View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
anon-8457 Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Mar 24 2021, 12:19 pm EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
Personally I hate the sign promoting alcohol consumption on main Street. I don't think the Cranbury Inn should promote that. That is why we have a store on the other side of 130. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-1qro Guest
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 5 2021, 2:13 pm EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
anon-8457 wrote: | Personally I hate the sign promoting alcohol consumption on main Street. I don't think the Cranbury Inn should promote that. That is why we have a store on the other side of 130. |
HAHAHAHAHAHA - they are not promoting alcohol consumption. They are advertising that they have a liquor store that is open for business. You do know the businesses need to make money and draw people in. If you do not drink, that is fine. Ignore the sign and move on. I dont think seeing a sign up is going to make people want to drink. This town is getting worse. But thats ok, people come here because they cannot afford Princeton, stay to put their kids through school, mess stuff up int he town and move away. Been doing that for years. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-1ror Guest
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 5 2021, 5:07 pm EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
anon-8o5q wrote: | What I saw last night immediately was censorship. Mike and Matt didn’t want the Municipal Alliance to speak. Shows me they’re in favor of allowing recreational cannabis in town. Barbara begrudgingly allowed them to speak after stating several times that she was confused as to why they should speak and what they were voting on. I’ve lost faith in those three TC members.
Matt seemed to have personal experience with recreational cannabis by knowing that he can use a debit card in other states to buy it. And was confused as to why it was a cash business here in NJ.
You also forgot to mention that there is already a medical marijuana facility in Cranbury on the other side of route 130. Do we really need another facility here? Matt use weed? Kinda obvious just look at his eyes.
You mention jobs and tax revenue. How many jobs do you really think are going to be created from this? And tax revenue, have you done your homework? I believe it’s a max of 2%. That’s nothing for the town.
Not to mention what drugs do to people. Maybe you haven’t seen it first hand but I have. I’ve seen HS students throw their lives away because they liked the feeling of being high. There’s already enough pressure on kids between school and socially. By allowing sales in town you’re making it that much easier to get their hands on cannabis. Which as much as people say it’s not a “gateway drug”, it is. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-648s Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Apr 20 2021, 10:49 am EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
anon-1ror wrote: | anon-8o5q wrote: | What I saw last night immediately was censorship. Mike and Matt didn’t want the Municipal Alliance to speak. Shows me they’re in favor of allowing recreational cannabis in town. Barbara begrudgingly allowed them to speak after stating several times that she was confused as to why they should speak and what they were voting on. I’ve lost faith in those three TC members.
Matt seemed to have personal experience with recreational cannabis by knowing that he can use a debit card in other states to buy it. And was confused as to why it was a cash business here in NJ.
You also forgot to mention that there is already a medical marijuana facility in Cranbury on the other side of route 130. Do we really need another facility here? Matt use weed? Kinda obvious just look at his eyes.
You mention jobs and tax revenue. How many jobs do you really think are going to be created from this? And tax revenue, have you done your homework? I believe it’s a max of 2%. That’s nothing for the town.
Not to mention what drugs do to people. Maybe you haven’t seen it first hand but I have. I’ve seen HS students throw their lives away because they liked the feeling of being high. There’s already enough pressure on kids between school and socially. By allowing sales in town you’re making it that much easier to get their hands on cannabis. Which as much as people say it’s not a “gateway drug”, it is. |
|
The law for recreation cannabis states that recreational use will be facilitated by the medical dispensaries first. If there is already a medical dispensary here that would be the most likely location for retail. After filling their monthly medical orders they will be free to sell the remainder of their stock as long as they are able to resupply by the start of the next month. I don’t think the state would allow another location within Cranbury. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-648s Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Apr 20 2021, 10:54 am EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
anon-648s wrote: | anon-1ror wrote: | anon-8o5q wrote: | What I saw last night immediately was censorship. Mike and Matt didn’t want the Municipal Alliance to speak. Shows me they’re in favor of allowing recreational cannabis in town. Barbara begrudgingly allowed them to speak after stating several times that she was confused as to why they should speak and what they were voting on. I’ve lost faith in those three TC members.
Matt seemed to have personal experience with recreational cannabis by knowing that he can use a debit card in other states to buy it. And was confused as to why it was a cash business here in NJ.
