Friday, February 5, 2016

Pot Battle Brewing

55 University Drive formerly The Hanger (who moved across the street)

Even before the Amherst Select Board took up discussion of a letter of support/non opposition for a medical marijuana facility at 85 University Drive, Chair Alisa Brewer mentioned another request had come in that morning for yet another facility.

 55 U drive circled, 85 U drive far right

Since they did not disclose the location -- 55 University Drive -- until this morning this request will not be voted on at Monday night's regularly scheduled meeting since Open Meeting Law requres an agenda item must be posted 48 hours in advance.

And yes, the proposed location is only a snowball throw away from 85 University Drive (currently just a concrete slab), the location approved by the Select Board at Monday night's meeting.


Dr. Ed said...

Anything precluding both from being licensed?

Anonymous said...

Since this this is America, they both get to open and compete for the good of the consumer right? Are we really going to trust the government with pot....all dangers related to pot, all problems related to pot stem from regulations created by 2nd class ignorant gevernment types who were fine alomg with entire generations locking up their neighbors and more frequently, their own kids. It is not a battle, it is called a market with competition.

Anonymous said...

Probably some tiny lobster company. But outside of that, roll a big fat one Man.

Anonymous said...

Sad that with all the problems people face, the big worry is who can get high and when. Then again pot is a drug to escape life with so makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Do you recognize the problem? In yourself? --Potoholics Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Isn't this the same clown who "resides" in a commercial office building somewhere near Amherst Center and who "blew up" WMUA? Now the truth comes out….

Larry Kelley said...

No, different Kevin Collins.

Dr. Ed said...

Assuming that pot is actually a legitimate medicine, why isn't it considered a Schedule II drug?

That's why I consider this all to be bullbleep.

Dr. Ed said...

And then there is the poorly worded 300-foot Amherst Bylaw: "Owned by & Operated as part of the campus of ... higher education."

A good chunk of that building next to the Post Office is part of the UMass campus. It's within 300 feet of BOTH proposed drug dealerships.

Does a long-term lease constitute "ownership"? I'd argue it does because UMass doesn't technically "own" anything -- all the buildings are owned by either the Commonwealth, Bondholders, and/or the UM Foundation. (Or, as best I can tell, the Economics Department itself.)

Just saying...

Anonymous said...

The new economics building "Crotty Hall" currently under construction, as well the existing "Gordon Hall" are both privately owned by RSF Research Support Fund of Delaware a sub group of PERI Political Economics Research Institute.

They are not built on State owned land, but on formally taxable land zoned for R-G general residence.

Ed is not always wrong.

Anonymous said...

what gets me is a select board member called this a health facility ....there is not one bit of medical literature on the benefits of cannabis doctor or pharmacist has had training...this medical marijuana .is a farce...the law is a joke...i know of no one who has paid their $250 fee to the "pot doctor" in northampton who has been refused a education on cannabis and the effects it might have...or education oncontridcations with other medications a person might be's all about money...
and btw..ed it is a schedule 1

Schedule I (copied from DEA website)

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Anonymous said...

Anyone who's ever cleaned a pot pipe knows this would be a decent location for a pot dispensary, after all it was most recently and for many years an alcohol and trans fat dispensary.

Dr. Ed said...

I know it's Schedule I -- what I don't understand is why MA doesn't at least hold it to the levels of Schedule II -- prescription monitoring and the rest.

Anonymous said...

Why are people we don't know or elect scheduling substances for adults as usable or not usable?

Isn't that how children are treated? It makes sense for parents to schedule things for their kids as kids are childish, less capable, less those in government, which is why we are supposed to give them all the direction to serve us, not the other way around.

All adults need is access to information and they can make their own decisions, especially after $200,000-500,000 in education, most of it public. Otherwise haven't literally wasted the words adult and child? If someone else makes your decisions for you, are you not a child? Especially when it comes to weed. It has always been parents decide for their children when it comes to weed and adults just consume it when they want, and most do. Average American consumption of weed is a few ounces per citizen per year. Some of us use much more. Some, occasionally use none. Most use some. Thus, most have been criminals and this is what needs to be addressed. Most people being criminals is just not right. It actually implies that those that don't are the real criminals when this does not even need to be an issue of public debate, it should be a decision an adult makes of their own accord.

Pot is schedule one due to bigotry, corporate corruption and the way both of these are forever tied to politics which drives policy which drives laws which directs police who just do what they are told, as they are most certainly not the thinkers when it comes to policy. Then there is Dr. Ed, who thinks this is based on logic. Based on past posts, you should know better. Pot should be OTC and is in CO, OR, WA and AK....where there are no issues and massive benefits to the public like lower weight, less drunk drivers and most of all and most appropriate to this blog and this post, less propaganda....the people that used to bust pot users and growers now can contribute to society vs. whatever you want to call locking up innocents.

Dr. Ed said...

My guess is that at least half of the population has never smoked pot.

And stoned drivers are less dangerous than drunk ones?
"Impaired" is "impaired"....

Anonymous said...

What's the legal limit? Is there a breathalizer test available to measure how high a driver is? Hope so.

Anonymous said...

It used to be measured in munchies.

Anonymous said...

There is no "legal limit" and there shall never be; THC is fat soluble. SO, unless the govt approves brain core samples to check THC levels in the fat cells and connective tissues in the brain…we shall never know. THC levels in blood are really inconclusive. If you want the truth,look at what really is happening in WA and CO. Serious crashes have increased since legalization and the ERs are overflowing with bad reactions to THC. This ain't the 5-7% THC back in the 70 and 80s. Its dabs/wax at 80% (in the 70s it was hash oil) and edibles that are knocking people out.

Should add to an already interesting time….

Anonymous said...

You guys need to start reading the real news, scientific journals, etc.

