Friday, July 22, 2016

Marijuana Quota Met?



169 Meadow St RMD site for GTI

Last night the Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously approved a Special Permit to establish and operate an Off-Site Medical Marijuana Dispensary at 169 Meadow Street, North Amherst by GTI Massachusetts NP Corporation, the second such permit issued over the past four weeks.

 Attorney Tom Reidy presents to ZBA last night

But, in all likelihood, the last such permit to be issued over the foreseeable future.



55 University Drive location received a Special Permit on June 30th

ZBA Chair Mark Parent made it perfectly clear that he considers two dispensaries in Amherst (and the one already operating in Northampton) more than enough to satisfy local demand over the next five years, saying "I don't see anything beyond two in Amherst.  I cannot image giving a 3rd permit for a dispensary given the numbers I've seen."

A Special Permit requires a unanimous vote off all three ZBA members.

Seated in the audience UMass community liaisons Tony Maroulis and Eric Beal seemed relieved to hear the ZBA Chair's candid remarks about maintaining a cap of only two dispensaries in Amherst, thus leaving out in the cold two remaining non-profits who have applied for locations on University Drive, the main gateway to UMass Amherst.



85 University Drive was the first to get Select Board approval but has not yet appeared before ZBA

Mr. Parent also made it perfectly clear the Special Permit was for medical use of marijuana, NOT recreational use. 

So if the recreational pot legalization ballot question passes on November 8th any dispensary in Amherst already issued a Special Permit would need to come back to the ZBA for a change in conditions.


Rafters,  a local landmark for 25 years, is a proposed site for Happy Valley Ventures, the 4th entity to get Select Board approval but has not yet appeared before ZBA


Letter from Select Board read into public record last night:

Click to enlarge/read



7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sad that the liberals of Amherst will now be able to satisfy their need to escape from their horrible lives. A drug addict is a drug addict, legal or illegal.

Anonymous said...

So only liberals use medical marijuana? An alcoholic is also a drug addict- their preferred drug is alcohol. Are only liberals alcoholics?

Anonymous said...

Considering the area has a very high (no pun) percentage of liberals living in it, this would far more be about liberals than anyone else. Two dispensaries (and original talk of four) is absurd for such a small population but then again when I see how many of my friends in education live to smoke pot, it makes sense.

In surveys, Democrats are more likely to smoke this shit than Republicans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6394/who-smoked-pot-may-surprised.aspx

Anonymous said...

Kinda sad that society is being designed by government officials...I thought my family members died fighting wars against these kinds of people and their tyrant supporters...so shameful to them, our flag, our economy, our rights.

....perhaps it is time to put a limit on government vs. the people....you know, like a constitution or something....one that is followed....

Governments have always been known to have the worst potential vs. The people, this is a clear example and true more than ever, what kind of American limits the number of businesses competing, what kind of Americans accept such, especially in weed, that is a clear demand to retain the black market...which has no regulations...it is shooting your goal in the foot.....it is no surprise that there is not much of a place in the private sector for such people working in government...such action can only be accomplished with force aka government...cannot do so with peace aka the private sector, which describes the weed black market. Time to yet again replace peace with force, freedom with regulation, personal decision with government decision, free market with socialism....because if anything, that is what Amherst is about....weak people who need constant parenting.

Joke is on you. This is not a weed issue, this is a lack of basic business and ownership rights issue, like the rest that constantly come up here....because when ot comes to running over your rights, even the H plots against you.

On the bright side, great for the local grow stores as the black market is kept alive and people sneak growing all over and the kids get better access....sorry parents!

Anonymous said...

Just like in Colorado, when you over regulate the new legal market, that the black market is still there to support the community. Mass previously regulated in a way that made 100,000s of growers, esp in W. Mass. Even before recent times of legal weed, there were many growers locally.

Where do you think those growers are going to sell their weed in the new overly restricted market?

THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF MARIJUANA REGULATION TO KEEP MARIJUANA AWAY FROM KIDS IS to make sure that local growers can sell to the dispensaries liberally, otherwise they will still sell liberally, to the only market you left them via these poor regulations.

When you have dispensaries, you take the local adult market away from black market growers (great right?). When you have states around your state that have legal marijuana, you take the regional export market away from black market growers (great right?).

Once you do both of these, you leave the growers only one market to sell to and history has shown us that they will still sell. The one market remaining is the under-aged kids, school kids (oops I was not thinking of that?).

IT IS CRITICAL TO ALLOW LOCAL GROWERS TO SELL TO DISPENSARIES TO KEEP THE MARIJUANA FROM BEING SOLD TO YOUR KIDS AS THE ONLY REMAINING BLACK MARKET.

Deny this and watch your kids become zombies with the best quality marijuana (local stuff is far better than CO).

Dr. Ed said...

What part of "restraint of trade" do these idiots not understand?

Dr. Ed said...

Since pot is ALLEGEDLY "medical", any attempt to restrict it like this becomes an ADA violation, which is exempt from the sovereign immunity limits.

There is case law on this relative to Methadone "clinics."

You also could get a RICO suit if UMass was involved, as Larry suggests.