Pubdate: Sat, 16 Mar 2013
Source: Metrowest Daily News (MA)
Copyright: 2013 MetroWest Daily News
Contact:  http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/619

RESPECT VOTERS ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

The message about medical marijuana Massachusetts voters sent last 
November could hardly be more clear: More than 63 percent of voters 
statewide said medical marijuana should be available under the limits 
set by the ballot initiative and rules now being prepared by the 
Department of Public Health.

The results were remarkably uniform: Voters in just two of the 
state's 351 municipalities  urban Lawrence and small-town 
Mendon  defeated Question 2, and in both cases with a bare 51 percent 
majority. Nearly every MetroWest community approved it by at least 60 percent.

Those clear results haven't stopped some local officials from 
assuming they know better than the people they are elected to 
represent. Several towns  including Wakefield, Melrose and 
Reading  have attempted to ban marijuana dispensaries altogether. 
Many other communities are seeking to impose moratoriums on 
dispensaries within their borders, presumably to provide time to 
enact their own regulations which, in some cases, sound like the goal 
is to make siting a dispensary all but impossible. The people want 
patients with debilitating illnesses to have access to relief from 
marijuana, some municipal officials seem to be saying, but they won't 
get it in our town.

But the voters last fall didn't just sent a message, they enacted a 
law. And, as Attorney General Martha Coakley ruled this week in 
throwing out Wakefield's ban, local officials cannot undo what the 
voters have already done.

Moratoriums like those enacted or being considered by area cities and 
towns are OK, Coakley said, while public boards write rules 
designating zones where the dispensaries can be located, signage 
rules, hours of operation and so on. These local rules may not prove 
necessary, as the DPH rules, now being drafted, will likely include 
the kind of common-sense restrictions most local officials envision. 
The draft DPH rules are to be released at the end of this month and, 
after a period for public comment, finalized in early May.

The DPH will also establish a process for awarding dispensary 
licenses, which are limited under the ballot measure to no more than 
35 for the state, with no more than five in any county. The sponsors 
of the ballot measure wanted to avoid the hundreds of "pot shops" 
that have caused headaches in other states.

As Coakley's opinion makes clear, zoning regulation remains a local 
matter, but it also holds a message for local officials tempted to 
write local dispensary regulations so onerous as to appear designed 
to keep dispensaries out rather than to give them an opportunity to 
locate where it makes the most sense for the community. We've seen 
such bylaws enacted before in the form of "adult entertainment zones" 
in landlocked areas where no developer could build.

Such tactics are unnecessary and may well be illegal. Medical 
marijuana, properly regulated, is not a threat to any community. The 
voters enacted this law  over the objections of Coakley and many 
other elected officials  and their intentions must be respected.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom