Massachusetts Medical Marijuana - In The News

As legislation relating to the local implementation of medical marijuana cultivation and dispensaries works its way through our Planning Board, Ordinance Committee, Finance Committee and City Council, I thought I'd post some recent articles from the Boston Globe and the Newburyport Daily News on the subject.  DPH is scheduled to announce the first rounds of licenses this week, by 1/31/14.

·                     "Marijuana bidders getting help from politically savvy" - Boston Globe, November 26, 2013.  Looks like some well-connected lobbyists are getting lots of work out of the roll-out of Registered Marijuana Dispensaries.

·                     “17 nonprofits eye medical marijuana dispensary licenses” – Boston Globe, Globe North Section, December 5, 2013.  This article is about the organizations seeking licenses on the North Shore of Boston.

·                     “Councilors propose zoning rules for medical marijuana facilities” – Newburyport Daily News, January 9, 2014.  An article on the measure sponsored by me and co-sponsored by Councilors Ferguson, Kelcourse and McClure.

·                     “Marijuana program chief named - Pick will decide who gets licenses” – Boston Globe, January 14, 2014.  New program chief for the medical marijuana program at DPH.

·                     “Children with epilepsy waiting for medical marijuana - Could be an answer for affliction, but it’s not here yet” – Boston Globe, January 26, 2014.  A friend of my wife similarly put out a recent plea for action; she has a child with a seizure disorder but lives in New York State, which does not currently allow for medical marijuana.

·                     “Mass. puts the ‘medical’ in marijuana” – Boston Globe, Opinion, January 28, 2014.  Opinion piece noting that MA's program has a strong focus on the medical component of marijuana cultivation, production and distribution.

·                     “Banks shun fledgling marijuana firms in Mass - Prospects of violating federal law deter lending” – Boston Globe, January 29, 2014.  Interesting business wrinkle for the providers involved.

 Bonus link: CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta, on why he changed his mind about medical marijuana.  Click here for link.

District 2 Vacancy - How Did It Happen and What Happens Next?

At our first City Council meeting last week, we declared two vacancies, one on the Planning Board and one on the City Council for the District 2 seat.  Because vacancies on the Council don’t come along too often, I thought I’d post a bit about this one, to provide some context.

 

Leading up to the most recent election, sitting District 2 Councilor Christian Scorzoni was running unopposed for re-election.  He and his family had been considering an in-town move and, as fate would have it, their house sold after Labor Day.  Between the City Charter and the laws of the Commonwealth, there are strict rules governing the nomination of candidates for public office and the finalizing and publishing of official ballots.  Once knowing that he was going to be moving out of District 2, Mr. Scorzoni found himself on the official ballot and unable to remove himself.  And it was far too late for anyone else to get on the ballot, as well.  And according to the City Charter, a City Councilor representing a district must be a resident of that district at the time of election and at least for the first 12 months of office, in order to continue to represent the district (and must always remain a resident of Amesbury).

Once Councilor Scorzoni announced his move, two residents in District 2 decided to mount ‘write-in’ campaigns, Mary Louise Bartley and former District 2 Councilor Mary Chatigny.  The Newburyport Daily News published several articles on the matter, including profiles of each of the write-in candidates.  Other social media means were used to publicize both candidates. 

Nonetheless, on Election Day, Mr. Scorzoni handily out-polled both Ms. Bartley and Ms. Chatigny.  The initial results were: 

Christian Scorzoni	271	39%
Blanks	149	22%
Mary Louise Bartley	140	20%
Mary Chatigny	125	18%

When the City Clerk held a recount for the Mayoral vote, Ms. Bartley requested a recount of the District 2 vote as well, and presented a vote challenger on the day of the recount to review ballots on her behalf.  She and Mr. Scorzoni lost votes and Ms. Chatigny gained votes.  The final District 2 results were:

Christian Scorzoni	269	39%
Blanks	146	21%
Mary Louise Bartley	138	20%
Mary Chatigny	133	19%

Like any good foundation document, the City Charter has provisions for unexpected vacancies on the City Council, and this includes the possibility that a runner-up in the most recent election can take the vacant seat automatically, if they have received enough of the votes cast in the district, in this case, thirty percent.  Here is what the Charter says, in Section 3-4, Filling of Vacancies [emphasis mine]:

If a vacancy occurs in the office of city councillor, whether by failure to elect or otherwise, the vacancy shall be filled by the unelected candidate receiving the highest votes in the same election, if any, provided that candidate received at least thirty percent of the vote for that office. Said candidate shall be notified by the city clerk of the vacancy, and if the candidate declines to be sworn to office within ten days, has moved from the city, or is otherwise unable to serve, the council shall choose a successor to fill the vacancy from among the voters entitled to vote for such office. Any person so chosen shall take the oath of office and commence to serve forthwith. No vacancy shall be filled, in the manner herein provided, if a regular city election is to be held within 120 days following the date the vacancy is declared to exist. The city council shall be the sole judge of whether a vacancy shall exist in the office of city councillor and may declare an office vacant by a majority vote of the council.

