Letter to the Editor: No to Nutley Regulation No. 3473!

The introduction of Ordinance No. 3473 Even temporarily banning cannabis stores from operating seems to neglect the good of our community, especially when 64.67% of Nutley voters were in favor of legalization.

While the transition to recreational use is new, NJ legalized medical cannabis in 2010. For legislative guidance, we don’t have to look any further than our neighbor Montclair, where the first pharmacy opened in 2012.

In addition to the state cannabis regulation commission, there is a separate chamber of commerce, the NJ Canna-Business Association. These are hardly unknown waters.

I happily sang the praises of our city; It’s safe, family-friendly, clean, has good schools, a beautiful park system, and that charming small-town feel.

However, it cannot be denied that Nutley faces several ongoing challenges, replacing its largest taxpayer, Roche, an increasingly overcrowded school system that represents the general disdain for residential development. There is always room for improvement.

I think it’s no surprise that Nutley residents have asked for tax breaks. Now that relief is in sight, Nutley Adopts Prohibition Instead of Innovation!

Imagine revived shop windows in the city center, no more potholes on our streets, more senior citizen apartments and, last but not least, the project to expand the secondary school presented in the failed referendum actually a possibility!

According to the Motley Fool, NJ’s expected annual excise tax for a fully functioning market is $ 158,974,353.

In nearby Massachusetts, sales were $ 22,058,544 in 2019 and $ 81,734,083 in 2020.

My understanding is that the “wait and see” approach implemented by this “temporary” ban only serves to alienate potential investors.

The following is taken from the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act:

“… the Commission will issue the applicant with an annual license … unless the Commission finds that the applicant is not complying with the rules for annual licenses … or the Commission is informed by the competent municipality that Applicant is absent Compliance with ordinances and regulations … If a municipality has a numerical limit on the number of cannabis establishments, distributors, or delivery services and a larger number of applicants apply for licenses, the commission must collect contributions from the municipality and take into account community preference or licensing preferences. “


Asbury Park Press reports that “a municipal ban doesn’t necessarily ban candidates from that community, it merely prohibits our ability to regulate an industry there,” said Jeff Brown, executive director of the Cannabis Regulatory Commission, which will oversee the medical marijuana legal weed industry in New Jersey. “I would encourage all municipalities to work with us and see what regulations we put in place before making a decision on which path to take.”

Perhaps I’m naive, but it seems that since the law was passed, the intention of the CRC has been to work directly with local authorities and Nutley would have decision-making authority over all aspects of the Canna business.

I would like our committee of commissioners to make it clear exactly what they want to achieve with the ban, because perhaps many of their reservations are simply misunderstandings.

For example, the NJLM clearly states: State law prohibits any possession or sale of drugs within 300 meters of school premises, including licensed cannabis companies. Operators must also comply with local drug-free school zone laws.

I can only conclude that adopting a culture of acceptance rather than prohibition would be of great benefit to all Nutley residents.

Many Thanks,

Mabel alvarez