You also forgot to mention that there is already a medical marijuana facility in Cranbury on the other side of route 130. Do we really need another facility here? Matt use weed? Kinda obvious just look at his eyes.
You mention jobs and tax revenue. How many jobs do you really think are going to be created from this? And tax revenue, have you done your homework? I believe it’s a max of 2%. That’s nothing for the town.
Not to mention what drugs do to people. Maybe you haven’t seen it first hand but I have. I’ve seen HS students throw their lives away because they liked the feeling of being high. There’s already enough pressure on kids between school and socially. By allowing sales in town you’re making it that much easier to get their hands on cannabis. Which as much as people say it’s not a “gateway drug”, it is. |
|
The law for recreation cannabis states that recreational use will be facilitated by the medical dispensaries first. If there is already a medical dispensary here that would be the most likely location for retail. After filling their monthly medical orders they will be free to sell the remainder of their stock as long as they are able to resupply by the start of the next month. I don’t think the state would allow another location within Cranbury. |
There are also only twelve medical licenses in nj. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-648s Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Apr 20 2021, 11:04 am EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
anon-40no wrote: | What you skip over is that Mayor Ferrante openly stated he did not want the Municipal Alliance chair to comment because he did not have the ability to screen her remarks in advance. You also skip over that it was Matt and Mike who voted no and it was Barbara who added the 5 minute limit. So clearly party politics are at play and there is a push to get it approved with minimal noise. As was also pointed out every work session impacting a board has allowed that board chair to participate. But that was not the case last night. Why was that?
The attorney also said that the state laws will be in flux for a while so the town would be approving sales not knowing what it is that they agreeing to do and would be required to keep the approval in place for 5 years. So if the town is harmed there is no way out. Seems rather important.
You cited a vote to legalize, but of the 90 some people at the meeting only one said they support sales. None of the homeowners in town voiced support for opening recreational sales in Cranbury. One can vote to legalize because of the unfair criminal aspects and still not want to have shops in town. The vote was not a referendum to open retail sales in town as you try to argue.
You have an agenda clearly to get sales into town the question is why? |
Sales would not be able to be conducted in town as there is already a licensed medical provider here in town. Retail of recreation marijuana would have to be conducted through the medical dispensary as per state guidelines which say that medical dispensaries will be able to obtain a retail license and could sell the remainder of their inventory as long as they are able to restock by the beginning of the next month to fill the medical orders.
This being said, I do not think the state would allow another license for Cranbury, much less for downtown. The retail location would have to be in the business park on the other side of rt. 130 as per state guidelines. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Happy 4/20-79q2 Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 21 2021, 1:31 pm EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
I hope everyone enjoyed celebrating 4/20 legally in NJ this year! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-113s Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 21 2021, 9:17 pm EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
Happy 4/20-79q2 wrote: | I hope everyone enjoyed celebrating 4/20 legally in NJ this year! |
I know I did |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-rs40 Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 21 2021, 9:39 pm EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
legally ? I think not There is no where to “legally” purchase your weed at the moment. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-648s Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 22 2021, 1:43 am EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
anon-648s wrote: | anon-1ror wrote: | anon-8o5q wrote: | What I saw last night immediately was censorship. Mike and Matt didn’t want the Municipal Alliance to speak. Shows me they’re in favor of allowing recreational cannabis in town. Barbara begrudgingly allowed them to speak after stating several times that she was confused as to why they should speak and what they were voting on. I’ve lost faith in those three TC members.
Matt seemed to have personal experience with recreational cannabis by knowing that he can use a debit card in other states to buy it. And was confused as to why it was a cash business here in NJ.
You also forgot to mention that there is already a medical marijuana facility in Cranbury on the other side of route 130. Do we really need another facility here? Matt use weed? Kinda obvious just look at his eyes.
You mention jobs and tax revenue. How many jobs do you really think are going to be created from this? And tax revenue, have you done your homework? I believe it’s a max of 2%. That’s nothing for the town.