This 30% threshold is a change from the original City of Amesbury Charter, from 1996.  The original Charter had all of the same language, including a runner-up threshold for automatically being seated, but the threshold was only set at 25% of the total vote.  This change was approved by Amesbury votes in 2011 along with a number of other changes to the Charter.  I’ve been hearing some real mis-information regarding this rule and this Charter change recently, so let me clarify how it came about. 

I was appointed to the Charter Review Committee in 2007 and got to serve on it with some great folks (including Charles Labella, Roger Deschenes, Christopher Yorke and others).  The Review Committee was tasked for looking at the Charter 10 years into its life, evaluate how well it was working and propose any changes.  Section 3-4 was discussed at length in our review.  Amesbury had just gone through the tumultuous exercise of filling a vacancy in District 5, when Hank Bennick resigned mid-term.  About a half-dozen folks applied and Tom Iaccobucci was appointed to serve out the term.  So we had a living example of how the process worked to look at.  

We felt that looking to a runner-up in the most recent election was perfectly legitimate, as a means to fill a vacancy.  But we also felt that 25% was a rather low threshold.  This means that, in theory, someone could lose an election by 50% (75% to 25%) and still get an automatic buy into a seat.  Raising the limit to 30% still struck us as rather low but you have to start somewhere; raise it too close to 50% and no-one would ever make it.  This recommendation was picked up by the Mayor, vetted by the Council, approved by the voters and, ultimately, ratified by the State Legislature and Attorney General, in their acceptance of our Home Rule Charter.

Where does that leave us?   Neither write-in candidate came close to crossing the 30% threshold.  The plurality of the voters in District 2 chose Mr. Scorzoni, who was not even eligible.  More ballots were blank than were cast for either of the write-in candidates (taken separately).  The election delivered no results that could be used to seat a District 2 Councilor.  The Charter is clear on what comes next.  The task of appointing the District 2 Councilor falls to the 8 sitting City Councilors, once we declared the seat 'vacant'.  

Interested District 2 residents need only submit an application to the City Clerk by February 5 at 12:00 p.m., to be considered at the February 11 Council Meeting.  As of this writing, at least one District 2 resident has submitted an application to the City Clerk, Mary Louise Bartley.  

For myself, I will be looking for the same qualifications that I looked for when I voted for At-Large Councilors last fall: history of public service, knowledge of municipal and financial affairs, commitments to the continued investment in Amesbury’s infrastructure and public school system, and support for economic growth (the DPW re-location and Lower Millyard re-development in particular).  I hope to see a number of folks come forward and I look forward to interviewing candidates on the 11^th and identifying one that I can support with my vote.

Medical Marijuana Moratorium - What Happened and What`s Next

The City Council met last night (12/30/13) to, among other things, give final consideration to a proposed 6 month zoning moratorium on any activity related to the cultivation or dispensing of medical marijuana in Amesbury.  The moratorium failed on a technicality--state zoning law requires that any zoning measure must be heard in a public hearing by the local Planning Board.  The PB had been unable to hear this measure yet.  The meeting was scheduled as a joint meeting with the Planning Board, but the PB failed last night to raise a quorum, so they could not lawfully meet. Without a PB hearing on the measure, the Council could not legally vote on it and today marks the last day of this Council`s session, effectively ending any chance for the moratorium to be voted on.

Nonetheless, the evening was tremendously informative; it was a shame that it was not televised.  Both ATG and Greenheart - the two not-for-profit corporations applying for state licenses to cutlivate MM in Amesbury - were there to make presentations and answer questions.  There were about 40 members of the public there last night, a good crowd for a Council meeting, and 99% of them stuck it out until the meeting ended at 10:30 p.m.  The Council and members of the public asked excellent questions and the providers, to my mind, gave thorough and satisfying answers.  Though the Council could not formally vote on the measure, a public hearing by the Council was nonetheless held and quite a few members of the public stood up to speak on the moratorium.

I would estimate that the distribution of for/against a moratorium was about the same as the percent of Amesbury residents who supported medical marijuana in the first place.  2/3 of the public speakers and a majority of the Councilors were against the moratorium (and thus were for paving the way for these businesses to operate in Amesbury, should they receive state licenses) and 1/3 spoke in favor of the moratorium.  The public comments all around were thoughtful.  If the measure had come to a vote, it would have failed (as a zoning measure, it required a 2/3 vote in favor to pass).  I joined the good number of people who spoke against the moratorium.

