitionists are so freaking arrogant. They cherry pick any anti-cannabis propaganda they can find on the internet and present it here like it’s gospel. These are the very same people who attempted to block medical marijuana in Newton. Their collective goal is to reverse implementation of the voter’s 2016 law that ended cannabis prohibition, and then go after medical marijuana. Because Newton has a reputation for being one of the most progressive cities in Massachusetts, a prohibitionist victory here in November would give their movement substantial momentum statewide…
The silver lining is that support for the prohibitionist position in Newton is about as deep as a spilled glass of water. Without inside help they received from like minded public officials, this story would have been over in 2016. And if we had a straight up or down revote, the prohibitionists would get smoked again this November…
It’s not by accident that the physical ballot for next month’s vote fails to adequately explain how a voter can reaffirm their 2016 vote in favor of ending prohibition. That explanation should have been included because of the addition of a second ballot proposal addressing the same issue.
If you voted to end marijuana prohibition in 2016–and you want to reaffirm that vote now–then you should vote “no” on both ballot proposals next month. I’m not a fan of hedging your bet by voting “yes” on the 2-4 compromise. I think that compromise lends credibility to the ignorance of the prohibitionists and would hand them a partial victory that they don’t deserve.
Mike, I voted at city hall yesterday.
The good news is that on the question to ban, after the summary, in the one sentence part at the end where the voter fills in yes or no, the ballot says – vote no to follow the regulations set up after the 2016 vote making marijuana legal. (I’m paraphrasing.)
On the question to limit stores to 2-4 it says – vote no to keep the regulations set up after the 2016 vote legalizing recreational marijuana – setting total stores at 8, 20% of the number of liquor stores. (Again paraphrasing.)
The bad news – they ask if you want the municipal ballot after handing you the state ballot.
Hi Marty– Why would you vote early? The prohibitionists haven’t had an opportunity to make the case that cannabis stores in Newton will contribute to tooth decay in bottlenose dolphin…
All joking aside… I chose my words carefully in that earlier post about the physical ballot that “fails to adequately explain how a voter can reaffirm their 2016 vote…” My concern is that the well endorsed 2-4 proposal gets a lot of votes from pro cannabis people who don’t realize there is a need to vote on both proposals. Since a majority of Newton voters already voted in favor of legal cannabis in 2016, the ballot should have more clearly instructed voters that they must vote no on both proposals to reaffirm their previous vote.
apologies… M-a-r-t-i… got it!
Fear not, Mike Striar, there are good news for you: https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/big-marijuana-pend-big-money-big-gun-against-pot-hop-ban.
@Abe Zoe: With all due respect, the insurance companies will grab onto any excuse to raise my auto insurance rates. I had my first accident ever when I lightly tapped the rear end of car in the Star Market Parking lot. Despite my 50 years of no accidents, I still got a surcharge that stays with me for a number of years. How else can they pay their top executives multi million dollar salaries plus God knows how many perks.
Henry Howell was a fiery Progressive State Senator in Virginia during the 1960s when he ran for Governor against the entrenched, reactionary and morbidly corrupt “Byrd Machine”. They always claimed that they faithfully obeyed all the laws which was true since they wrote them all. Anyhow, Henry ran on a consumer platform and almost won. ASfrican Americans, Labor, Consumer Groups, even some Wallace supporters. His best TV ad had him saying something like:
“Every year the BIG BOYS raise your auto insurance rates and every year like clock work Henry Howell fights em tooth and nail. They tax your patent medicines, your lumbago and your arthritis, but they don’t tax their country club memberships. There’s more going around in the dark than Santa Claus.”
So Abe, I wouldn’t lose any sleep worrying about the viability of the insurance industry in Massachusetts or anywhere else in America.
Hi Anatoly,
I don’t want to keep going around in circles. We’ll just end up back at the same tired arguments. I have listened and do listen very carefully to our community members including our public safety and medical experts. What I’ve heard over and over is that illegal distribution and illegal consumption of marijuana especially by minors is bad. Problem is, that’s not the question before us.
