Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

No, Question 4 would not “create more pot shops than McDonald’s and Starbucks combined.”

August 29, 2016 By SamTracy

Earlier this month, the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts (the vaguely named organization pushing against Question 4, which would legalize marijuana for adults) sent out an email that warned voters, “We know their playbook. Pass Question 4 and usher in the dangerous edibles market; Allow home grows of thousands of dollars of marijuana, even over neighbors’ objections; Create more pot shops than McDonalds and Starbucks combined.”

Sure, the danger of edibles is something worth debating, and the initiative explicitly allows people to grow marijuana in their own homes no matter what their neighbors think (just like you can brew beer or grow any other plant without asking your neighbor’s permission). But this final claim, that Question 4 would create more storefronts than McDonald’s and Starbucks combined, is just plain wrong.

To start with, there are 484 Starbucks and McDonald’s according to the website Menuism.com (187 Starbucks, 297 McDonald’s). So would Question 4 authorize about 500 dispensaries across the state? Short answer: no.

Long answer: Theoretically, but only if hundreds of elected officials all over the state decided they wanted that many dispensaries (which isn’t going to happen). If Question 4 (full text here) passes, towns and cities will have the power to tie recreational marijuana licenses to the number of medical marijuana licenses or liquor licenses, which would be hugely different numbers: we only have 7 medical marijuana dispensaries in Mass, while we have 2,917 liquor stores. In the very likely event that municipalities pick the first option, there would only be dozens, not hundreds, of dispensaries in the state. Municipalities can even ban marijuana sales entirely if they put it to a popular vote and a majority of residents approve the ban.

I can see where this talking point came from: Colorado certainly has a lot of dispensaries, and that makes some people uncomfortable. But their law is completely different, and does not allow for the same type of local controls that Question 4 specifically includes. Conflating the two is not only dishonest, it’s blatant fear-mongering.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: ballot-initiatives, Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts, CRMLA, marijuana, marijuana legalization, Question 4

Comments

  1. marcus-graly says

    August 30, 2016 at 10:25 am

    So yes the claim is true. 3000 / 5 = 600 which is more than 500.

    Some municipalities may opt out, but it requires a vote of the town, not a decision of elected officials.

    • SamTracy says

      August 30, 2016 at 11:09 am

      From the initiative, towns are allowed to:

      limit the number of marijuana establishments in the city or town, except that a city or town may only adopt an ordinance or by-law by a vote of the voters of that city or town if the ordinance or by-law:

      (i) prohibits the operation of 1 or more types of marijuana establishments within the city or town;

      (ii) limits the number of marijuana retailers to fewer than 20 per cent of the number of licenses issued within the city or town for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages not to be drunk on the premises where sold under chapter 138 of the General Laws; or

      (iii) limits the number of any type of marijuana establishment to fewer than the number of medical marijuana treatment centers registered to engage in the same type of activity in the city or town.

      They’re only required to put it to a vote if they want to ban marijuana dispensaries entirely, if they want to make it fewer than 20% of liquor stores (say, 5% or 10%), or if they want to make it fewer than the number of medical marijuana dispensaries. Towns could say they just want the same number of recreational marijuana dispensaries as medical marijuana dispensaries, and since most towns are only allowing 1 (and many are slow-rolling it and will have 0 for a long time), this could keep the number of stores relatively small.

      • marcus-graly says

        August 30, 2016 at 12:41 pm

        A vote of the town is required in *any* of those cases. So any town that wants fewer pot shots than either the number of medical shops, *or* 1/5th the available liquor licenses, needs to put it to a vote.

        • Andrei Radulescu-Banu says

          August 30, 2016 at 2:50 pm

          … It’s a vote of the voters. Does that preclude a Town Meeting or City Council vote? Does it mean referendum?

          • Peter Porcupine says

            August 30, 2016 at 2:54 pm

            So a referendum in a town would be superfluous

            • Andrei Radulescu-Banu says

              August 30, 2016 at 2:57 pm

              Town Meeting votes can be challenged by referendum… The people have the final say.

              It’s still unclear to me what ‘vote of the voters’ means.

            • marcus-graly says

              August 30, 2016 at 3:14 pm

              Even in towns with open meetings

              • stomv says

                August 31, 2016 at 7:32 am

                Which is to say that if the folks want to limit the marijuana retailers [etc] in their community, they need to have an election — but it could coincide with a November election, a September primary election, a Town election [if those are elsewhere in the calendar], or a special election for another vote.

