The state’s new recreational marijuana law runs 11 pages long by standard printer and copy machine standards. But the law’s section devoted to local control over recreational marijuana sales occupies roughly half a page.
Peabody Mayor Ted Bettencourt is well advised to recognize the short shrift given local control in the new law even as he acknowledges its passage last November by a majority of Massachusetts voters. Bettencourt doesn’t like the law and he points to its rejection by Peabody voters in calling for a local referendum on recreational marijuana.
“There are a great many unanswered questions” concerning the new law wrote the mayor in a letter to Peabody City Councilors. It’s a reasonably safe bet to say that Peabody’s rejection of the recreational marijuana last year will be a repeat affair if public opinion on the subject is tested again through a local vote.
The marijuana law allows city officials to hold an election and ask voters again if they are in favor or against marijuana sales and consumption. The law doesn’t declare a “no” vote by a city or town to be an outright local rejection of the state law. It says that a “no” vote “shall be taken to have not authorized the consumption of marijuana and marijuana projects on the premises where sold.”
https://newitemlive.wpengine.com/news/council-weeds-out-pot-clinic-locations/
Two truths are indisputable concerning Massachusetts’ new marijuana law. One, the law is intended to allow a broad spectrum of budding (pun intended) entrepreneurs to profit off the sales of a product that was illegal just months ago and still remains illegal in many places across the country.
Two, the law is going to spawn enough legal challenges and counter challenges to keep an army of attorneys in business for years. Savvy lawyers have already rearranged their businesses to, first, handle medical marijuana licensing bids and, second, recreational marijuana ventures. Like gambling, the money to be made by business people and through tax dollars is difficult to fathom.
All of this boils down to one reality for well-intentioned municipal leaders like Bettencourt: They are rowing against a fast-receding tide when it comes to restricting or banning recreational marijuana.
Bettencourt and Lynnfield town officials who want a town referendum on marijuana can spend tax dollars to put the measure before the voters, but the reality is marijuana as a legal consumer product is here to stay in Massachusetts.
Even if Peabody bans or limits the drug’s sales, the nature of Massachusetts’ contiguous town and city borders means pot shops will be located mere blocks from certain Peabody neighborhoods.
It sounds cynical but the best strategy Bettencourt and other marijuana opponents can employ is to ensure they get their share of tax dollars associated with the pot bonanza by arguing the new law has expensive public safety and health implications.
Marijuana advocates claim the drug in legal form is less harmful than alcohol and argue it makes sense to allow people 21 years and older to consume it. Opponents point an accusing finger at marijuana and claim its legal use will shove open even wider the gateway leading to heroin use and addiction.
The debate over who is right or wrong in this argument ended on Nov. 8, 2016. Now is the time to adjust to a new societal reality that shows no signs of going up in smoke.