The question we have before us is whether to allow or deny access inside Newton to a legal product by law-abiding citizens. On that topic our local experts are moralizing, they don’t have first-hand knowledge.
So instead I’m guided by Garden Remedies’ multi-year track record and abutters’ statements (I was also at the first GR meeting in Newton Highlands early this year, to hear what abutters had to say). And guess what — it seems to have been no big deal. One of the local neighbors favors a ban — so Garden Remedies won’t expand its parking lot. That it’s about traffic rather than criminality tells us something about how much of a not-big-deal their store front in Newton has been.
I wonder how exactly cash-only businesses operate? Do they deposit cash collected from their customers into somebody else’s account? Do they pay their employees and vendors in cash? Do they disburse taxes in cash?
Does anybody know?
Speaking of available data, some weeks back Jennifer Adams was promoting a poll with intent to share the results within a week of that poll.
Does anyone know whatever happened and whether the results were made available?
[Also we never did find out who conducted that phone poll that some people said they got weeks ago… I don’t know my political spending laws, but it seems like somebody at some point have come forward as the sponsor of that poll, and said something – no matter how skewed – about those results…]
The ballot committees are due to submit their campaign fianance reports to city hall tomorrow. RFSN disavowed the poll and RTV was created as a ballot committee long after it was conducted. If either of these entities received the output of the poll I’d think that would be considered an in-kind contribution from the entity commissioning the poll.
Watch this space at the end of the day:
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/elections/campaign_finance.asp
As I’ve pointed out a half dozen times or more, it’s possible that the poll was not conducted by any ballot committee or campaign.
Thanks Jack! Of course I am traveling again this week, but will be watching from afar with great interest.
Jack – I don’t know how many times I have to say this. RFSN hd nothing to do with the poll in any manner. As a public employee, I’m not involved with fundraising in this or any campaign and don’t have detailed information about receipts. However, I do know that I funded about 80% of the campaign for the first month, with a donation and a loan I had no way of knowing I’d be repaid.
RFSN formed as a ballot committee on September 10th, just 7 weeks ago. In that time, a steering committee on its own has managed to:
– study carefully the regulations that will govern the adult retail cannabis store in Massachusetts
-create, order, put together and put up 105 lawn signs
-create a website that’s updated daily
-created a Facebook page
-create a piece of literature to use when we canvass
-write two 250 word statements to be sent to voters,
-canvass,
-spend hours on the phone answering questions and explaining our position to voters
-develop an endorsement list that includes many well respected current and former city councilors, school committee members and activists,
-made presentations to the LWV, four area councils, the Newton Dems, and tomorrow evening to the Newton Republicans,
– develop a clear message to voters to explain our position: “regulate adult cannabis shops, don’t ban them.”
The steering committee did this work on its own, with each member taking on different tasks. I have done little else but this campaign and I’m not in any way complaining about the work – I took it on because I believe in the position that RFSN has taken and for no other reason. Not to mention, I enjoy campaigns (as many people know).
But I just arrived home today after another 8 hour day spent working on this campaign to read yet another attack from you on the integrity of a group of people who have done nothing other than disagree with you. You have no right to attack the integrity of people you barely know or don’t know at all, either explicitly or by implication. I’ve tried to be patient with your outright and implied attacks on my/or character but today I say Enough. You need to stop it. Just stop it.
I’ve worked on a lot of campaigns, and this group is the best – hardworking, committed, takes on a responsibility and gets things done, and does it with a sense of humor. This, Jack, is what democracy looks like.
@Jane — It was not meant to be an attack. I said you didn’t do the poll. RFSN did not do this poll. But “disavowed” was not the best word choice for that— please accept my apology.
@Greg — People or organizations making expenditures seeking to influence a ballot measure (or to guide strategy for influencing) need to report these expenditures (particularly if they are not a campaign or ballot committee):
http://files.ocpf.us/pdf/guides/guidemunibq.pdf
“Individuals may contribute to ballot question committees in any amount.
