We are passing no judgment on those who want to consume or sell marijuana, but rather on the truly one sided nature of this long and complicated ballot initiative written by deep pocketed, out-of-state interests which are also financing the push to pass it on November 8. As written, the question puts our delicate Main Streets at risk, along with the small businesses working hard to create and maintain the right family oriented shopping, dining and entertainment districts to keep them successful in the future.

One of the problems with passing laws by ballot initiative is that unlike the legislative process, there is no ability for compromise between all affected parties. Rather the special interests looking to pass the laws have the ability to tip the scales and even hoodwink the voters with measures so lengthy and so complicated most voters won’t even read them. And so it is with the fine print of Question 4.

The out-of-state interests financing the initiative would leave you to believe there is plenty of local control, and that marijuana is treated just like alcohol. The reality is that the authority of local governments to control the number and location of marijuana establishments is significantly restricted by the language of the initiative. For example, a locality choosing not to issue marijuana licenses and those considering the issuance of licenses for on-the-premises consumption, must delegate their authority to voters in the form of a local ballot referendum. Many will not even attempt such local ballot questions, as like Question 4 itself, the deep pockets seeking to prevent more local control will heavily outspend any well-meaning efforts to protect their communities.

Absentee landlords looking to fill store fronts will be attracted to these new, high margin, cash businesses. Their financial priorities will outweigh any local small business concern that the wrong type of operation locating next door will injure the family-friendly attractiveness of shopping, dining and entertainment block or district.

Furthermore, proponents claim that marijuana will be treated just like alcohol. Yet, the initiative imposes a statewide standard for penalizing public consumption of marijuana which more closely resembles our laws on tobacco usage than the by-laws and ordinances adopted by our cities and towns to address public consumption of alcohol. For the most part unenforceable, these civil citations will do little to prevent public consumption.

Some of us remember the days when smoking was banned from bars and restaurants, and what that meant for congregating outside of that establishment on the sidewalk, and frustration and disincentives that created for small businesses next door and for their customers. Over the years, tobacco consumption has plummeted, and so have those problems of public smoking in front of small businesses on Main Street. There is little question we will be heading in the other direction on public consumption of marijuana under the industry written provisions of Question 4, which allow too many sellers, and even allows for on the premises consumption at certain establishments.

I am not particularly worried about those stores and restaurants located in malls, strip malls and stand-alone owned properties. In those locations developers and landlords can police both who they rent to, and whether smoking will be allowed outside on their property. But for those located in downtowns on Main Streets, and community shopping and entertainment districts, there will be no similar safeguards, and community and small business control.

We all know that our Main Streets are already challenged by online competition and high operating costs. Disrupting the fragile, family friendly attractiveness of our small businesses and shopping districts by a flawed marijuana industry measure is wrong direction as we seek to protect, promote and preserve Main Street Massachusetts. That is why the RAM Board of Directors voted to oppose Question 4.

Please join us in voting NO on Question 4 on November 8.