Not to mention what drugs do to people. Maybe you haven’t seen it first hand but I have. I’ve seen HS students throw their lives away because they liked the feeling of being high. There’s already enough pressure on kids between school and socially. By allowing sales in town you’re making it that much easier to get their hands on cannabis. Which as much as people say it’s not a “gateway drug”, it is. |
|
The law for recreation cannabis states that recreational use will be facilitated by the medical dispensaries first. If there is already a medical dispensary here that would be the most likely location for retail. After filling their monthly medical orders they will be free to sell the remainder of their stock as long as they are able to resupply by the start of the next month. I don’t think the state would allow another location within Cranbury. |
This was ripped right out of the nonsense Jay Taylor, Cranbury Post opinion article. The article talked about two hundred hours of research and talking with people out of state but cited no articles or the purpose or expertise of the people on the cannabis issue. This is just the beginning of the dubiousness of the article. A number of two percent tax was thrown out and $1,000,000 with a tax share of $20,000 wasn’t compared to any of the businesses in town. What businesses down town are profiting $500,000 to over $1,000,000 annually? Marijuana dispensaries employ on average twelve employees and in states such as California they require security personnel which would increase the employment to closer to sixteen employees. Most dispensaries also pay well above minimum wage. There we little facts presented but a lot of over-dramatization. “Alcohol bottles in liquor store parking lots should concern way more that marijuana as it leads to 28% of the accidents in the United States compared to 16% of all other drugs combined.
Per the CDC
How big is the problem?
In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1
Of the 1,233 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2016, 214 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.1
In 2016, more than 1 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That’s one percent of the 111 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year (figure below).
Drugs other than alcohol (legal and illegal) are involved in about 16% of motor vehicle crashes.4
Marijuana use is increasing and 13% of nighttime, weekend drivers have marijuana in their system.5
Marijuana users were about 25% more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers with no evidence of marijuana use, however other factors–such as age and gender–may account for the increased crash risk among marijuana users.4
There hasn’t been a significant social study on Marijuana since the Shafer Commission in 1972 because Nixon was unhappy about the findings and put a moratorium on research that was not for medical studies. Many current studies are based solely on police records and that would actually be considered biased, which I think is funny as no studies by the marijuana industry were used as data for the writing of the article because of bias. That’s like a produce shop deciding to do inventory and refusing to count the bananas because you don’t like them.
Below is just a small portion of the findings of the study of the Shafer Commission:
Findings of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse include:
- “No significant physical, biochemical, or mental abnormalities could be attributed solely to their marihuana smoking.” (National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, “Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding; First Report, Washington, DC, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1972, p. 61)
- “No valid stereotype of a marihuana user or non-user can be drawn.” (p. 36)
- “Young people who choose to experiment with marihuana are fundamentally the same people, socially
and psychologically, as those who use alcohol and tobacco.” (p. 42)
- “No verification is found of a causal relationship between marihuana use and subsequent heroin use.”
(p. 8
- “Most users, young and old, demonstrate an average or above-average degree of social functioning, academic achievement, and job performance.” (p. 96)
- “In sum, the weight of the evidence is that marihuana does not cause violent or aggressive behavior; if anything marihuana serves to inhibit the expression of such behavior.” (p. 73)
- “In short marihuana is not generally viewed by participants in the criminal justice community as a major contributing influence in the commission of delinquent or criminal acts.” (p. 75)
- “Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety.” (p. 7
- “Recent research has not yet proven that marihuana use significantly impairs driving ability or
performance.” (p. 79)
- “No reliable evidence exists indicating that marihuana causes genetic defects in man.” (p. 84)
- “Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on
society does not justify a social policy designed to seek |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-648s Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 22 2021, 11:13 am EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
anon-rs40 wrote: | legally ? I think not There is no where to “legally” purchase your weed at the moment. |
Anyone who is on medical can purchase from a dispensary and gift any adult over the age of 21 up to one ounce of cannabis. It’s a loophole much like the loophole used in Washington DC. It’s really a legal grey area but you can legally obtain cannabis in NJ this way. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
The sky is falling!-79q2 Guest
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
The Consequences of -79q2 Guest
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RbtRgus
Joined: Wed, Apr 22 2020, 7:37 am EDT Posts: 3
|
Posted: Wed, May 5 2021, 7:08 am EDT Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting |
|
|
Cannabis is about as dangerous as beer. If you oppose cannabis sales in town, wouldn’t you want to also oppose liquor sales? Alcohol is a gateway drug, too — it’s all about intentionally altering your state of consciousness.
The thing about tax revenue from cannabis sales being low (and that being a problem) sounds strange. Wouldn’t a successful cannabis retailer provide the town the same advantages as any other successful business being here? Flowers? Pizza? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Feds-79q2 Guest
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mass-1qq3 Guest
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|