Marijuana discussion
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Feb 12 2018, 7:07 am EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

Do you really think the TC is going to have any influence on legalization?

This isn’t about legalization, but about whether we want to allow its sale in Cranbury.

If you look at the data around sales you see it can help home values in urban areas and negatively affect policing and home values in towns like Cranbury. So the issue on the agenda is one of zoning. Let’s not confuse the two very different discussions.
Back to top
anon-4o68
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Feb 12 2018, 8:54 am EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

I am a member of indivisible. I would not sit for the pledge.

I conced that the studies show an impact in additional minor crime and in housing value decline in wealthy towns. But is that impact sever enough to avoid the social obligation we have. Maybe a drop in housing would be good for Cranbury as it would open up a more diverse town.

I also feel:

- This is in the industrial zone so if we have some additional crime out there it is not in my view a concern. Will people who opt to deal out there really come into town to deal? Our police can easily patrol that area.

- In terms of home values decreasing. I am okay sacrificing 1-2% of my home value if it helps more broadly. For example, Hightstown is a sanctuary city. Their home values have decreased a few percent as a result. But there is a greater good with more diversity, more housing opportunity and less sheltered kids.

- The state is only allowing one facility per county. If we do not step up then where would it go? Cateret, Perth Amboy, New Brunswick? Not only will it take longer to set up these operations, but if they are already dealing with issues then it only increases the impact from crime and housing.

- yes studies did show more marijuana related traffic issues in legal states. But there is no proof the people were high. Just that they had THC in their system. You can’t test for whether it was affecting their system at the time of the crash.

Cranbury has an opportunity to define ourselves as standing up for social change and being progressive. Maybe we don’t need all the 800k and million dollar homes. Maybe some should lose value so a family can find a nice 400k home here like in East windsor or Hightstown.
Back to top
Indivisible Cranury-pp98
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Feb 12 2018, 1:36 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

the cranbury council should vote tonight to decriminalize marijuana to make the penalty for possession of one ounce or less a $75 fine — a move that will neutralize uneven policing and enforcement of drug laws for marijuana where the majority of those arrested are black. cranbury needs to be a liberal and progressive leader not a follower when it comes to crimes against the black community
Back to top
Indivisible-0rsp
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Feb 12 2018, 5:41 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

Black people are arrested for possessing marijuana at a higher rate than white people, even though marijuana use by both races is about the same, the town council should decriminalize marajuana tonight. They should also move quickly to make Cranbury a sanctuary city, to provide a living wage in Cranbury with a $15 hour minimum wage. We elected Mr. Scott to be our liberal and progressive leader, now it is time for Mr Scott to lead and it is time for all of us to lean in and make change happen
Back to top
anon-q2r7
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, Feb 13 2018, 8:00 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

Indivisible Cranury-pp98 wrote:
the cranbury council should vote tonight to decriminalize marijuana to make the penalty for possession of one ounce or less a $75 fine — a move that will neutralize uneven policing and enforcement of drug laws for marijuana where the majority of those arrested are black. cranbury needs to be a liberal and progressive leader not a follower when it comes to crimes against the black community
No it doesn't. You should of moved to Hightstown.
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, Feb 13 2018, 8:36 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

My understanding is that the TC decided last night to pass a regulation prohibiting recreational sales in Cranbury, but that it still requires public discussion and a formal vote.

I understand Mr. Taylor and Mr. Mulligan were strongly opposed to allowing recreational sales in Cranbury. I also understand Mr. Scott advocated that retail sales on Main St. could have benefits for the town.
Back to top
anon-4n3s
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, Feb 13 2018, 9:36 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

anon-4o68 wrote:
I am a member of indivisible. I would not sit for the pledge.

I conced that the studies show an impact in additional minor crime and in housing value decline in wealthy towns. But is that impact sever enough to avoid the social obligation we have. Maybe a drop in housing would be good for Cranbury as it would open up a more diverse town.

I also feel:

- This is in the industrial zone so if we have some additional crime out there it is not in my view a concern. Will people who opt to deal out there really come into town to deal? Our police can easily patrol that area.

- In terms of home values decreasing. I am okay sacrificing 1-2% of my home value if it helps more broadly. For example, Hightstown is a sanctuary city. Their home values have decreased a few percent as a result. But there is a greater good with more diversity, more housing opportunity and less sheltered kids.

- The state is only allowing one facility per county. If we do not step up then where would it go? Cateret, Perth Amboy, New Brunswick? Not only will it take longer to set up these operations, but if they are already dealing with issues then it only increases the impact from crime and housing.

- yes studies did show more marijuana related traffic issues in legal states. But there is no proof the people were high. Just that they had THC in their system. You can’t test for whether it was affecting their system at the time of the crash.

