Newton City Councilor Susan Albright, who is chair of the council’s Zoning & Planning committee, had some enlightening comments on an earlier thread about the research she conducted in her role as chair of the committee charged with determining where adult use recreational marijuana shops could locate, if Newton voters reject the Opt-Out referendum Tuesday. It seemed interesting and timely, so I republishing most of it here.
I have talked to many people from states that currently allow adult use. I asked one woman in the Dept of Public Health in Oregon (whom I had called to find data on teenage use) whether there was an adult use shop in her town. She said yes – I asked her what happened there, was she scared to go there? Were there kids hanging around? Were the police frequently called? Was there Trouble with a capital T that rhymes with P that stands for Pool? (sorry I didn’t ask her about Pool). I wanted to get a sense for how she felt about this shop. She said she never went there but it was totally quiet and caused no problems in the town. I got similar answers from whomever i called, including the son of one of my Tufts college friends who works in one in Denver.
I imagine this is what life was like when they were deciding to prohibit liquor. The prohibitionists scared the public that liquor was the foundation of all our problems and the ruination of society – hence we got prohibition. And then had it undone years later.
Our marijuana zoning ordinance was done with care to protect our citizens and to put a store – which is what an adult use shop is – in a place where it was appropriate. As we all know – our zoning code is OLD and we are in the process of updating it. Most of our Villages are Business 1 where adult use shops would NOT be allowed. There are small smatterings of Business 2 in a couple of our villages. We will be able to straighten this out in the new code. In the New code there will be Village specific codes that will apply to a whole village so we can fix those smattering of B2’s in villages and get them out of there. Please don’t forget that any marijuana shop whether it is medical or adult use has to get a special permit. There was so much public uproar about the proposed shops in Newton 4 corners and Newton center that those two proponents have gone on to greener pastures in other towns. This public uproar often stops special permits from even being filed as they did in these two instances. The petitioners knew the road to success was far too difficult.
People in Newton want to and no doubt will purchase marijuana in adult use stores. OON wants them to drive to Waltham, or Watertown or Belmont or Natick or Brookline or Boston or to all the other cities and towns that will be allowing them. So – more cars on the road driving hither, thither, and yon (wherever that is) to purchase what could be purchased right here in Newton.
I’m so tired of hearing about how Weston and Wellesley and Needham won’t be selling marijuana. With the exception of one or two shops recently opened in Needham there are no liquor stores in those towns either. They are and have been driving to Newton to buy liquor. Is anyone upset over that? Have we noticed huge traffic jams all these years because of that? I’m sure the Newton liquor stores are very happy that those towns sell no liquor.
For OON, the sky will fall and Newton will go straight to the dogs if we open any adult use shops in Newton. I’ve stood at City Hall and listened to the dire consequences described by OON about our future. As far as I can tell from my many many conversations with people in other states – the only dire consequences from NOT having shops in Newton is that all Newton’s tax revenue will be going to our neighbors. Frankly, I don’t care if the dollar amount is $200,000 or $2,000,000 – Newton could use that revenue. The schools need the money, our roads need the money, our parks need the money etc.
I have heard many adult use shop supporters say to me during this campaign – don’t come to me asking for an override for the schools if you turn this revenue down. I understand why they are saying this.
I don’t use marijuana (although I have gotten several emails saying nasty things about that to me). I tried it once in college many moons ago – like many of us and haven’t used it since. I know that in 2016 Newton voted to approve retail shops by a large majority and I respect that vote. I’ve done my research and learned that the sky does not fall when a city or town allows it. Teenage use goes down. Oh – and yes – when Canada made adult use legal in the whole country they trained all their police on a new test which does tell if people are driving under the influence – google it if you don’t believe me. The rest is up to the voters.
I have several friends who live in either Oregon and Colorado and they pretty well echo what Susan is saying in this post.
I travel a lot for work. I’ve been to Denver numerous times, Colorado Springs, LA twice, and Las Vegas once since recreational cannabis stores opened in those states. I was also in Canada the week before stores opened, and talked to colleagues in Canada just a few days ago about their perspectives since national legalization.
The observations I’ve got from that:
– I personally don’t like Colorado’s laissez-faire advertising for dispensaries, and I think the Denver metro area has too many stores per capita. Massachusetts got ahead of both of those issues (strict advertising restrictions, caps at 20% of liquor stores).
– Occasionally (maybe once in a multi-day stay here and there) I’ll come across the smell of cannabis while walking through a city. But I get the same thing in U.S. cities (e.g., Philly, NYC, Newark) in states where recreational cannabis is still illegal. Legal or not, it’s out there. Canada, an exception, is weirdly permissive about public consumption (I believe permitted most places where tobacco may be smoked). But public consumption in Massachusetts is still illegal and punishable with a $100 ticket, and I prefer that. It’s common courtesy not to light up anything in a place where it’s going to annoy other people.
– As for traffic/impaired drivers, homeless populations, crime, other issues … as far as I can tell there’s no before vs. after difference. You can see the stores if you know where to look for them, otherwise they disappear into the background.
I’m confident that the Mass. Cannabis Control Commission has established a set of regulations that are far more stringent than those that regulate the 40 liquor stores in the city.
Illegal drugs are available all over Newton and in our schools and will continue to be. If the ban prevails, the only substance that will be banned is regulated, tested, and labeled marijuana sold in highly regulated adult retail stores.
That, and or course, we’ll send significant revenue to Brookline, Belmont, Natick, Framingham, Somerville, Cambridge, or Boston all of whom will happily accept it so they can maintain services and programs.
Every state creates its own regulations, so comparing what’s happened in other states is comparing apples to oranges.
Mass. and Newton voted to approve the use and sale of marijuana in 2016. It’s time to move on.
Here is a more specific listing of the areas that are proposed to be zoned for adult-use marijuana retail:
https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/where-will-pot-shops-be-newton-ban-doesnt-pass
Sarah, the actual map has been posted several times on V14. Each time you either link the one you’ve drawn or list the locations, without identifying the large, half-mile circle around Garden Remedies or indicated there will be one around any spot a retail marijuana store will be located – including the Eliot Street location. The half-mile circle ⭕️ eliminates every location within it. Just another way OON is distributing false information.
As Marti notes, the map and list Sarah linked to does not take into consideration the half mile buffer zone around any established store and the reality that just because an area might allow it under zoning, that doesn’t mean a business will find a leaseable space there, willing landloard, etc. or as Council Albright noted…
The map in the Patch.com article is taken directly from the map that the city has produced and re-drawn slightly to be easier to read. The article clearly states that these are areas zoned for potential locations and, at most, 8 could become actual locations. It also states that there will be a half-mile buffer between any locations.
Councilor Albright is speculating that the areas near village centers that are currently proposed for marijuana retail could change when and if zoning codes are re-designed, but the map the city has published shows zoning as it stands now since the zoning re-design is far from finalized.
Who can we possibly believe — a City Councilor who is Chair of the City’s Zoning & Planning Committee? Or Sarah’s link to a Newton Patch contributor who didn’t include full disclosure of her status as Opt Out Newton supporter?
On a more serious note, I am glad to see that Jennifer Adams (Patch contributor) finally did post a follow-up to her 29 September Newton Patch poll. I would’ve liked to have seen the results, even knowing they are faulty results. In lieu of that, it’s nice to have an explanation why the poll went down the memory hole.
“Who can we possibly believe — a City Councilor who is Chair of the City’s Zoning & Planning Committee?”
I cannot believe somebody who says that “in 2016 Newton voted to approve retail shops”. This is the old “respect the vote” lie that actually got me started.
I believe the chair of the Zoning & Planning Committee.
And Newton voters did approve the legalization of recreational marijuana for adults in 2016, which of course included allowing for adult use retail shops.
The Patch article merely provides more detail to Councilor Albright’s post. It doesn’t contradict it. You don’t need to choose between the two. They are complementary.