Corporations, including business, professional and not-for- profit corporations, may contribute to ballot question com- mittees without limitation
Any corporation that has expended any money or anything of value, or promised to do so, in order to influence or affect the vote on any question submitted to voters at a city or town election must file Form CPF M 22 (Report of Ballot Question Expenditures by Corporation or Organization) with the city or town clerk or election commission of the municipality in which the election was held.”
People receiving the poll reported that it seemed that it was designed to influence. The results would certainly have been of value in guiding subsequent activity and expenditures. As you said, it could be rationalized as having other primary purposes.
Jack – If your apology was sincere, you would have left it at that. But you didn’t. These are your words: “People receiving the poll reported that it seemed that it was designed to influence. The results would certainly have been of value in guiding subsequent activity and expenditures.”
You continue to attack the integrity of people you don’t even know – and at a certain point, that reflects on you, not the people you attack. Redirecting the attack onto Greg’s statement was too clever by half.
@Jane — that comment was intended to be directed at your or RSFN. It was just an explanation to Greg why the poll seems worth bring up again (and again).
Someone paid for what has been alleged on this blog as campaign influencing poll. Depending on how broad it was, it might have been the most significant expenditure associated with this campaign. We don’t know who it was. The purpose of campaign finance law is so that the public knows who paid for what when something like that occurs. In this case it appears we will never know.
… was not intended…
Jack — I’m also looking forward to learning how much RtV reports they spent on Five Corners Strategies and their paid canvassers and over-sized mailers. …
Jack – As I recall, the poll took place September 10 or 11th, and the reason I remember that date is because RFSN had one donation at the time – from me! It was a ridiculous accusation to say that we had paid for the poll, but you kept at it – to this day! You bet “disavowed” was the wrong word-it implied that we were not being honest. That’s why people object to your accusations. Too often they are clearly off base and you attack people’s’ character and you just won’t quit. If I hadn’t called you on it, you would have been perfectly content to let the implication that RFSN was involved to remain. When it keeps happening over and over, wouldn’t any normal person assume that your use of wording that implies dishonesty or shady behavior is intentional? Just stop implying that people you don’t even know are being dishonest.
Enough already.
@Jane I can understand you don’t want RSFN to be falsely accused of anything. However, that is not how I read Jack’s post. He was merely saying that all of the ballot committees will need to file their finance reports today and include any money that has been spent or is scheduled to be spent including any poll that might have taken place back in September. I don’t think anybody thinks that RSFN was responsible for that poll or any other large expenditures but whoever was will, by law, need to report it. Any such expenditures and donations are legal unless not reported.
I am fully aware of that, Sarah.
Jack has a significant history with implying dishonesty with groups I’ve been associated with. He’s done it with impunity up to this point and it was time to tell him to stop.
I have no more to say on this subject.
I have no idea who conducted the survey and it’s possible we will know later today. But I can say with certainty that this back and forth is pretty tedious.
It is possible that the survey was not done for campaign purposes. For example, a business owner or investor who was considering opening a recreational shop here could have done it to see if such a venture would be worth their time/money. Media outlets also conduct option surveys.
@Jane – The poll was reported 9/11 6:40 pm and 8 minutes later OON clarified that they were not responsible for or associated with the poll. https://village14.com/2018/09/09/opt-out-stick-with-straight-forward-democracy/
Or more concisely – OON disavowed it. I used that term in a comment about them on 9/13 in that thread. I was trying to be concise – 1 word replacing 10. Are there better synonyms? The vast majority of the definitions/usages I can find don’t associate it with dishonesty. On the other hand, I belatedly realized some very familiar usages do (e.g. “Mission Impossible”), so again I apologize.
On the evening of 9/11 there were no other known ballot committees, so the funding of the poll was a source of concern and discussion. In what seemed (at the time) like a response to that discussion, the legal formation of RFSN (on 9/10) was announced to V14 the morning of 9/12 in link above.