Cranbury has an opportunity to define ourselves as standing up for social change and being progressive. Maybe we don’t need all the 800k and million dollar homes. Maybe some should lose value so a family can find a nice 400k home here like in East windsor or Hightstown.


Oh Art, stop the trolling.
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, Feb 13 2018, 10:02 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

Why is this trolling? I know members of indivisible some do not want legalization or Cranbury to be a sanctuary city and others do want those things. Matt Scott apparently wants legalization and stores on Main St. That is his view which he is entitled to have.

People have a right to a view.
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Feb 14 2018, 8:45 am EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

The above
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Feb 14 2018, 9:06 am EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

Sorry hit the wrong button.

The above comment that I referenced could very well be from a member and not a troll. On the twitter page for indivisible Cranbury

https://mobile.twitter.com/indivisiblecran

Look at the May 2 post that the person owning the account wrote.

"Big Money White guys are investing in dirty, dirty deeds."

Replace white with any other race and the post would be incredibly racist. The point is that group has progressive ideals that transcend down to the local level and I could see some members wanting Cranbury to take the lead on social change no matter the implication. Mr. Scott is one of those people it appears which again is not wrong, but I am not sure it fits the majority view in Cranbury that we should sacrifice locally for broader issues.
Back to top
anon-421n
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Feb 14 2018, 10:12 am EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

Indivisible Cranbury-pp98 wrote:
Join us as we support the decriminalization of Marijuana by kneeling or sitting for the pledge of allegiance at the town meeting Monday night. We are calling on our representatives on the town council to join us in in solidarity for this silent protest. Disproportionately people of color, are charged with marijuana crimes hitting black communities the hardest. Meanwhile, police departments that presumably have far more important things to do waste an enormous amount of time and taxpayer money chasing a drug that two states have already legalized and that a majority of Americans believe should be legal everywhere.


The Witt, Cranbury Republicans, Nunes, Trump trolls are at it again. Remember before the township election, same false crap trying to impersonate Matt. Look back at the pre-election posts and you'll see the pattern. Folks - the fish rots from the head --TRUMP-- Look how Trump infects everyone around him. This is what these trolls presumably teach their children. You can't separate their tactics from their personal ethics. Don't let anyone sprouting this crap near our children, elected office or our churches
Back to top
anon-4q29
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Feb 14 2018, 12:59 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

The best defense to these trolls is your group simply being upfront and clear on positions. Not bashing Trump or broad based Cranbury Republicans complaints. That isn’t going to win you any support for your arguments.

But get your group to actually stake positions that are not hid behind closed doors. If you do this then no one can troll your group by claiming to be your group.

By hiding membership and positions you’re giving these trolls what they want.
Back to top
anon-srq2
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Feb 14 2018, 2:18 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

Mr. Taylor seemed to be against, Scott for. Mr. Mulligan did not state weather he was for or against but wanted to give the town ground to stand on if the State mandated that we allow sales. Then if we did it could be done in a way the town agrees with. Mayor Johnson did not give an opinion either way but was planning to meet with representatives of the state on the matter. Mr. Cook was not present to give an opinion.
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Feb 14 2018, 4:21 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

From Cranbury Press Summary:

The Cranbury Township Committee will look to stay one step ahead of possible changes to New Jersey’s drug laws with an ordinance that would prohibit retail sales of recreational marijuana in town.

The measure is expected to come up at the committee meeting later this month.

Our TC member positions in order from the article:

Mr. Taylor- Township Committeeman James Taylor, concerned about the impacts on property values and the school system,

Mr. Mulligan- For his part, Township Committeeman Daniel P. Mulligan III raised concern that he did not trust state government to “implement anything properly,” in his words.

“There’s really a high risk that they’re going to screw this up,” he said, “so I want something defensible."

Mayor Johnson- Mayor Glenn R. Johnson was skeptical of the rosy financial predictions. He pointed to the experience of Colorado, which legalized marijuana, where the price of marijuana started out at around $36 per gram and then, as more growers came in, fell to about $8.

“So if you’re talking about a tax that’s based on the purchase price,” he said, “it seems like it’s going to be a decreasing thing over a period of years.”


Mr. Scott- He (Mr. Scott) later raised a concern that Cranbury might lose out on a dispensary that decides to go to a more hospitable community.
Back to top
anon-2394
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Feb 14 2018, 5:41 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

Here is the link...
http://www.centraljersey.com/news/the_cranbury_press/cranbury-township-not-high-on-retail-sales-of-medical-marijuana/article_ddb97194-11c1-11e8-a8ad-5f074b1c948d.html
Back to top
anon-4os8
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:08 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Marijuana discussion Reply with quote

anon-s6p5 wrote:

Mr. Mulligan-
“There’s really a high risk that they’re going to screw this up,” he said, “so I want something defensible."


No pun intended?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5