Greg, I don’t get it. If “in 2016 Newton voted to approve retail shops”, then another vote must be illegal.
But in truth your statement should be corrected as follows:
And Newton voters did approve the legalization of recreational marijuana for adults in 2016, which of course included the right of every community to opt out of retail marijuana stores by ballot measure and City Council vote
Anatoly: you must be confusing me with someone else. I never said the opt out vote on Tuesday was illegal. I said Newton voters approved adult use recreational marijuana in 2016. Because they did. And I fully expect they will again.
If you need to refresh your memory:
St.2017, c.55 An Act to ensure safe access to marijuana
This law outlines the ability of cities and towns to exercise local control to ban or limit the development of marijuana establishments (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-marijuana-possession).
But Anatoly. the state and the city did approve the use and sale of marijuana in the state in 2016. That’s just factual information. Yes, some people in the city voted against it and are continuing that campaign. But this is not a revote of the 2016 referendum.
Josh Krintzman also wrote an excellent explanation of what we’re voting on and what we’re not voting on: https://www.facebook.com/joshkrintzman
Greg, I don’t think I’m confusing you with someone else. You are Greg Reibman who wrote on this blog:
“And Chief Evans and you are absolutely right “cash only” stores would be a big risk”.
Or are you somebody else?
How can I trust the author when even information she provides about liquor stores in neighboring towns is (how should I say?) inaccurate. I quickly found 2 (and more coming) in Wellesley and 5 in Needham.
Let’s all take a deep breath. The voters will speak on Tuesday and we’ll all find out what they have to say about banning pot shops in Newton.
No matter what the voters say, and even though I wholeheartedly disagree with their position, I’ll give a shout out to the Opt-Out folks for organizing, mobilizing and collecting the signatures in such a short amount of time. I do wish though that they hadn’t been as fast and loose with the facts when talking to voters and I wish that (at least some of) their supporters hadn’t engaged in underhanded tactics – i.e. pretending to be opponents and signing up as volunteers for the other side …. not cool!
… and also I wish that (at least some of) the opponents of Opt-Out hadn’t pulled signs out of peoples’ lawns.
Let’s have faith in the voters on Tuesday regardless of how they vote.
In the meantime let’s all relax a bit.
Well said Jerry. If only there was a product sold locally that might help the most stressed among us chill out a little.
Well said Jerry! I do object to the impression, at least on this blog, that OON supporters have used under-handed techniques and RSFN and RtV supporters have been spotless (besides rampant sign-stealing). There are thousands of supporters on both sides, and I can’t say for sure what they have all done. I can assure you though that the transgressions by some of these thousands of pro-cannabis supporters could fill up this entire page. Some are shocking and outrageous. People just don’t talk about them on this blog, because we have chosen not to post them at every turn. If this leaves the impression that OON supporters are devious and pro-cannabis supporters are chill, that’s an incorrect impression IMO. As in any election, passions have flared on both sides. There are mostly hard-working, well-meaning people on both sides and a few bums. That’s life.
Councilor Albright of course neglects to mention that she is completely ignoring the expert professional opinions and advice of Newton’s public safety officials, the
– Chief of Police
– Chief of the Fire Department
– Commissioner of Health and Human Services
each of whom has advised against opening Newton to recreational pot shops “to protect our citizens”.
She is also ignoring the expert professional advice of the leaders of our medical and mental health community, including the physician who is the former President of Newton Wellesley Hospital so many of whom testified to the harms recreational pot shops will do to the public’s health, especially that of our youth.
And let’s not forget the 30 minute special on NewTV with Bill Evans, former Boston Police Commissioner and current Boston College Director of Safety whose clear and strong message was: If you care about safe kids, safe streets and this community DON’T Open Newton to Recreational Pot Shops!
My hope is that we can put this behind us after tomorrow.
I also plan to speak to several of the councilors about how we can clarify for the community where signs can be placed. That’s caused a lot of confusion, especially when a campaign is based out of town (the nurses). Signs placed on berms are removed by the city because that’s public space. The resident who may have put a sign on a berm isn’t informed that the city has removed the sign.
