The message from elected officials at a workshop this week on the states new recreational marijuana law was to delay recreational establishments from opening within town borders, while getting a read on public opinion.
The act, which was passed as a ballot question during the November presidential election and legalizes the recreational use of marijuana, went into effect Thursday, December 15, and also allows recreational marijuana establishments to open in 2018.
According to municipal attorneys at KP Law, the act contains inconsistencies and outright contradictions, without indication of when or if the General Court may address the issues.
Lawyers from KP Law were invited to a workshop at Sandwich Town Hall on Monday, December 12, which also featured a panel including State Representative Randy Hunt (R-Sandwich), State Senator Viriato M. (Vinny) deMacedo, Cape & Islands District Attorney Michael OKeefe, Walpole Police Chief John Carmichael, and KP Law attorney Katherine Laughman.
While some in the audience griped to the panel about the ramifications of legalized marijuana, the discussion mostly centered on what town and city leaders can pursue to limit recreational establishments from opening within their borders.
In the audience were municipal staff from the region and beyond, including Falmouth Selectman Susan Moran and Mashpee Assistant Town Manager Wayne E. Taylor; others included substance abuse prevention professionals and advocates.
Mr. Hunt urged the region to delay investing in the new law with the unknowns of a new incoming federal administration. Marijuana is not legal on a federal level, and while President Barack Obama has been mostly hands-off with the states that have legalized its use, it is yet unknown how the new administration will react, Mr. Hunt said. He said that in Colorado, where marijuana is legal, the region has invested heavily in infrastructure such as a cash-holding facility, and he urged against that in Massachusetts.
Ms. Laughman said that towns can pass a temporary moratorium to allow time to study the issue and develop appropriate bylaws and ordinances. She expects the attorney general would approve a one-year moratorium. She said municipalities may wish to start planning to pass a moratorium. She said that during the year, towns should survey their communities to find if establishments are desired.
However, in towns with medical marijuana facilities currently permitted for the area, a moratorium may not be effective in preventing a recreational facility. Even outlawing them completely could not be possible, although the wording is not clear, Ms. Laughman said.
The language of the act reads that a municipality may not adopt an ordinance prohibiting an establishment that cultivates, manufactures or sells marijuana products in any area in which a medical marijuana treatment center is registered to engage in the same type of activity. The act, she said, contains no definition of area and could mean the actual plot of land at the medical facility or all similarly zoned areas.
The ballot, she said, was influenced by the marijuana industry; many medical companies had an eye toward the recreational market when writing the law.
Towns can choose to outlaw the recreational establishments from opening, but a townwide election is required to opt out. Sen. deMacedo said that legislatures may try to make the opposite happen: that towns must opt in to allow facilities in their town, rather than opt out. To opt out, Town Meeting would need to pass a local ballot question for a local election, which requires a simple majority.
However, for towns that already have a medical marijuana facility permitted, a townwide election might not stop a recreational facility from opening within the area of the currently permitted medical facility. The legislation is a little unclear in that area, Ms. Laughman said. We are looking for clarity. She said the three-member Cannabis Control Commission, created under the new law, could clarify these issues.
Towns, besides outlawing completely, can also pursue limiting the number of retail shops based on the number of stores selling beer, wine and hard alcohol; or limiting the number to fewer than the number of medical marijuana treatment centers in the town.
Ms. Laughman also said that towns can choose to opt in on marijuana cafs. A petition could put the question forward at a state election. Cafs allow the consumption of marijuana on the premises. Unlike retail stores, the bill does not outline a timeline for cafs.
Ms. Laughman also discussed the new laws effect on municipal employees. Public employers, she said, could continue to prohibit employees from using or possessing marijuana in the workplace; but she urged municipalities to revisit drug and alcohol testing policies to ensure they remain consistent with the towns desired treatment of marijuana.
Federal law prohibiting use of marijuana for law enforcement officers and for those with commercial drivers licenses will not change.
Ms. Moran asked the panel what the benefit of delaying would accomplish. Sen. deMacedo said a one-year moratorium would give towns more control and gives the Legislature time. He said some issues in the law still concern him, such as the lack of a limit on potency. He also said that if a town opts out of recreational facilities, it can also opt back in when the Legislature or the control commission clarify the law.
Mr. OKeefe also suggested that communities opt out. He said that people voted for the concept of legalization and not the details of it.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker
Full Article: Attorneys, Legislatures Say Marijuana Law Ambiguous
Author: Sam Houghton
Contact: (508) 548-4700
Photo Credit: Robert F. Bukaty
Website: The Enterprise
