Canton voters face tough decision on ballot question 4

The debate over whether to legalize recreational marijuana for adults in Massachusetts has kicked into high gear in recent weeks as voters in Canton and across the commonwealth continue to mull the pros and cons of the proposed ballot initiative in the run-up to the November 8 state election.

Ballot Question 4, submitted by the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, would permit residents 21 and over to possess, use, and cultivate marijuana in limited quantities and would also establish a Cannabis Control Commission to oversee the regulation and licensing of commercial marijuana operations. The proposal would not allow marijuana to be used in public nor would it alter existing penalties for operating under the influence.

Early voting in Canton begins October 24.

Four other states plus the District of Columbia have already legalized recreational pot while an additional four states — Maine, California, Arizona and Nevada — will be voting on similar measures in the upcoming election.

In Massachusetts, both the “yes” and “no” positions are being led by highly organized, well-funded campaigns, although the leading proponent group, Yes on 4, has raised and spent considerably more than the leading opposition group, the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts. What the opponents lack in funding, however, they have made up for in endorsements, including from the likes of Governor Charlie Baker, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, Attorney General Maura Healey, and 120 state legislators, along with an “unprecedented, bipartisan group of doctors, nurses, health care professionals, child protection advocates, and community leaders.”

On the pro-legalization front, supporters include former governor and current Libertarian vice presidential candidate — and new Canton resident — Bill Weld, as well as three state senators, seven state representatives, and groups such as the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Mass. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Progressive Massachusetts, and the Union of Minority Neighborhoods.

Officials in some local communities have also chosen to weigh in, most notably the boards of selectmen in Duxbury and Yarmouth, who have both come out in opposition to the ballot measure.

But in the great majority of cities and towns, including here in Canton, officials have generally steered clear of the issue, opting instead for a wait-and-see approach and allowing the voters to decide for themselves.

Selectmen Chairman Bob Burr, for instance, said the board has not taken a position on the question and to his knowledge does not intend to. And while the ballot measure as proposed would give individual communities the right to regulate, limit, or even prohibit the operation of marijuana establishments within their own borders, Burr did not want to speculate on what type of restrictions, if any, the town of Canton would pursue, suggesting that it is “too early to tell” without seeing the legislation in its final form.

Striking a similar tone, Canton Public Health Director John Ciccotelli indicated that the Board of Health, which regulates the sale of tobacco in the town, “has not taken a formal position [on the ballot question] and currently there are no plans to.”

As health director, Ciccotelli said he has conflicting views on the legalization of marijuana, noting that it is considerably safer than tobacco from a physical health perspective but carries greater risk from a mental health point of view.

If it were to be legalized and ultimately sold commercially in Canton, Ciccotelli said the BOH would likely be involved in the permitting of the retail operations and would conduct sting operations similar to the ones they do with stores that sell tobacco in order to prevent the sale of marijuana to minors.

Nick Pirelli, chairman of the newly formalized Canton Alliance Against Substance Abuse, said that CAASA would also likely be involved in youth prevention efforts, including the possible expansion of its “Sticker Shock” campaign, which places stickers on alcoholic beverages in liquor stores to remind consumers not to purchase them for minors.

As far as taking a stand on the legalization question, Pirelli said CAASA is still “digging through” the issue and plans to discuss it at greater length at its October 17 meeting. He said the alliance “may or may not take an official stand” on Question 4; however, they would like to at least do their part to educate the community on all facets of the proposed legislation and are looking into the feasibility of hosting some kind of community forum, similar to the one that a CAASA member recently attended in Needham.

“We’re still talking about whether we should do something like that in Canton,” Pirelli said, “but it’s really just to bring people together to hear both sides, kind of go back and forth and also be thinking about if it is legalized what sort of direction are we going to take in the town of Canton.”

Pirelli said that for him personally, the biggest concern with the proposal involves the sale of marijuana “edibles” — products such as cookies, candies and beverages that are infused with THC, the active ingredient in the drug.

“They are a lot more dangerous than just joints,” Pirelli said. “We’re talking about commercialized products full of THC that are absolutely marketed toward youths.”

Pirelli said the marketing strategies used by marijuana sellers are eerily similar to the ones used by tobacco companies generations earlier to get kids hooked on cigarettes. He said the documentary film “Then and Now,” which CAASA recently purchased, delves into the parallels between the two industries and the alliance is planning to organize public screenings of the film in the coming weeks.

With regard to the edibles market, many opponents of Question 4 have expressed concerns similar to those voiced by Pirelli; however, supporters of the measure vehemently deny that the products will be used to entice children.

Jim Borghesani, communications director for the Yes on 4 campaign, stressed that “no such marketing is occurring in any of the legal states,” nor would it be legally permitted in Massachusetts.