A lot of “Nurse” signs on both sides of the issue are on berms. In the future, it might be well worth the effort to clarify for residents the regulations for sign placement, as well as size limitations. This may sound picky, but I’m with Laurie on this – having someone come onto your property to take something/anything can be unnerving.
Let’s just get through tomorrow. If you’re holding a sign, be aware of the very clear regulations about sign holding on Election Day. Let’s give poor David Olsen a break!
Jane – Are you including the lawn sign that YOU put on the lawn at City Hall during early voting last week and left there after the polls closed for the day?
@Jane, I agree about coming together after this election, and about getting better guidance from the city about yard sign placement.
One has to dig on the website to find information about political signs. Nowhere does it say you can’t place signs on berms in front of houses between the sidewalk and street. It just says your sign can’t overhang the street or sidewalk. Better and more easily accessible information in the future would be useful.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/53215
@Abe Zoe. All the people you are quoting are arguing legalization. But that was decided two years ago.
Cannabis WILL be sold all around us. All we have to decide now is whether we want to receive or forgo local tax income.
Local tax income that could be used to target the illegal use by minors by the way. Something for which there is no budget for right now.
Patricia- WRONG!
Try actually watching the Common Ground interview with Commr. Evans:
https://newtv.org/recent-videos-community/29-common-ground-with-ken-parker/5346-common-ground-with-ken-parker-william-evans-interview
The issue is not legalization, it is commercialization — and the many reasons for NOT Allowing Recreational Pot Shops in Newton.
@Abe. And you think that by banning stores in Newton you’ll stop commercialization and keep cannabis out of town?
Patricia,
If only the folks in the 1920s stood up more strongly to big tobacco and its commercialization… how many less lives would not have been destroyed
Big tobacco Ceo would like to thank all cool kids
@Bugek – Tobacco has never been illegal so there is no way to know. The much clearer example is alcohol.’
Prohibition was an absolute disaster that caused all manners of social problems. Since prohibition, various municipalities continue to ban retail sale of alcohol within their jurisdictions. As far as I can see there is no evidence that dry towns have fewer alcohol related car accidents (they have slightly more). There’s no evidence that they have less alcohol related health issues. There’s no evidence that there is less underage drinking.
You are right, tobacco has caused enormous damage to the health of our citizens. What turned things around on the tobacco front was not banning tobacco sale in municipalities. What turned it around was public education, limits on advertising, and lawsuits against tobacco companies that knowingly misled the public. The legalization of marijuana in MA has explicitly addressed just those issue – with dedicated taxes to fund public education, many different kind of limits on advertising and much more stringent regulations of retail stores than any other industry.
Banning stores in Newton is a feel-good effort for folks who don’t approve of adults consuming marijuana. That’s all.
It’s not preventing commercialization. It’s not addressing a single one of the issues that have been raised by the OptOut campaign.
@Jerry, I respectfully disagree. Big Marijuana is using the exact same playbook as Big Tobacco did 100 years ago. Here’s a great article showing the uncanny similarities:
https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/marijuana-big-tobacco-2-0
@Sarah – I’m not sure we disagree as much as you think. I don’t have any illusions that we should rely on a commercial marijuana industry to have our best interests in mind.
If we had banned tobacco sales in the City of Newton in 1920 it would have had no effect on the health of our citizens over the last 100 years. What made a difference was the last 20 years of public education, regulation and holding the tobacco companies responsible for their product.
It’s an apples and oranges comparison.
For 80 of those 100 years tobacco was a completely unregulated product and there was virtually no substantial public education.
Marijuana will be an intensely regulated business with a dedicated tax to address issues you raise.
What’s on the ballot on Tuesday is not a referendum on whether you think marijuana use is a good idea or whether the marijuana industry has our interests at heart. The only thing we are voting on is whether Newton should ban marijuana shops within the city limits.
