Pubdate: Sun, 31 Jul 2016
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2016 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact: http://services.bostonglobe.com/news/opeds/letter.aspx?id=6340
Website: http://bostonglobe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/52

END THIS UNFAIR 'TAX' ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA SHOPS

Companies that want to open medical marijuana dispensaries in 
Massachusetts are being pressured into paying an unnecessarily high 
price to follow the letter of the law. The licensing process for 
dispensaries established under the state Department of Public Health 
is rightfully rigorous. But the vetting procedures also must be fair. 
That's not the case with a provision that requires applicants to 
submit de facto letters of consent from communities where they want 
to set up shop - the provision is being used by some local officials 
to elicit unreasonable payments from businesses applying for 
dispensary licenses.

Since voters in 2012 approved legislation allowing marijuana to be 
grown and sold to treat certain medical conditions, just six 
dispensaries have opened their doors. Another 174 applications are 
slowly advancing through the regulatory gantlet. The Globe's Kay 
Lazar reported last week that one of those applicants, Good Chemistry 
of Massachusetts, secured an approval letter from Worcester officials 
only after striking a deal that calls for Good Chemistry to give the 
city $450,000 over three years, and then dole out $200,000 - plus 2.5 
percent of its revenue - in subsequent years. A $10,000 annual 
contribution to public charities was thrown in for good measure.

In Springfield, officials are negotiating an agreement with a 
dispensary that pegs the cost of an approval letter to a percentage 
of the business's annual sales over the course of 10 years - starting 
at 3 percent annually and climbing to 7 percent. An additional 
$50,000 a year would be donated to the Springfield Police Department. 
There are similarly outrageous examples in other cities and towns.

Letters written by George Washington have sold for less.

Some officials have attempted to justify the payments as advances - 
money that's available in the event police overtime details or other 
municipal services are needed to control some kind of unruly activity 
at a dispensary. Like a middle-age patient buying marijuana cookies 
to dull chronic pain, or someone desperate to stave off waves of 
nausea brought on by chemotherapy? There is no basis for such 
concerns, which are better described as scare tactics.

The reality is that despite the nature of the wares for sale, the 
scene at Massachusetts' medical marijuana shops is typically sedate. 
Every customer is authorized by a doctor, every transaction is 
closely monitored. There's more commotion at a Walgreens drive-thru. 
As additional shops open, the customer base will be further spread 
out, lessening the already slim chances of a public safety threat or 
traffic congestion.

In 2013, then-attorney general Martha Coakley ruled that communities 
"are not permitted to enact a total ban on marijuana treatment 
centers," but they can regulate them through zoning bylaws and even 
temporary moratoriums. The approval letter requirement was meant to 
give them additional input into which businesses are awarded 
licenses. It's turning out to be a way for local governments to 
generate cash by putting the squeeze on dispensaries, which aren't in 
a position to publicly protest the coercion. Customers, no doubt, 
will end up absorbing some of the expense.

Voters in November have an opportunity to weigh in indirectly on the 
issue through the ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana for 
recreational use. Language in the referendum prevents communities 
from imposing any fee on shops "that is not directly proportional and 
reasonably related to the costs imposed upon the city or town by the 
operation of a marijuana establishment." It means that if the 
question passes, recreational marijuana shops would have to pay only 
modest fees, while dispensaries could still be held hostage to 
approval letter negotiations. State officials would be obliged to 
address the disparity.

Other states that have medical marijuana dispensaries typically don't 
require what the Department of Public Health calls "letters of 
support or non-opposition." Massachusetts should move to curb 
communities' arm-twisting approval letter deals, or at least 
drastically limit the size of payments they can solicit from dispensaries.

No matter what it sells, a business that plays by the rules shouldn't 
be charged hundreds of thousands of dollars for a letter that's worth 
the price of a FedEx delivery.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom