On Tuesday, the Boston City Council‘s Committee on Health Women, Families and Communities held a hearing regarding the two medical marijuana dispensaries that were awarded operating licenses and plan to plant their roots in Boston. The committee entertained testimony from city officials, dispensary executives and patients who all shared their sentiments on why Boston should embrace these new companies, but they also debated the necessary municipal logistics needed to bring them into fruition.
The order for a hearing was sponsored by City Councilors Bill Linehan and Frank Baker who, like all the other Councilors in attendance, expressed their support for dispensaries in Boston and called the hearing simply to discuss any potential impact at the street-level.
“It’s a matter that needs to be vetted in a public way,” stated Linehan, the City Council President. ” [It’s] a good chance to learn about the good and uses, and the ptential shortfalls in the city.”
The committee, chaired by City Councilor At-Large Ayanna Pressley, first talked to Dr. Barbara Ferrer, Executive Director of the Boston Health Commission; Robert Merner, Superintendent of the Boston Police Department; and Brain Golden, interim head of the Boston Redevelopment Authority to discuss location and implementation strategy.
And while each of those on the panel conveyed information based on their own expertise – from inspections to violations, site security to product delivery, and zoning to infrastructure – it wasn’t quite enough for the Council. In fact, most the questions they had were for state representatives who, it was hoped, would further explain the position of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the entire process.
But the state stood everyone up.
In that respect, Councilor Michael Flaherty motioned to recess the hearing until state officials were in attendance.
But not before the two prospective dispensaries had their say. One of the biggest concerns of the dispensaries was the proposed locations of each dispensary – one on Boylston Street in the Back Bay, the other on Southampton Street in Roxbury. The committee imparted caution as to both sites as they contended the state simply flushed the applicants through without taking the necessary care to examine both spots.
The Southampton Street location in particular is situated near a methadone clinic and has therefore prompted great skepticism as to whether or not it would benefit the community due to the proximity.
Posed Councilor Tito Jackson, “Where do we help people and where to place dispensaries as not to exacerbate the situation, but give people aid?”
Similarly, Councilor Linehan suggested that medical marijuana dispensaries actually be situated near medical complexes and medical infrastructure as opposed to an industrialized area in Roxbury and a high-end boutique haven in the Back Bay.
Good Chemistry of Massachusetts was the first dispensary to testify and indicated its willingness to comply with the city and state to the utmost when it comes to reconsidering locations and also the possibility of increased security measures. With an option to lease space on Boylston Street, the executives disclosed that they have another possible site in mind and will consider moving forward with it pending a final review of the one in the Back Bay.
Also operating as Good Chemistry of Colorado in Denver, a city which boasts in the neighborhood of 180 dispensaries within city limits, Good Chemistry of Massachusetts demonstrated that it’s subtle sign would not attract attention on the street or sidewalk, would be open to Councilor O’Malley’s suggestion of a fully-staffed police detail on site at all times, and is willing to cooperate with the community, City Council and applicable officials with every step along the way.
The Good Chemistry panel also noted that they’ve had zero security issues in their Denver branch and are more than happy to comply with the Bay State’s rigorous shipping and receiving laws.
Following their testimony was that of Green Heart Holistic & Pharmaceuticals. The executives plan on opening up shop at the Southampton Street location but expounded more of an apology than they did a general outline of their business. Green Heart is one of the dispensaries whose application was called into question due to the fact that some of their statements may have been invalid.
Though they mentioned having met with Councilor Jackson to discuss the regret they feel in the language used in the application to warrant any suspicion, they made it abundantly clear that should they be allowed to proceed with opening their business, they will exude absolutely clarity and transparency with future discussions.
Issues like the ones with Green Heart exemplify some of the reasoning behind the Council’s hearing. Though no state officials were present to testify on behalf of the commonwealth, many of the Councilors present were and remain very much unsatisfied with the handling of the entire process.
“It seems like the state backloaded regulations once the law was in place,” opined Councilor Linehan.
“I have great concern with the accuracy of the Department of Public Health’s documentation,” added Councilor Jackson.
Councilor Josh Zakim stated that there will be another public hearing specific to Good Chemistry and its Back Bay location on March 18 at the Boston Public Library, which state and city officials are also thought to attend. As for more citywide hearings like the Council’s on Tuesday, there are sure to be plenty more though none have been announced at this time.
But the big takeaway from the hearing is: much of the City Council seems on board with medical marijuana dispensaries are are rightfully worried that the impact may render unwanted consequences. Councilor Linehan in particular, one who many feel is more conservative in his legislative views, went on record saying that he’s also in favor of medical marijuana and recognizes its helpful properties.
Stay tuned to BostInno for the latest medical marijuana news as it pertains to Boston. In the meantime, let us know your thoughts on medical marijuana dispensaries and the licensing process in the comments section below.