On the evening of 9/12 I asked for a 2-4 rationale and if RFSN had commissioned the poll. There was a response to the 2-4 question, but not to the poll question, so I (incorrectly) went forward assuming RFSN had commissioned the poll and that it had (correctly and honestly) ensured a legal ballot committee was in place before the poll launched.
There was no clarification that RFSN was not responsible for or associated with the poll until 9/17 (4 days later).
One of us thought it was ridiculous to think a ballot committee would have the funds on day 1 for a $10K poll. One of us thought it was obvious that one could. Today’s RTV filing shows it had $55K in credit from a single donor to spend on day one, so perhaps we can agree to disagree?
Since 9/17 I don’t recall suggesting RFSN conducted the poll. I have suggested that if the poll results had been shared with any of the three ballot committees, it should be disclosed as an in-kind contribution (while there was still time to do so before today).
As we’ve covered, I think the city council choosing to not having 2-4 conditioned on opt-out created a prisoner’s dilemma mess, and is not clean democracy, but understand many on the pro side see it as a valid and fair means of potentially defeating an opt-out majority vote.
Thanks for the rest of the feedback. We had a difficult battle in the last election. The NO group strongly disagreed with some of the YES group’s key statements and vice versa. If you want to point to cases where that discussion crossed the line on my part (by email), so I can learn from it, I would appreciate it. – Jack
For those interested, the campaign filings are posted: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/elections/campaign_finance.asp
A few observations:
* OON paid $6K for professional signature gatherers
* RTV paid for $15K (thus far) for professional canvassers
* RSFN spent $1557 on lawn signs as primary expense and raised roughly that net of loans from ~19 donors ($20-$500)
* OON raised ~$33K from ~105 donors ($20-$5500)
* RTV accrued $55K in spending and one donation ($20K)
* RTV bought $2500 in lawn signs that I’ve yet to see on a lawn.
And for the 2nd year running, the largest contribution to a Newton ballot campaign… came from Wellesley.
@Jack: Can you forward links to the campaign filings?
Respect the Vote: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/92401
Opt Out Newton: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/92381
Responsible Start for Newton: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/92398
@Jack, more to the point, one Wellesley resident is spending tens of thousands (at least) telling Newtonians to “Respect the Vote” so he can open a marijuana store.
Jack – there you go again…
OON raised $32,000 from July 9th – three months after they began raising money on a GoFundMe count that included anonymous donors. As I recall, by that point, they had raised $22,000. 22,000 +32,000 dollars = $55,000. One donation is for $5500, several are for $2000, and multiple donations were for between $500 and $1000, many for $200-$300. And who’s donating $5000 from Wesborough, or $4000 from Norfolk? Yup – OON has a lot of wealthy donors, living in some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city. Lots of lawyers, financial professionals and they never miss an opportunity to let you know about it in every conversation (“As a lawyer…” “As a doctor..).
More importantly, you play with numbers and you play with words, but it falls apart with a more careful look. OON is the organization with the most funding, with many if not most, coming from wealthy neighborhoods. You should have let the financial reports stand on their own merits. You invite criticism when you play with words. RFSN had two $500 donations not a range of $20 – $500. Most donations were between $25 and $50 and you perfectly well know that.
As for Respect the Vote, they’ve been a ballot committee working on this for all of one month and you criticize them. Try it sometime, Jack. Just once try organizing a campaign in seven weeks or one month. These ballot committees are typically formed months before the actual work begins – not 4 to 7 weeks before the election.
This has been suspect since day 1. Why on earth would anyone think the city council would repeal an ordinance they’d passed just seven weeks before? If we’d known, that would have given a ballot committee seven extra weeks to organize and campaign. Can someone explain why the community didn’t hear about this until September 4th? Why the council rushed it through the P & S committee in one night and the city council voted on it the very next night, without publicizing it to the community?
You’re right, Jack. Money talks. Just not the way you play with the facts.
Jane – what you have done as a “force of one” (mean as a complement) is impressive, as the main shoestring contributor to your First Step committee.