What is next?  The MA Dept. of Public Health is scheduled to issue licenses at the end of January, 2014.  If neither ATG nor Greenheart are given licenses, then this question is moot in Amesbury....for now.  If one or both receive a license, then they have 180 days to open shop, start growing, and start dispensing MM products.  Along with several other Councilors, I will be introducing a Medical Marijuana Zoning Overlay District bylaw this coming Friday, the day after we are all sworn in.  This measure will give the community the framework that it has needed to fully review and discuss the relevant issues.  It will allow us to look ahead and tackle what I believe is of most concern to residents of Amesbury, the prospect of having a MM dispensary in Amesbury - but no entity has applied for a license to do dispense in town at this time. Councilor McClure has already re-introduced the 6 month moratorium as a "late file" for our first official Council meeting on 1/2/14, the night we are sworn in.

Cutting Through The Haze

So, in November of 2012, with 62% of the vote, the voters of Massachusetts approved a measure to allow the cultivation, production, prescription and dispensing of products derived from marijuana for narrow medicinal purposes.

The MA Department of Public Health released regulations implementing this measure in May and then began the process of issuing licenses to prospective businesses to operate as 'Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (RMD)'.  DPH has put out clear information; you can find it HERE.

I will be writing more on this but here is some basic information for the residents of Amesbury on this, in hopes of dispelling some of the substantial fog that has been pumped out regarding this in the last month or so.

• Who can use medical marijuana products?  Only trained and certified physicians can prescribe it and only patients with specific 'Debilitating Medical Conditions' can take it. Debilitating Medical Condition means cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and multiple sclerosis (MS), when such diseases are debilitating, and other debilitating conditions as determined in writing by a qualifying patient’s certifying physician.  

• What 'products' are we talking about, anyway?  We are NOT talking about the kind of products that are smoked.  And we are not talking about the type of marijuana that will get you stoned.  We are talking about what the law calls MIPs (Marijuana-Infused  Products), such as edible products, ointments, aerosols, oils, and tinctures.  This means they are NOT producing weed for joints. Patients will not be benefiting from THC (a psychoactive chemical) so much as from other 'cannabinoid' chemicals found in the marijuana plant.  In fact, the plants that we can expect to be grown by licensed growers will be marijuana strains low in THC and high in these other compounds, to maximize the medicinal benefits.  

• 'Pot Farms'?  Newspapers like headlines that sell papers and get web-site hits and by using terms like ‘Pot Farm’.  You'd get the impression that we are opening hippie communes in Amesbury.  What we are talking about, however, is best seen as a light industrial activity.  This is why the two possible cultivation sites in Amesbury are both located in buildings zoned for industrial/commercial uses.  Much like other light manufacturers, 'Registered Marijuana Dispensaries' will need: space, security, and access commercial/industrial utilities (electricity, water, sewer). 
• Is there a difference between Growers and Dispensaries? Compliance with the MA regulations requires intense control systems and security measures and will be an entirely indoor activity.  One important part of the regulations is that all RMD licensees must have 'vertically integrated' operations.  That is, each RMD will be literally responsible every aspect of production from accounting for every plant seed, through fabrication and transportation of MIPs to the dispensing of products through licensed dispensaries. 

• So, what are we talking about for here in Amesbury?  There are 2 'Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (RMD) applicants who are looking to site their cultivation and fabrication operations in Amesbury.  There are NO RMD license applicants who want to site a dispensary in Amesbury.  This is a key point.  DPH's RMD licensing process is very explicit in terms of the applicants indicating where each part of their operations will be.  As I understand it, an RMD approved to operate a dispensary in, say, Salem MA and cultivate in Amesbury does not have the option of portability with that license.  (Alternative Therapies Group has proposed just that arrangement: grow in Amesbury, dispense in Salem.)  So, no dispensaries for Amesbury anywhere on the horizon.  And approval to grow here does not open that door.  As mentioned already, this commercial activity (cultivating and fabricating MIPs) is really an industrial activity and will need to fit into locations with zoning that already allows for such uses.  This plus the operational needs (utilities, space) limits where these sites can be to existing industrial buildings and industrial parks.  We should review our current zoning for this use in light of this new activity.
• When might this happen? The MA Department of Public Health is in the final phase of vetting and approving non-profit applicants for licensing (only non-profits are eligible to apply).  'Phase II' applications were due November 21, 2013.  This is why the Council was considering a 'letter of support' for one of the applicants in the first place in November.  Now, the applications are in and the whole question of letters of support (or opposition) are moot.  DPH has indicated that RMD awards will be announced by January 31, 2014.
• I still don't like it--what can we do about it?  The short answer is: not much.  As the law of the land, the Commonwealth has made it abundantly clear that approved 'Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (RMD) will be able to operate throughout the Commonwealth (and remember, no RMD licenses have been awarded yet).  The Attorney General has nullified various by-laws and ordinances that were clearly designed to hinder or exclude RMDs from entering their community (whether for cultivation/fabrication or dispensing).  Communities can: a) adapt their existing zoning by-laws to incorporate this new type of activity and add restrictions that don't effectively make it impossible to operate in a community (for example, only allowing an RMD in a location that is a wetlands); and b) institute a time-limited zoning moratorium. But ultimately there is no way to block this legal activity.

