The Boston Globe’s “This week in weed” newsletter asked all the Democratic candidates running for Congress in the 4th District primary their views on the legalization of marijuana.
The Globe also published a story this week headlined Rivals hit Jake Auchincloss over marijuana skepticism.
As a city councilor, Auchincloss opposed allowing recreational pot stores in Newton, saying substance abuse experts had “begged” him not to implement the ballot initiative in Newton and claiming inaccurately that cannabis use among young people has “exploded” in Colorado since commercial pot sales began there in 2014.
“The retail footprint of marijuana is bad for Newton,” Auchincloss said at a July 2018 Newton City Council meeting. “Newton would be the magnet city for retail marijuana sales, coming from the north, from the west, and from the south. …We’re going to have a lot of intoxicated drivers on Newton roads coming back from the various [cannabis] stores.”
Jake has more experience on pot legalization and the global illicit drug business, as a Newton City Councilor and a Marine captain who trained anti-drug cartel interdiction forces in Panama, than the whole group of candidates combined. In Massachusetts, Newton is the now the epicenter of pot retailers in New England, with up to 8 stores approved by city voters in the recent referendum. His idea that Congress legislates the national ban but state’s assume administration of licenses and municipalities approve locations as the most practical approach to legalized distribution. For those of us who are pro-pot stores, this makes sense since it provides a structure to regulated the roll out (including quality control), which is proving a very, very complicated. This is very similar to how the federal government ended prohibition and eliminated bookleggers. The other candidates are overly idealistic, when they think our federal government can administer pot legalization and open up a “high” economy everywhere with a top-down approach. On the issue of decriminalization, it is important to note that most of the people who are arrested for pot-related crimes are small-time dealers, who end up in state prison not federal penitentiaries. Thus, the racial aspects of pot legalization is very much up to district attorneys, who are well positioned to overlook minor offenses. This is not ideal – but the way it works. Yes, a higher percentage of those arrested are black because it is a good urban business with low-cost entry point (read: Chapter 3 of Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner). Like every city issue Jake evaluates, he approached this one by speaking with experts, constituents and other City officials, reflecting on his experience, and came up with a reasonable position prior to the Newton referendum. And after the referendum, he has supported the voters’ will. So if you are considering all the
Congressional candidates on drug-related issue, Jake is at the top of list for knowledge, experience and analysis.
In terms of Colorado, the official stance of the authorities is that there is not a problem among the youth. The authorities are making a bundle and pushing out a positive narrative. The public truth is pot smoking among young people, especially vaping, has become rampant. This is probably a result of lax controls due to number of stores to police and greedy pot retailers. Personally, I was shocked by how many younger teenagers were high out there
@Thomas Friedman– I want some of what you’re smokin’, because you are freaking out of your mind man. And the only thing crazier would be if the people of the 4th elect a confederate flag waving prohibitionist to congress.
Jake flip-flopped big time on this, obviously because he knows most of the district is in favor of legalization. He has stated publicly, including on V14, that he’s against legalization and has voted “no” in the initial statewide referendum. He has also voted in favor of the opt-out referendum before it was forced on the city with signatures. If federal legalization ever comes to a vote, I want someone else representing me.
@Mike Striar Lol. Great comment.
Of course, it should be legalized and properly regulated. I’ve never smoked or used marijuana and don’t intend to unless it would help with some serious medical or health problem. That said, I cannot fathom how many people continue to believe and act on the utterly false and discredited horror stories about marijuana we were subjected to as kids and young adults via radio, television, newsreels, schools, churches and government propaganda from the 1930s until quite recently. No real record on just how many Americans lost their freedom and careers after being convicted for simply using this product.
Greg, please disclose your high level of bias before you continue posting cherry picked pieces from articles.
E. Miller: Your complaint should be with the Globe, not me, I didn’t publish an article focused on Councilor Auchincloss votes and statements about recreational marijuana, the Globe did.
If any professional media entity reports on inconsistencies in statements from other candidates, you bet I will share those too.
I was at all of the relevant Council meetings except one, where I caught the replay. I heard Jake’s words with my own ears.
He said what he said. If Jake’s now twisting in the wind for it, that’s by his own doing.
FACT CHECK:
Jake never flip-flop-ed on this issue. He had the same stance as Atty. Gen. Maura Healey:
From his newsletter – Feb. 2018:
“My take on recreational marijuana aligns closely with Attorney General Maura Healey’s: I was in favor of de-criminalization and the medicinal use case, but skeptical of recreational cannabis stores in our villages. I accept Massachusetts voters’ decision to embrace recreational use, especially since a majority in Newton were in favor.
However, I believe the state and the city should take the extra six months to get the rules right. Zoning affects the character and built environment of villages for generations; it’s better to be thoughtful, with considerable public input and scenario planning.”
@Thomas H Friedman: how do you think he would vote on federal legalization?