But Respect the Vote is entirely funded by a Wellesley pot shop investor/hedge fund manager who wants to sway our community to do what his will not. Wellesley has banned pot shops — so Mr. Chiang won’t have to live near one. Somehow I doubt he’s planning to buy a home on Elliot Street…. or Court Street… because Pot Shop burdens are for the working middle class folks — not wealthy people like him!
Mr. Chiang’s pot company has put in $20,000 cash so far, but spending by the professional companies he brought in (like the national political consultants Five Corners Strategies) is way more than that. Mr. Chiang’s out-of-towner efforts to open up Newton so he can open up his pot shop here — so far — have added up to over $70,000! He may not have put up the cash for that yet, but those bills will have to be paid by him and his pot company.
No comparison at all to what REAL Newton residents — like you and Opt Out Newton have been doing to decide the future of OUR City.
Mr. Chiang — if you want pot shops you should go run a campaign in Wellesley where you live and leave us in Newton to exercise LOCAL CONTROL!
@Jane, The $32k that OON has raised includes ALL the money that has been raised since last spring from over 100 donors. The dates are a little off because some of the dates are when we confirmed addresses of donors, not when they were received (sorry for the confusion on that). We have no donors from Norfolk. One donor from Westborough gave $2,000, not $5000. Please ask us questions privately before publishing bogus numbers. We promise to do the same if we have any questions with your numbers.
To respond to RSFN comment above…
The OON Gofundme account shows its first donation on 7/9 and that squares with the filing. That was done after the ballot committee was formed on June 21st. I suspect the donors choosing to be listed as anonymous on the gofundme page appear to be listed in the disclosure. So OON raised $32K not $55K. Donor from Westborough was $2K not $5k. I don’t see any donor from Norfolk. The signature collection firm is from Norfolk.
RTV’s owes its political strategy firm $55K for services and expenses. Its founder contributed $20K to the filing on the last day (10/19). RFSN donations were in the range of $20-$500, including 2 at $500.
It’s not clear if RTV has a “committee”. It has a founder (who is chair and treasurer) and a political strategy firm that it owes $55K to as of 10/19 as far as the disclosure reveals.
The city council effectively didn’t repeal anything. 2-4 is on the ballot as proposed. The ballot also includes an opt-out question. The council didn’t decide anything. They put questions to the voters.
In terms of numbers I don’t believe I got anything wrong numbers wise. I just tried to present a summary of filings that can be confusing to people in terms of liabilities and expenses.
Here is a number that can be checked though. Are there more personal attacks than mistakes in the RSFN comment above? It is a close call — I count 5 each.
My mistake, Laurie, the family who donated $5500 is from Newton. The $2000 donation is from Westborough. Two others donated $2000, with multiple $500 donations. $100 is a smaller donation to OON. I hate the expression NIMBY and never use it, but it appears from your list of donors, that’s exactly what’s happened here. I’d expected many more small donations.
RFSN has focused on our message – Regulate adult retail cannabis stores, don’t ban them. We’ve attended events, talked to a ton of people and have many community leaders who back us. I urge everyone to go to our website nobannewton.org and click on Supporters and you’ll see many names you recognize because they are people who’ve donated their time over many years to making Newton the city that it is. Writing checks isn’t activism.
Please don’t compare us to Opt Out, Abe, because I don’t see focusing on getting donations from the wealthiest sections of the city as a grassroots effort. Don’t you remember the hue and cry just last year when the financial report related to the charter campaign came out and several developers were on the list? Some from people on your donor list! Well, you folks should have expected the same hue and cry. We’re discovering 7 days before the election that the vast majority of your funding comes from the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city.
Every referendum has always has a ballot committee formed by the industry and it certainly doesn’t seem to bother people. No on Question 1 (the nurses) is funded be a pac and that certainly doesn’t seem to bother anyone. I see No signs all over the city and no complaints about the dark money funding it the $7 million from who knows where that’s funding it. The 2016 Yes on Question 2 (lift the cap on charter schools) was funded by $30,000 of dark money from Wall St. hedge fund managers and the Walton family from Arkansas. Sorry, but $20,000 is what RTV has spent in the one month’s time with 7 days left to campaign. I had expected way more than that and was shocked to see the amount.