If we ban marijuana sale why wouldn’t/shouldn’t we also ban tobacco, alcohol, etc sales in the city?
@jerry we do seem to agree on many things and I find your comments very thoughtful.
Your question about why not ban alcohol and tobacco comes up a lot. The difference is that firmly entrenched interests make that an impossible battle, or at least one that I’m not willing to take on. We have a chance to Opt Out of allowing the marijuana industry to have unfettered access to our town, so why not take it?
No we don’t, Opt Out doesn’t keep cannabis out (that ship sailed when voters legalized it two years ago), it only prevents Newton from benefiting from the significant economic benefits that Boston, Brookline, Waltham, Watertown and other municipalities will enjoy.
Laurie – Maybe a suggestion to the Elections Commission about some of the rules and regs with candidates and chairs of ballot committees is in order before the campaigns begin. I know that one street had your signs on berms removed but they weren’t stolen signs. Once there get to be too many, people will report them. Just to confuse matters more, you’re supposed to report different transgressions to different departments. Berms are public land and signs can’t be on public land. It’s one of the reason I’ve put up all the signs for a number of campaigns.
It’s been much more prevalent this year so I think people began to think it was okay. The good news is that this can be easily fixed for future campaigns.
Abe – Mea culpa! I was told that I could place a lawn sign at City Hall and forgot to bring it home. But I think you’ll find all the ones out in the neighborhoods are properly placed.
Greg – We have heard the claims at length over the supposed torrent of tax revenue Newton might forgo — always studiously ignoring that (a) to generate the supposed $2M in tax revenues there would need to be $33M+ in pot sales, which is a massive amount of pot; (b) new out-of-pocket costs directly related to having the pot shops in town are the only permitted uses for 2/3 of that potential revenue; (c) the high end estimates of the tax revenues that might be available for general uses if a massive amount of pot is sold would be only .15% of the City’s budget — which is vanishingly small “budget dust”; and (d) the many other social impact costs will never be covered by taxes on pot sales, any more than the taxes on tobacco sales remotely covered the costs that industry imposed on the public.
A financial manger who looks only at revenues is committing accounting malpractice.
It is only rational to be concerned about the bridge too fast and too far that the pro-pot advocates (and especially the hedge fund manager behind the Elliot Street proposed location) wants Newton to jump off of.
Here is some worthwhile reading that supports taking a more measured approach to this whole issue rather than joining the forefront 1st wave for no good reason: http://marijuana-policy.org/?s=FROG
I am quoting the whole article below to save readers the trouble of clicking through to access it:
====
Those of us involved in monitoring the rise of corporate marijuana should understand the value of our disquiet. It is an early warning sign.
THE PARABLE OF THE BOILED FROG
Over twenty years ago M.I.T. systems thinker, Peter Senge, wrote about the “parable of the boiled frog.” In short: if you place a frog in a shallow pan of boiling water it will immediately try and jump out. But if you place the frog in warm water, and don’t startle him, he will remain there, unbothered. If the temperature of the water rises gradually, the frog will stay put in the pan, until it’s too late and he’s unable to climb out. As ghastly as the image of the boiled frog is, the lesson is clear. We are not unlike the frog. Our ability for sensing threats to survival is geared to immediate and sudden changes, not to slow, creeping, gradual changes.
(The Fifth Discipline: the Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, Peter M. Senge, Doubleday. August 1990)
What are the top factors which will awaken the rest of America to the bigger picture? Can we make clear the threats and opportunities we sense around us, or is the lull of the warm water just too tempting for a country brimming with distraction? Can we pay attention?
1. The canaries in the coal mine are youth users. We need a laser focus on the impacts of this drug on developing brains. Social boundaries are porous. A 21-year-old legal limit clearly has no meaning. Where there is more marijuana, more social acceptance for getting high, and more marijuana marketing, there is more youth use.
2. Marketing and misinformation are driving use rates up. Advertising must be stopped, or sharply restricted. There are limits to free speech. One cannot yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, lest a stampede harm the crowd. Why is the standard any different for recreational drug promotion? We are witnessing the harms caused directly by marijuana marketing.
