Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="anon-00q5"][quote="anon-7666"]I think cultivating was also raised as a concern because of the loss of preserved farmland. The greenhouses are warehouse style buildings it was reported. So we could have warehouse complex’s on preserved farmland. Along with the resulting truck traffic.[/quote] That's a great point. I can't imagine anyone would want some big growing facility dropped in the middle of our preserved farmland. I wonder if we were to allow cultivating if we could limit it to the warehouse/light industrial zones. That's one for the lawyers, I suppose.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
Can't believe-79q2
Posted: Wed, Jul 7 2021, 2:52 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting
Typical, still can't get around the fact that it's not a bad thing for Cranbury. All of the "world is going to end if we allow this" at all of the township meetings has been proven wrong over and over again where it has been legalized. And it's not over, the ban is only a place holder until we can hear what the regulations are going to be.
anon-400o
Posted: Mon, Jul 5 2021, 10:49 am EDT
Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting
In MA there are many more retail stores than will initially be allowed in NJ. EastHampton is also not a town like Cranbury. It is 3x our size, has four stores alone and a number of stores in neighboring towns.
The issue for Cranbury thankfully is solved anyway.
Mass-1qq3
Posted: Mon, Jul 5 2021, 9:52 am EDT
Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting
https://www.nj.com/marijuana/2021/07/nj-towns-cant-make-up-their-minds-about-weed-heres-how-it-went-for-one-in-massachusetts.html
Feds-79q2
Posted: Fri, May 28 2021, 2:02 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting
https://www.nj.com/marijuana/2021/05/legislation-to-remove-federal-ban-on-marijuana-introduced-again-in-us-house.html
RbtRgus
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?
The Consequences of -79q2
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2021, 9:09 am EDT
Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting
Good talk on the consequences of Marijuana Legalization...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzSNbOGNBjU
The sky is falling!-79q2
Posted: Tue, Apr 27 2021, 7:28 am EDT
Post subject: Re: 3/22 Township Meeting
“Thinking that drug use and drug availability is inherently going to bring down property values and result in, like, chaos and mayhem and anarchy, and it’s just not true,” a cannabis regulator said.
https://nj1015.com/legal-marijuana-battles-shift-to-town-halls-and-congress/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral&fbclid=IwAR3gDY64MkAlN0wx3oGkuPBS3N0zNJBhMI02g3ZkltcFgtsaBfRIJO_0a80
anon-648s
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.
anon-648s
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
anon-rs40
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.
anon-113s
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
Happy 4/20-79q2
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!
anon-648s
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.
anon-648s
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.
anon-648s
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.
anon-1ror
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.