One OON member said I was doing the “work of the industry for no money”, when I’m doing what I usually do -working for the position I believe in. Nothing more and nothing less. At least we’ll have OON off our backs now that they see that we are in fact a the only real grassroots organization.
@Abe Chang – Really?? Only Newton residents should open businesses in Newton? Non-resident business owner are not welcome? They should not participate in the political process?
There are “no bad guys” here. They are doing exactly what was intended with the 2016 referendum vote that legalized retail marijuana shops. Like every business owner they are risking their money to launch a legal business. After many months of investment navigating the City and State regulatory thicket this referendum question was put on the ballot to shut down their businesses before they began. Why wouldn’t or shouldn’t they, or any business owner, make their case to the residents of Newton before the Nov ballot.
Likewise Opt-Out and RSFN both have sincerely held beliefs and are actively campaigning to convince their fellow citizens of the virtues of their positions.
This is all just democracy in action. No need to try to defame your opponents, just make your case. We’ll have one more vote next week and we’ll find out what the electorate thinks soon enough.
@Jane, it’s factually incorrect to say that RSFN is the only grassroots ballot committee. I counted 71 OON donations that are $100 or less (including 21 that are less than $100) and RSFN has 20 that are $100 or less (13 that are less than $100). RSFN has done a lot with very little money, but it actually has far less grassroots financial support than OON. If boots and signs on the ground are any indication, I’d say it has far less volunteer support as well. The fact that OON also has donors who gave more doesn’t make it any less grassroots, especially since their donors, like yours, have no financial interest in the outcome. Stick with the facts, please.
@Sarah – I concur. I think Opt-Out was an impressive grassroots effort — much to my chagrin 😉
Of course, there’s no guarantee that grassroots support will lead to a win at the poll. Jane got one fact right, and that is “money talks,” and the marijuana companies have a lot of it and are freely spending it. I got a third mailing from RTV today (and several visits from very nice paid RTV canvassers).
RtV’s latest professionally prepared “campaign collateral” touts that the pot shops Mr. Chiang (and other potpreneaurs) want to open in OUR city supposedly won’t be near schools (500 feet — less than a football field…) and won’t be in village centers.
Somehow they neglect to mention that they WILL be right next to HOMES on Court Street and Elliot Street. As Councillor Gentile said — throwing those hard working citizens under the bus.
@Abe Zoe – Yes, those homes on Elliot St have been across the street from a retail strip for many years. Whether or not the retail marijuana shops open up, those houses will still be across the street from retail businesses – gas station, liquor store, laundromat, CVS, etc
Great rationalizing, Jerry.
Let’s burden their neighborhoods even more!
As Councilor Gentile said: Throwing them under the bus, once again!
But not everyone would consider it a burden.
@Jerry Reilly – All other retail businesses are not cash-only. Even Greg Reibman acknowledged that “cash only stores would be a big risk”. But our anti-knowledge party rejects the facts.
@abe zoe – no rationalizations here. I’m pointing out that I believe most people would prefer living across the street from one of these clean quiet discrete shops rather than many of the alternative uses for that retail premise. I certainly would.
Abe- The city map shows appropriate locations will be. Respect the Vote got the map from the city. RTV took the time to get the facts straight.
You too can get copy of the map. It’s a public document.
Just to be clear … I would have no problem living across the street from an actual, real, retail marijuana store. I definitely would NOT want to live near one of the imaginary hellholes that Opt-Out have been describing as retail marijuana shops.
I’d like to remind everybody that a few years ago when the Garden Remedies medical marijuana facility was proposed, virtually every negative description that Opt-Out has used in this campaign was used to describe what the Garden Remedies facility would be like when it opened.
* Creepy people coming into the neighborhood as customers
* Horrendous traffic
* Kids being exposed to pot
* People smoking pot outside the building
* Danger of crime and robbery
* Pot getting into kid’s hands
* Property values plummeting
* Increased car accidents
Now take a ride over to Washington St and see if you can find the completely unobtrusive Garden Remedies. If you do, you’ll find it’s no more of a plague on the neighborhood than a lawyer’s office.
