Under a large close-up photo of a young woman portrayed as smoking marijuana in a porcelain pipe, WickedLocal published a story by new editor Bram Berkowitz that asks a question: “Could an Arlington dispensary sell recreational marijuana?”
It’s a good question. Grant Cook of Arlington asked a similar one on the Arlington List Facebook site the week before the story appeared.
News stories should try to answer questions, not simply raise them, and this one attempts to offer a kind of an answer, but not a satisfactory one.
The report quotes diametrically opposing views, with no resolution to them offered.
John Scheft, an Arlington resident who is member of the Arlington Youth Health and Safety Coalition and is also a principal at Law Enforcement Dimensions, was paraphrased as saying that passing ballot question 4 “would absolutely lead to the sale of recreational marijuana at medical dispensaries at medical dispensaries such as the one slated for Water Street.” Attorney Adam Fine, representing dispensary’s applicant, Massachusetts Patient Foundation, told the reporter: No way.
Berkowitz could not reach Town Counsel Doug Heim by the weekly newspaper’s deadline. YourArlington did, and his comments bring more clarity to the question.
Basically, in Heim’s account of them options, having a medical-marijuana dispensary on Water Street transform into a pot-selling venture is a long, long shot.
Fearmongering?
In my view, suggesting the possibility without describing all of the steps involved amounts to fearmongering.
On Oct. 9, Town Meeting members considering Article 11, which would establish a town buffer zone of 500 feet from such a facility, need to consider all of the steps.
In comments emailed to YourArlington Thursday, Oct. 6, Heim wrote:
“A Registered Marijuana Dispensary [RMD] at the proposed Water Street location could theoretically be permitted at some future date to sell recreational marijuana, but in addition to the ballot measure passing, a number of other conditions would both certainly, and likely, have to be met.
“On one hand, as articulated, Ballot Question 4 gives RMDs advantages in the proposed licensing process for sale of recreational marijuana, particularly if the State fails to promulgate regulations managing such sales.
“RMDs would be given the first opportunities to apply for retail licenses (in October of 2017, as opposed to October of 2018 for all others), and furthermore retail locations would be allowed in any zones where RMDs are allowed, and municipalities cannot outright forbid co-location with and RMD.
Three significant issues
“On the other hand, there are three significant categories of issues an RMD would have to satisfy to actually start selling recreational marijuana, as well as one potentially insurmountable hurdle depending on Arlington’s residents.
“First, Massachusetts medical marijuana law requires a non-profit organization to operate an RMD, but recreational retail sales wouldn’t likely be permitted by the same non-profit organization, especially since recreational marijuana is clearly subject to sales tax under the question.
“Second, while the ballot measure makes it clear that recreational sale shall be allowable where RMDs are zoned, and that co-location cannot be precluded by local regulation, any licensed RMD in Arlington would only be given a special permit to operate a licensed non-profit RMD. To operate some other kind of business, they’d have to either amend the special permit they now seek or get some other permit, the parameters of which are not immediately clear to me.
“Third, the State will presumably promulgate some kind of regulations and licensing process with meaningful criteria for recreational sales as it did for RMDs.”
Clarification
And here, Heim offered a clarifying opinion:
“I don’t think that process should be conflated with the ABCC’s [the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission’s] process for alcohol licenses just yet, and acknowledge the issues we’ve had locally with DPH’s regulations for RMDs and its interpretations thereof.”
He is referring to the state Department of Health’s confusion of rules about buffer zones for a medical-marjuana dispensary, which YourArlington reported in September >>
“Nonetheless, State regulations are highly likely to present additional conditions for any RMD license holder (or anyone else) who wants to sell retail marijuana.
“All of the aforementioned issues could probably be satisfied by a potential RMD license holder at any location, but there will be processes and it should not be presumed as a given that recreational sales would be inevitable.
“Moreover, the one potentially insurmountable barrier to retail recreation sales embodied in Ballot Question 4 would be municipalities’ ability ban recreational sale of marijuana locally. A ban would require a successful local ballot question, but it nonetheless is an option for this and any other community.
“On a final note, I very much appreciate the informed debates circulating about Ballot Question 4 and its potential impact on medical marijuana facilities, but also respectfully caution folks to remember that the Town’s relevant boards, bodies, and commissions must evaluate RMD applicants based on the criteria established by the current state of the law. Further, whatever position any resident holds on Ballot Question 4, I encourage them to voice their views through their votes on November 8th.”
Pluses, minuses
That final caution refers, in part to the Redevelopment Board, which plans to resume considering the application for a special permit the evening before the November election. That board will have the advantage of an October Special Town Meeting vote on a related article and the disadvantage of not knowing the result of the vote on state question 4.
One hopes that, by then, the state Department of Health will have sorted out its confusion and that the local board will have a clearer path toward a decision.
In the meantime, let’s allow all of these cases to play out in a factual way and avoid having fear drive a public decision.
Full Sept. 1, 2016, memo from Town Counsel Heim reciommending delay
Aug. 23, 2016: Public questions put off hearing on medical-marijuana dispensary three weeks
April 13, 2016: Selectmen take 3rd step toward dispensary after 7 object
Cambridge Day, Feb. 24, 2016: Debate over medical marijuana facility nudges officials toward citywide zoning
Oct. 21, 2015: Board seeks more specifics about proposed medical-marijuana dispensary
Globe, Aug. 5, 2015: Norwood selectmen not opposed to marijuana dispensary bid
This viewpoint was published Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2016.