3. Addiction-for-Profit is a business model that must be called into question. How can we stand by when Wall Street prospectors openly call for investment in a market which hinges on addictive consumption? We have an equation where new corporations can internalize private profits, while 80% of profits are gleaned from the 20% who are chronic users. Meanwhile social costs are externalized to the public — for drug treatment and other mental health care costs, unemployment benefits, remedial education, public safety violations, emergency room visits, and enforcement costs. The list of social costs is long. The net outcome is a drain on public coffers.
4. “High potential for abuse” points to a market phenomenon that quickly slips out of control. We are witnessing the early impacts of an uncontrolled marijuana market. Legalization and drug normalization is a failed policy experiment — dead on arrival, actually. Incarceration is not an appropriate intervention for a treatable mental health issue. This is a broadly accepted. Mental health interventions are more appropriate, and likely more effective, but also costly. Driving up use will drive up the costs of responding to more drug abuse and its attendant health and safety fallout.
5. We are on the threshold of a mental health crisis in America. Recreational drug use makes the problem worse. Mental health parity is the law of the land — and justly so. But this also means that compromised mental health creates new and substantial costs and burdens on the American healthcare system. Better that we handle drug abuse as a mental healthcare problem rather than a strictly criminal problem. But by expanding supply and acceptability of recreational drug use we are in the business of manufacturing MORE addicted individuals — with addiction-for-private profit schemes, and then moving drug addicted individuals into treatment programs — more often at public expense. The public and personal costs of this avoidable mental health crisis will be substantial.
Scientific and medical journals and experts are increasingly publishing findings on the health harms of casual and chronic cannabis use and the following links are all informative. The slow motion train wreck is coming into clearer view and gathering speed.
Corporate marijuana’s gradual process of picking off states one-by-one with written to deceive pot laws has led to a slow and steady trending toward more illicit drug use and abuse.
See article and links [at the hyperlinked site]:
— Addiction to marijuana is on the rise.
— CBS News: Where there is rising marijuana addiction, there is rising heroin addiction.
— Bloomberg: Scientists are bracing for marijuana abuse as laws ease.
— Washington Times: House votes to halt federal meddling in marijuana states
— NIH: Is Mj addictive? Yes. The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users.
— Colorado State University took a sober look at the the fiscal impact of the proposed Amendment 64 tax measures.
Revenues will not reach the overly optimistic projections of $40 million (which would not build even ONE new school).
Marijuana tax revenues may not cover the incremental state expenditures related to legalization.
Peak marijuana revenues will be the initial years, before flattening and declining.
The analysis is suggesting that there are no public good fiscal justifications to legalizing this drug.
— Rand is looking at the scale of marijuana use in Washington leading up to their “Grand Opening”. Youth use is on a sharp incline.
You can believe an anonymous blogger or you can believe the CFO of the City of Newton. I’m sticking with the CFO, Jonathan Yeo.
Jane – Unlike your comments, the article I posted is well sourced.
And I was working from Mr. Yoe’s estimate. No matter what figure one uses, it is vital to address costs, understand the gross amount of sales needed to generate Mr. Yoe’s estimate of potential revenues, and appreciate the restrictions on the uses of the bulk of any such funds. Any statement that focuses only on potential, estimated tax revenue swhile failing to address costs is skewed and misleading.
And, while you are busy demanding apologies from OON for the text that will fit on their signs, are you going to own your responsibility for planting one of your signs on the City Hall lawn?
@Abe Zoe, Jane said “mea culpa” and explained that she was allowed to put it there and then forgot to pick it up when she left. Yes she used a common Latin phrase to apologize, but it is an admission of error and an apology.
@Abe, I think the readers of this blog are intelligent enough to understand the issue without frog parables, canary metaphors, and 1000 words of apocalyptic prophecy.
Michael Singer: Thanks for summarizing Abe’s comment. I figured I could either read it or vote tomorrow but that I probably don’t have time for both.