From what I’ve seen, the Opt-Out campaign is not primarily about retail stores, rather it is primarily folks who were implacably against the state legalization vote in 2016. Much of the messaging throughout this campaign has just been generally against marijuana. When the information being disseminated was specifically related to retail stores much of it has been based on fear tactics that are divorced from the actual reality of retail marijuana stores.
As I say, if you doubt it, go check out Garden Remedies and see how many of those dire predictions came true – none of them.
@Jerry Reilly – If you doubt cigarette smoking is harmless, go check out my uncle Joe who in his eighties is still a chain-smoker and has no health problems. Typical anti-knowledge’s party approach to risk assessment.
Cigarette smoking has nothing to do with this discussion except that cigarettes are still readily available and easy to get at any gas station or mini mart. Unlike regulated marijuana which will only be sold in secure marijuana stores where teens are not even allowed to enter.
What Opt-Out is trying to say is: there is risk, and there is no honor in being a pioneer in this area. Unless you are a potpreneur of course.
Nor is no honor in having the wealthiest people in the city – who live nowhere near the places where these shops will be, who can afford to send their kids to private schools if they’re underfunded, who can supplement services the city can’t provide – sending $2million in revenue that Newton needs to Brookline, Natick, Belmont, Watertown, Framingham, Cambridge, Somerville, and Boston.
One thing I definitely agree with is that the wealthiest people in the city live nowhere near the places where these shops will be. And that’s why I think pot shops will only grow inequality in the city.
I’d also like to remind that $2 million (even if achievable) is half of a percent of the city budget, or about $60 per household/per year. We normally pay much more for various risks mitigation.
Anatoly, speak for yourself. Not for those about whom you know nothing.
Since I know my neighbors and the members of the Newtonville Area Council I can say that almost everyone who lives on Court Street is fine with Garden Remedies expanding to sell recreational marijuana. Their one complaint was that the parking lot not be increased in size which GR agreed to. Court Street residents have bigger problems with the ridiculous, super high priced condo building crammed onto their street.
As for the residents near the proposed marijuana retail store on Eliot Street, I would think that living next to a liquor store would have been their major complaint. A retail marijuana store will not add anything worse than a liquor store. Minors can go in liquor stores but not in secure marijuana stores.
AK- Other than Garden remedies, the retail shops will not be near any residents at all. Here is an article from the NN Chamber of Commerce that shows the very few appropriate places for an adult-use retail shop.
https://www.nnchamber.com/news/where-would-newton-s-marijuana-stores-be-allowed-to-open
The article says : “The next thing you should know is that under state law, consuming cannabis inside or in front of one of these stores is a crime”. What law exactly makes consuming cannabis INSIDE of these stores a crime?
Also, can anybody please answer my question about cash-only modus operandi (see my post above posted on October 28, 2018 at 11:45 am)?
Anatoly, to be so out spoken about banning a legal retail store, I’m surprised you know so little about your subject. It’s in the laws and regulations governing retail marijuana stores. Read them sometime.
@Anatoly Even you’re falling for the misleading $2 million revenue estimate?! Remember only 1/3 of that estimate was for funds that could go into the city’s general fund. The remaining $1.3 million can only be used to recover direct impact costs like police details.
@Jane Stop Your Lies about retail shops not near homes. Cypress Tree wants to locate across the street from a bunch of homes near Rt 9. That’s why you see a bunch of signs there that get stolen and then replaced. The residents even have a photo of a person that does not live there walking with the signs. He is a person of interest in a police investigation. Also the skunkweed store that the Lipof brother was involved with was trying to locate at Four Corners near a bunch of homes.
@Marti If everybody from Court St is fine with GR going recreational, why did so many of them come to the public hearing at the City Council to speak against it?
Bruce, how long ago was the council meeting? Do you know any residents of Court Street? Do you know what their major complaint was? Do you live in Ward 2 even?
