patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Melrose Weighing Its Options After AG Says Mass. Towns Cannot Bar Marijuana Dispensaries

Attorney General Martha Coakley recently ruled that Massachusetts communities cannot prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries from opening in towns and cities but they can implement zoning regulations, according to the Boston Globe.

 

After Attorney General Martha Coakley recently ruled that Massachusetts communities cannot prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries from opening in towns and cities but can implement zoning regulations, according to the Boston Globe, city officials in Melrose are weighing their options before moving forward.

Coakley struck down a Wakefield bylaw that would have barred the marijuana dispensaries, but also separately approved a bylaw adopted in Burlington that places a moratorium on the facilities until the town completes a further study of zoning issues, according to the Globe report. Like Wakefield, Melrose and Reading previously approved bans on marijuana dispensaries in late 2012.

Melrose City Soliticor Robert Van Campen told Patch that city officials plan to meet internally to discuss the marijuana dispensaries situation, adding that no date has been set for either a private or public session.

On Nov. 6, 2012, Massachusetts voters passed Question 3, which will allow doctors to prescribe marijuana as part of a treatment, was approved on election day. The new law allows for as many as 35 dispensaries to open around the state where patients can receive up to a 60-day supply of marijuana, reads the Globe report.

"The (law's) legislative purpose could not be served if a municipality could prohibit treatment centers within its borders, for if one municipality could do so, presumably all could do so," Coakley wrote in her decision rejecting the Wakefield bylaw that would have banned the dispensaries outright.

Ruth Clay, who serves as health director for Melrose, Reading and Wakefield, told the Globe she was disappointed with Coakley's ruling but would comply with it.

"We were never morally opposed to medical marijuana. We were very concerned about how (the ballot question) was written, with a lot of opportunity for abuse," Clay told the Globe. "We were concerned about protecting the consumers, as well as protecting the community."

Wakefield and Reading will now examine other options, including a temporary moratorium, Clay told the Globe, while in Melrose — which was not directly affected by Tuesday's decision — city officials will now discuss whether to move forward with its ban, she told the Boston newspaper.

Prior to Coakley's decision, Clay, along with Melrose Police Chief Michael Lyle, have said that they supported banning marijuana dispensaries in the city during a public hearing in November 2012. During the hearing, Clay explained that Melrose has accepted more than $1.3 million in federal funding and $160,000 in state funding for substance abuse prevention, and if dispensaries were to be allowed in the city that that "would not be a consistent message for the community," she said.

Do you agree with Attorney General Martha Coakley's ruling that towns and cities cannot ban medical marijuana dispensaries from opening in communities? Let us know by posting a comment below.

Related Topics: Government, Martha Coakley, Medical marijuana, Melrose, Wakefield MA, marijuana dispensaries, and reading ma

Josh Chace

1:04 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013

What's the point of the state allowing the dispensaries only to let individuals cities and towns make the decision again on whether they're allowed or not? Case of redundant political efforts. They'll just make the inspection and petition process so convoluted and expensive locally that nobody will WANT to open a dispensary here.

Reply

Jake Ryan

1:45 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013

What's the point of states violating federal law?

Reply
Comment_arrow

RL Goudreau

5:33 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013

States' Rights is one argument.

Adam

6:41 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013

If you cannot tell liquor stores they can't open, you have to treat dispensaries the same way. People need to separate whatever strange ideas they have in their head from the fact that this is a legit drug that is helpful, and less damaging than alcohol to anyone, facts available upon request. Medical marijuana dispensaries should be regulated and treated just like liquor stores, wine shops, or pharmacies. There really is no difference.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jake Ryan

7:02 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Except for violating federal law. Just that pesky little detail.

cliff webb

6:31 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013

Outside of it being listed as a carcinogen, even in the state of California, and causing extreme anxiety in a third of users, or a joint a day can overtime damage the bronchial passages which are there to protect the body, or in higher doses, usually when eaten, can lead to impaired memory and hallucinations, and... Well, you get the point.
I support your right to mistreat yourself whether be alcohol, tobacco or marijuana. Just do not come whining to the rest of us when you screw up, can not remember whether it was the alcohol, tobacco or marijuana which you abused that has impaired your health. Or use them as an excuse when in your impaired judgement causes injury, damage or worse.
I look at it as Darwinism. Or perhaps reverse Darwinism. Anything that can retard the devolopment or procreation of a lesser species is a natural thing.
Just do not tread on others freedom to choose if you do not want yours restricted.

Reply
Comment_arrow

RL Goudreau

12:26 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013

I'm not sure what your argument is here. Are there potential side effects to using any sort of drug? Yep. Do dumb people abuse drugs (prescribed and illegal)? Sure do. Do dumb people abusing drugs do dumbs things that impact others? Seems like a weekly, if not daily, occurance. Not sure if you're setting up those strawmen for saying why you dissagree with medicinal use of marijuana or if you're just typing this stuff to just get it out there. But in either case the point of medicinal marijuana is to provide a treatment to people who will use it responsibly. To say to them "sorry you can have that option because we're afraid that dumb people will abuse it" is a little disengenous when you look at any other prescribed medicine that is abused by dumb people and is not "banned" for sale.

Leave a comment