Seriously, it is Wednesday

Okay, the more time I have spent thinking about it the more I just can't let this one go.  The absolute misstatement last night about what people voted for when they voted for medicinal marijuana.  

I know what I voted for. I know what was on the ballot.  I didn't rely on a summary found on a website. I certainly didn't cherry pick the choicest part of the summary that appeared at the end of the ballot question explaining the effect of a yes vote. I actually made the effort to read the bloody question on the ballot before hand.  

If anyone needs reminding about what appeared on the ballot, here is a link to a copy of the November 2012 state ballot. Yes it is from Amherst, and yes it is the exact same one you voted on in Fairhaven.  

And I will note the "Yes" summary is just a tad more than simply dealing with criminal and civil penalties, not to mention the detail contained in the ballot question. It wasn't just about decriminalization.  The bit about obtaining from producing and distributing centers and growing was in the summary.  

Planning Board members across this great Commonwealth have learned from issues past that zoning is not a tool for morality lessons or preferences.  It is not an option for the imposition of personal standards and beliefs in place of the law.  

It certainly isn't the forum for debating the wisdom of the outcome of an overwhelming vote based on individual perceptions about pot.  Neither is it the place to try and determine the true "intent" of the voters. 

I know exactly what I voted for, and it was plain from the language of the question it was a vote that meant just a bit more than doing away with civil and criminal penalties for medicinal use.  Maybe I am the exception to the rule. Maybe a whole bunch of people went blindly to the polls and simply checked off the "Yes" just like they seem to check off a name come election time right?

Maybe that is simply not the issue, because until you change the law, maybe it isn't your place to second guess the electorate.

While I am on a rant, quite frankly I for one don't care what any other community is doing on the legal challenge front. 

Unless and until you take that challenge, your duty is to deal with the matter according to the zoning laws of the Commonwealth. Unless and until someone in a black robe tells you otherwise, like it or not, it is the law of the Commonwealth. 

You aren't violating federal law by creating zoning to deal with existing state law. Put any spin on it you want, you simply are not. If you truly believe otherwise, or if you truly believe the A.G. is wrong, than why aren't you pushing to fight it?

I suppose one thing that has me still a bit wound up is the chatter about the "moratorium".  As noted in past blogs, if there isn't a STM prior to the Annual, the planning board would have to re-do the "moratorium" notice, publication, hearing process if it wanted that as a fall back option.  

In the category of "no seriously, it is true" category, that's what was indicated at last night's by-law hearing. How one gets around the stringent overview for a moratorium at this point, assuming you could get it by Town Meeting at that point, is a question I cannot answer.

Indeed, having conversed with several individuals I consider to be experts in the field about our proposed moratorium prior to last night's meeting,  there is serious doubt even the current "moratorium" article would survive review. 

It seems that after having gone through the process to come up with a proposed by-law to recommend to Town Meeting, the basis to seek a moratorium quite frankly no longer exists. Last I knew, wanting a moratorium imposed because you lose a zoning by-law vote on town meeting isn't a justifiable reason for imposing one.  Not to mention that unless you are going to extend the sunset for the moratorium, why do it other than simple delay?

I can tell you one thing.  After sitting through the entire meeting last night, and at the prior moratorium hearing and watching other meetings, while I don't find the proposed by-law to be per se objectionable, I am going to have to think long and hard about whether I want to grant that board the authority to play morality police on such a facility or concept.  

Let me finish off the steam that is remaining with a thought or two.

Why is it that when election matters go the way people want the electorate is informed, and when the election goes the other way, or it creates such moral dilemmas for some, the electorate didn't know what they were voting for? 

Personally, last November, I couldn't have cared less about whether Ballot Question No. 3, with its 27 +/- lines of text on the ballot summarizing the question and effect of the vote, passed.  Once it did however, I personally care a great deal about protecting the integrity of the outcome of that vote.  

Want more apathy in the election process? Want to turn more people off about government? Sit back and let the results of yet another ballot question be frustrated or ignored.

Enough.  More than enough.