          • marcus-graly says

            August 30, 2016 at 3:17 pm

            The backers wanted to make it hard for towns to opt out.

            Get ready for a bountiful bevy of special elections if question 4 passes.

          • SamTracy says

            August 30, 2016 at 3:18 pm

            I’m pretty sure it has to be a referendum. “Vote of the voters” refers to a public, popular vote, rather than a town meeting or a city council vote.

          • Christopher says

            August 30, 2016 at 10:41 pm

            …though I have never known communities governed as cities to have them so this might be a new thing in those cases.

            • jconway says

              August 31, 2016 at 7:21 am

              Including bigger ones like Newton. We had non-binding ones in Cambridge, but our city council was the final authority on a medical dispensary.

  2. Peter Porcupine says

    August 30, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Why would the number of places allowed to sell marijuana be related to the MEDICAL dispensaries at all? They are for very different purposes.

    And in a town with a single dispensary, does that mean that NO recreation establishment is allowed?

    • Andrei Radulescu-Banu says

      August 30, 2016 at 3:01 pm

      Just giving you heads up, in case this measure passes: zoning rules for Marijuana Dispensaries were very contentious at the local level, and a super majority of Town Meeting members in my town refused to allow Marijuana Dispensaries anywhere except in a very remote area, far from Town center & schools.

      • SamTracy says

        August 30, 2016 at 3:16 pm

        I’ve seen a lot of towns and cities try to zone marijuana dispensaries out of existence, just because they completely misunderstand how the regulations work and how those facilities are run. I hope that people will eventually come around, but that will probably only happen once they see dispensaries in their neighboring communities aren’t causing any problems.

        • Andrei Radulescu-Banu says

          August 30, 2016 at 4:19 pm

          To be fair, the Marijuana Dispensary regulations were completely broken – actually, by design. These dispensaries are supposed to be medical facilities, and are supposed to offer the same medical control that all other clinics are offering.

          Nothing remote to that came into existence, the main reason being (I think) that a complicated law was passed by ballot question as a one-shot fail-or-pass, rather than going through the General Court.

          We might be headed for the same law of unintended effects with the new ballot question on recreational marijuana.

          • SamTracy says

            August 30, 2016 at 7:09 pm

            You’re completely right. The medical marijuana program has been incredibly slow to get moving, with only 7 dispensaries in the entire state nearly 4 years after we passed the law in 2012. This is because while activists who wanted a lot of patient access wrote the initiative, government officials who didn’t want patient access were the ones who wrote the regulations, so it began as a slow process with massive barriers to entry.

            That will be the same case with recreational marijuana: while activists wrote the initiative, government officials will write the regulations. That’s a good thing in many ways, so that they can constantly update the regs and be sure to include protections like not selling marijuana gummy bears. But it also might mean that they take as long as legally possible to implement it, which will make the law much less effective at eliminating the black market and everything else it’s supposed to do.

        • Christopher says

          August 30, 2016 at 10:44 pm

          …rather than use zoning tricks? Communities try this with “adult” venues too, which has the added wrinkle of first amendment interpretations protecting such “expression”. In both cases I think communities should just be allowed to say your business is not welcome here.

          • TheBestDefense says

            August 31, 2016 at 12:44 am

            What happens when a community says we don’t want newspapers in our town? Irish Catholics? Blacks? Muslim cemeteries and mosques? Those are not hypotheticals. They are part of the history of our country.

            For every complicated question there is always a simple answer. And it is always wrong.

            • stomv says

              August 31, 2016 at 7:36 am

              newspapers are the only one of those in your list that are businesses. And First Amendment issues aside, we do expect communities to zone particular commercial activities to certain places.

              Methinks the SCOTUS/SJC/MA Legislature/Town gov’t tension is a good one. Surely a community shouldn’t have to allow a hazardous chemical factory in a residential community. Conversely, a city or town should leave well enough alone when the community harm is imagined or unquantifiable (the oh noes! crowd).

            • Christopher says

              August 31, 2016 at 9:06 am

              …touch on constitutional issues such as actual freedom of speech/press/religion and equal protection which do not exist for adult businesses or marijuana dispensaries. Types of businesses should be excludible IMO; people and their opinions cannot.