“Existing regulations [for medical marijuana] in Massachusetts prohibit any edibles that resemble commercially-available candies, and those regulations will become even more stringent under the Cannabis Control Commission,” he said. “[The claims about edibles] are more scare tactics from our prohibitionist opponents.”

Borghesani also took aim at the criticism that much of his campaign’s funding has come from out-of-state donors, including $2.1 million from Washington, D.C.-based New Approach, a cannabis reform advocacy group that also supported the legalization effort in Oregon.

Dismissing this criticism as another “scare tactic,” Borghesani said New Approach is committed to the cause for “social justice reasons.” “To accuse them of being part of the ‘marijuana industry’ is like accusing the Jimmy Fund of being a front organization for the pharmaceutical industry,” he said. “The true industry influence in this question is from the alcohol beverage lobby, which is responsible for 25 percent of our opponents’ funding.”

The bottom line, according to Borghesani, is that opponents of Question 4 would prefer to “maintain a system that keeps criminals who don’t check IDs in control,” whereas supporters are hoping to change the status quo. “We want to actually start controlling marijuana in Massachusetts,” he said. “There are 900,000 regular marijuana users in Massachusetts and it’s time our society recognizes that a taxed and regulated system will be a safer approach that will drive down youth access and will keep buyers away from criminals who sell heroin and opioids.”

Despite these assurances, many opponents of legalization fear that it would produce the exact opposite result. Congressman Stephen Lynch, for one, believes it would “flood the streets” with marijuana while John Bonnanzio, chairman of the Canton School Committee, predicts that Massachusetts communities are “going to be swimming in this stuff.”

“To me, it’s naïve to think that kids won’t have much easier access to this,” he said.

Although unable to convince his fellow School Committee colleagues to take a formal stance on the ballot question, Bonnanzio said he personally opposes it for a number of reasons, but mainly because he cannot see any upside.

“Decriminalizing it at some level made an enormous amount of sense,” said Bonnanzio, “but why are we obsessed with pushing the envelope? We’ve just become a society that’s addicted to everything and this just adds to the list. How does it make it better or easier to raise our kids?”

Bonnanzio also noted that there is far too much gray area with respect to marijuana use and degrees of impairment, certainly more so than with alcohol, and he dismissed the taxation argument as “phony baloney nonsense.”

“Look at the lottery,” he said. “No one looks at the downside and the fact that the people who can least afford it are the ones most negatively impacted by it. It seems like a Trojan horse of sorts.”

Police Chief Ken Berkowitz, who also opposes Question 4, framed the issue as one of risk versus reward, particularly in light of the ongoing addiction crisis.

Although he has no interest in telling people how they should vote and agrees that there are plenty of people who use marijuana recreationally and “do not go any further,” Berkowitz said it can be dangerous in the hands of a person with addictive tendencies and is therefore like playing a game of “Russian roulette.”

“I just think the timing is bad,” he said. “We are now in the middle of an opioid epidemic, and every single person that I’ve responded to who has died of an overdose has started with marijuana.”

Yet it is not just opponents of legalization that are worried about the opioid crisis. Many supporters of the measure, including Canton resident Kathy M., are equally concerned but view marijuana as part of the solution.

“My doctor had to talk me into even trying it because there’s such a stigma attached to it,” acknowledged Kathy, who suffers from chronic pain and nausea caused by an earlier stroke. “I think it’s ridiculous that my regular doctor can prescribe all of these opiates but not prescribe [marijuana].”

Kathy said that in the six months she has taken marijuana lozenges she has been able to get off of three medications and it has greatly improved her quality of life. And while it is already legal for medicinal purposes, she believes that many other chronic pain sufferers would consider using it over more powerful narcotics if it were easier to obtain. She, like many others, also sees a clear double standard when it comes to society’s acceptance of alcohol, which she said is far more powerful and kills many more people a year.

“There’s just so much misinformation out there about marijuana,” she said. “It is not physically addictive; it doesn’t lead to worse drugs. I mean, who wouldn’t want that as a painkiller instead of oxycodone, other than maybe the pharmaceutical companies?”

For Pirelli, whose role with CAASA is focused on drug abuse prevention in Canton, even he concedes that marijuana has legitimate medicinal benefits and that legalization could potentially bring “tons of new jobs” to the commonwealth.

Yet whether residents ultimately vote “yes” or “no” to Question 4, Pirelli said what matters to him is that people make an informed decision.

“The problem is there’s just so much unknown with all of this,” Pirelli emphasized. “And just think about how fast this has hit us — in 2008 we had decriminalization, in 2012 medical marijuana was legalized, and now in 2016 we’re looking at recreational use.

“It’s come so quick and I just really hope that the commonwealth is prepared for it.”

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=34506

Posted by Jay Turner on Oct 14 2016. Filed under News, Police & Fire, Schools, Town Election, Town Government. Both comments and pings are currently closed.