So, the train left the station over a year ago on this issue and Amesbury is taking it up now.  On a personal level, from my own experience of working with people living with HIV/AIDS who were already able to take a prescribed cannabinoid in the form of Marinol, I need no convincing regarding the potential medical benefits for folks suffering from a number of conditions.  Looking at all the facts as an incoming Councilor, it is clear that there is not too much for the City of Amesbury to sort out or decide upon, in terms of regulating potential RMD activity.  The DPH regulations are extensive and the law is the law of the land.  That said, any time you have a new industry looking to locate in your community, it is a best practice to review your zoning for any updates that might be called for.  We can do this, moratorium or no.  In fact, a number of Councilors plan on introducing a measure to start that review process at our very first meeting as a Council in January.  And through that, we can begin educating the residents of Amesbury about what this all is and IS NOT all about.   

Words Matter

A lot of people are talking about the tone of our politics in Amesbury and it's important for all of us to remember that words matter.  And to tackle the many and complex challenges that our community faces, it means that we all have to listen to each other and be willing to learn.  That's why I participated as Chair in the 2010 Ad-Hoc Committee, even though I did not share the perspectives of some of my fellow committee members.

In case you aren't familiar with it, there is a group page on Facebook called 'Citizens for Lower Taxes in Amesbury.'  The page's mission is: 

• Purpose of group is to keep interested residents informed on budgetary issues, meetings and news related to property taxes and town expenditures. This group will not attack a specific person or group of people. If so, the group will be terminated.

When this group was started a few years ago (one of the Ad-Hoc Committee members among the initiators), its organizers invited elected officials and town employees to join and take questions from the public. Recently, the page has mainly served as an organizing and messaging space for Ken Gray, his supporters and several other folks running for office this year.  All of this is well and good and not necessarily noteworthy.  But a thread opened up a few days ago and it turned to how the current Mayor (Thatcher Kezer) and his department heads develop their annual budgets.

Helpfully, Patty DiTullio, who was until recently the head a department as the Amesbury Public Library Director, piped in and explained the process that she and other department heads had used to develop their budgets. Her explanation was reasonable and straightforward and you'd think her participation would be welcome, fitting with the stated mission of the group.

But the response to her was anything but reasonable. 

Let me put on my Library Trustee hat for a moment and tell you a little about Ms. DiTullio.  If you have been a frequent visitor to the Amesbury Public Library in recent years, then you will already be familiar with the many improvements that Ms. DiTullio and her dedicated staff have brought to the APL.  Year over year expansion of educational and community programming.  Expanded involvement of library resources in meeting the social needs of the community (important these last years, with the economic downturn and the spike in unemployment).  Continuous year over year expansion of circulation (currently about 15,000 materials circulate per month out of the library to patrons).  Excellent short and long-term planning (and execution of those plans).  Increased physical accessibility to materials and resources, despite the constraints of an out of date building.  High staff morale and stability.  And all with annual budgets that have mostly remain level, if not been reduced.  And those budgets?  Always brought in under, at the end of the year.

In short, Ms. DiTullio was the kind of 'public servant' that every community craves to have: dedicated, creative, resourceful, inspiring, productive, efficient and an excellent steward of the community's resources.

And her thanks?  Being deemed "irrelevant", having her input dismissed out of hand and having her character attacked.

And they wonder why Councilors and City employees rarely, if ever, join in their 'discussions.'

Finally, it is impossible for me not to connect this attitude to what I heard from Mr. Gray at the recent Mayoral Debate (10/9/13).  In response to a question regarding the adequacy of funding for our schools, he stated that the School Committee, school administrators and our Superintendent all do a "horrible" job with planning and managing school resources, that they have a total "disconnect" between the needs of students and what their strategic plans are for the schools.  And he had also characterized our student performance as 'shameful.'

If any of you know someone on the School Committee or who works in the schools or if you have a child in the schools, you'll know how grossly inaccurate this all is.

So, it is important that we all be able to talk to each other.  You just have to look around to see that we are still in difficult times, with decreased state funding and rising costs of goods and services.  There are no easy fixes.  And lots of folks on all sides of issues get passionate and speak harshly at times.  But if we are to tackle our community's needs, we need to start by not tearing down our own house and tearing down each other.  We are all partners in this work.