              • SomervilleTom says

                August 31, 2016 at 10:23 am

                We’ve debated this before.

                In my view, the “pursuit of happiness” provides consenting adults with a basic right to enjoy whatever substances they choose. The burden then shifts to government to demonstrate a “compelling interest” in limiting that right.

                That is absolutely NOT what has happened with our marijuana laws.

                It was once against the law for consenting adults to enjoy oral and anal sex. Similar arguments were offered in support of those laws, and they were struck down when the courts ultimately determined that the state and local governments were unable to show a “compelling interest” in limiting such behavior.

                Here are some provisions of current Massachusetts law that are unenforceable because they are unconstitutional:

                – Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.
                – A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.
                – Persons divorced from each other cohabiting as husband and wife or living together in the same house shall be held to be guilty of adultery.
                – Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.
                – Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail or the house of correction for not more than two and one half years.

                These CURRENTLY EXISTING Massachusetts laws are all anachronisms that ought to be repealed if for no other reason than that they have already been ruled unconstitutional.

                I must say that as segments of our culture veer further and further into the “alt right” wasteland, I fear what might happen if a future Supreme Court revisits these questions.

                I suggest that we are headed in the same direction with marijuana legislation. I wish that Massachusetts was a leader in that movement.

                America should legalize marijuana. Massachusetts should legalize marijuana. Period.

                • stomv says

                  August 31, 2016 at 1:57 pm

                  Criminalizing the commission of an abominable and detestable crime against nature with a beast is almost certainly both enforceable and constitutional.

                • Christopher says

                  August 31, 2016 at 2:02 pm

                  …that pursuit of happiness is an aspiration of the Declaration and not a constitutional right? Most sexual activity between consenting adults falls within the realm of privacy (assuming, of course, that such activity is in fact engaged in privately), and would therefore be out of the government’s reach. Businesses and other pursuits which advertise that the public is welcome to partake or patronize are within the public sphere, which the public through their elected representatives has every right to regulate. To be clear, I am arguing strictly constitutional prerogative. Just because I argue that certain things are not absolutely protected by the Constitution doesn’t mean I’m going to make banning or regulating a priority on the merits. As for marijuana specifically I stand by previous objections.

          • SamTracy says

            August 31, 2016 at 11:05 am

            Municipalities are specifically not allowed to ban medical marijuana dispensaries entirely, but many of the more conservative towns have put very long-term moratoriums in place, or created zoning rules so stringent that no locations actually work. That’s because it’s a medical facility that should not be subject to discrimination, unlike a recreational dispensary, which is just another business and can be outright banned (with a popular vote).

    • SamTracy says

      August 30, 2016 at 3:14 pm

      That’s just a quote straight from the initiative, but I do agree with you – since they’re for very different things, it’s kinda strange to see them tied together in that way. But I think the idea is that a town might want to regulate all sales of marijuana in similar ways, at least in terms of how many outlets there are and where they can locate.

      Since a town can only limit the number of recreational dispensaries to fewer than medical marijuana dispensaries with a referendum. That means that in a town with 1 medical dispensary, they could limit it to as few as 1 recreational dispensaries, but if they wanted to limit it to 0, they would need to hold a referendum.

      • marcus-graly says

        August 30, 2016 at 3:22 pm

        Towns have to have a vote if the want to either
        (1) Prohibit the sale of marijuana
        (2) Have fewer pot licences than 20% of the number of liquor licenses
        -OR-
        (3) Have fewer pot licences than the number of medical dispensaries.

        Complying with the third section is not a loophole that gets you out of complying with the second section.

        • Peter Porcupine says

          August 30, 2016 at 11:47 pm

          Our town planner is considering having a zone created for hookah bars. It will be in the same gravel field next to the dump which is now our adult entertainment zone. The current owner of the land plans to keep it a gravel field…

          • SomervilleTom says

            August 31, 2016 at 10:25 am

            Interesting zoning provision. It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “get your rocks off” … 🙂

          • Peter Porcupine says

            October 18, 2016 at 11:14 pm

            We had town meeting and amended zoning to prohibit hookah bars altogether

            Passed by a comfortable 2/3 majority so we remain hookah-free no matter what happens with Q. 4

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.