They Eliot street location is in a strip mall. Someone has convinced the few residents down the street to be afraid of a marijuana store – if not someone should explain to them that the liquor store would be way more rowdy than a secure regulated unabtrusive retail marijuana stores.
Do you live there? Do you know residents who do? If not let them express their own opinion.
It’s very obvious to me that the neighbors of the Elliot Street Street including those who live across the street have a legitimate concern about the traffic impact of a successful shop across or near their driveways. The traffic is already often backed up at that site waiting to get into or out of p the CVS, gas station, laudromat, etc. or to get onto Route 9 east or westbound, or into the rest of the city. The restaurants that were previously located in the building were not that successful as is demonstrated by their vacant status and thus generated far less traffic than a successful shop might. There were lines around the block over night at some of the new shops in Canada. The neighbors of this site as well as the possible one on Beacon Street are not unreasonable to fear a major impact on their quality of life .
The proposal to allow recreational shops in Business 2 Districts showed ignorance of these sites very near to residential sites. A better idea would be to put them on sites that need new businesses like the vacancies on Needham Street or Welles Avenue.
There were lines around the block when Shake Shake opened. Now? Not so much.
Anatoly – The law is explicit that the use of any substance in the store is prohibited.
@Brian Yates – So does that mean that the city should not allow that landlord to rent to anyone that may have a successful business there?
As I understand it the traffic study that was done said that this use would generate less traffic than Green Tea did. As a regular take-out customer of the former Green Tea I can confirm that they between their eat-in and take-out customers, and their own staff and delivery service, Green tea generated a fair amount of traffic.
Jane, what law are you talking about? The Cannabis Control Commission’s “Guidance for Municipalities Regarding Marijuana for Adult Use” provides for Marijuana Social Consumption Establishments for “consumption on the premises”. See https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/010918CNB-Guidance-Municipalities-Adult-Use.pdf.
It may be delayed, we are told, until late 2019, but:
“In addition to being the first East Coast state to open doors to recreational dispensaries, there is a chance Massachusetts could also be the first to open cannabis cafés. This may not happen until late 2019, and it will take some serious negotiations to get there; but, unlike other states which have banned the idea outright, Massachusetts seems committed to the thought”. (https://www.leafly.com/news/industry/moving-to-massachusetts-for-legal-cannabis).
Anatoly, leafy is a biased publication. Quotes from it have no credibility. All we know now it that cannibis cafes are not legal in MA.
To your earlier point about consuming marijuana in the retail stores – that isn’t even on the table. So yes it is illegal.
Jane, you wrote: “Other than Garden remedies, the retail shops will not be near any residents at all”. What about the area along Washington Street close to Trader Joe’s shown on the map? No residents there?
Massachusetts Question 4 (2016 Marijuana Legalization Initiative), 13(c):
“This subsection shall not apply to a person who consumes marijuana or marijuana products in a designated area of a marijuana establishment located in a city or town that has voted to allow consumption on the premises where sold”
Illegal, really?
Anatoly, you must be having trouble understanding the quote you posted.
Has Newton “voted to allow consumption on the premises where [marijuana] is sold?” No. It’s illegal.
You are really grasping for straws.
The Cannabis Control Commission is now the regulatory group, not what was written in the referendum. The CCC has tightened up the regulations and I suggest you read it.
Jane, it’s not “what was written in the referendum”. It’s what is in the law: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter94G/Section13.
The CCC provides for Marijuana Social Consumption Establishments for “consumption on the premises” here: https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/010918CNB-Guidance-Municipalities-Adult-Use.pdf.
Could you please give me a pointer to a document that “has tightened up the regulations”?
@Anatoly Kleyman – You’re now just furiously muddying the water. There are no “Marijuana Social Consumption Establishments” in Newton. There are no proposed Marijuana Social Consumption Establishments” in Newton. The upcoming referendum question is not voting on “Marijuana Social Consumption Establishments”.
We are voting on retail stores and there is definitely no consumption allowed in retail stores.