Stoned drivers are not statistically different than straight drivers - according to the USA Federal DOT.

Despite this states do have tests and limits, but these limits are based on the same thing most of your posts are, propaganda. They are blood tests, so be clear that this is happening, but not much because cops in pot states know that it is no big deal.

Police went after pot because the feds paid them more to do so and let them literally keep the possessions of people they caught. Pot is a mild drug that does not typically lead to any violence. Most other drugs do as posted here. Thus cops, who like high paying easy jobs just like everyone else went after the potheads and avoided protecting you from dangerous stuff because dangerous stuff could hurt them and cost them more money. This is well known and few cops will honestly deny it. Countless studies and research articles done as well. Cops are afraid of real junkies and the government gave them the right to harass and steal from peaceful pot users, you tolerated it if you did not encourage it so the cops complied.

Pot is schedule one due to public policy, which is driven by politics, which is driven by false fear. There is no science behind this debate except those that are being helped so dearly in legal states. In Colorado, the number of children that have moved in with their families from out of state is enormous. Many of these kids suffered from 100's of seizures a day, until they got to folks report non or one a month due to giving their kids CBD, aka one of the drugs in pot. Again, people are posting like it is 1982 and Nancy Reagan has control of your brain.

Ignorance is the issue here, not driving, regulation, laws or otherwise. Pot policy is driven by ignorance and poor quality cops. Hippies only made this worse, they combined ignorance with endless denial to literally lock up their own children in record numbers relative to history of all humans. Again, 5% of Americans in their 20s go through prison or jail, where were the people and the parents then? Who was supposed to protect the people and the children from the pot police?

Anonymous said...

To be clear:

You need to look pretty hard to find any factual negative information on pot. The world is flooded with factual negative information about what happens when pot is illegal. Then you can ignore all of it and understand liberty.

And spending time in Colorado, having friends that work in hospitals and talking to Colorado cops....all reports are the same, Colorado is a better, healthier, lower weight (because pot makes you productive as proven), safer (due to less deaths, less driving issues, less people on booze) and just (because adults are treated as such).

That being said, Colorado is a state that is much more regulated in general and except for the mountains and the weather, Mass would beat out Colorado on many aspects such as work ethic, freedom, rights, ease of starting a business, jobs, economy and overall safety as New England has the lowest crime rates in the nation, including Mass. Just think of how much better this will get with legal pot!!!!

And OMG my capcha was to ID all the pictures with "Grass" no joke. Please post this.

Anonymous said...

You can read all the journals you like. I have driven stoned outta my gourd. It is far from safe.

Dr Ed said...

Daily Kos & Washington Post are neither respected medical journals nor government websites.

Unlike ETOH, Pot stays in your body for a week -- you aren't sober the next day...

Anonymous said...

Ed isn't a respected fact source either. I guess that evens the argument.

Dr. Ed said...

Ed never claimed to be a medical journal nor government website.

But here is a cite from one:

NB: is Natl Inst of Health.

Walter Graff said...

Sad how the drug addicts defend pot like they do. No different than heroin. It's a need to help them cope with life and forget their problems. Very Sad. Thankfully it isn't processed like heroin which can kill you.

The only reason pot is being legalized is because the gov got smart and jumped on the drug dealing band wagon since they couldn't stop it. There are too many drug addicts out there and pot was looked at as the safest in terms of addiction. Gov might as well cash in and become a legal dealer.

Addicts can say all they want and make up stories about how great pot is and how our founding fathers smoked it, and how it makes great clothing, can stop wars, etc. All nonsense.

Marijuana smoke is filled with many of the same chemicals as tobacco smoke, including ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and formaldehyde. Some of these chemicals are known to cause cancer. Most users smoke pot in a joint or water pipe, so they breathe the smoke straight into their lungs.

Brain imaging scans of heavy marijuana smokers have revealed changes in blood flow to parts of the brain involved in memory and attention. Researchers have also noted differences in the size and shape of the thalamus, the part of the brain that's involved in consciousness and information processing.

Heavy pot smokers in studies score lower than non-users on tests of memory, attention, and learning. The more they smoked, the worse they did.

The effects of smoking pot may be even more pronounced in teenage smokers than adults, because teens' brains are still developing.

Regular users are more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, especially when they have a family history of the condition.

Other effects:
Fast heart rate
Increased risk of heart attack (within the first hour after smoking)
Suicidal thoughts in teens

Some long-term, near-daily users seek treatment to quit, yet they keep smoking marijuana, despite its social, psychological, and physical effects. They also mention effects such as relationship and family problems, low energy and self-esteem, memory problems, and low life-satisfaction.

Marijuana can also lead to other addictions¸ especially in people who start smoking at a young age. That's why it's sometimes called a "gateway drug." Studies find that young people who smoke marijuana are more likely to abuse other drugs, including prescription opioids, in the future.

Anonymous said...

What are the negative effects of your 15 year-old nephew getting busted for pot? How many people have little choice but to either go on the dole, pursue criminal activities, or be underemployed their entire lives?

"Studies find that young people who smoke marijuana are more likely to abuse other drugs, including prescription opioids, in the future."

It's a gateway drug because it is illegal. In order to get it, people need to consort with dealers who deal other, more powerful and dangerous things.

Oh, and how many current pot smokers do you think drank alcohol BEFORE they first smoked pot? Would alcohol then be a gateway drug for pot, which is then a gateway drug for other things?

Talk about a gateway? How about incarceration for possession of small amounts of marijuana? Gateway to a life of crime.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see the stats. How many of us, as a percentage of users, are currently incarcerated for possession of "small" amounts? We hear it all the time, but I'd like to see proof of this assertion. And what is the definition of 'small amounts?'

Anonymous said...

No answer?