Dear Evan & Monson Board of Selectmen:

I hope this email finds you well. The last time I was in Monson, Massachusetts on July 24th, 2018, I
presented the Board of Selectmen with an educational session regarding adult use cannabis that
was broadcast on MPACT. I had a good time meeting the Board and giving this presentation. During
the meeting, I expressed a concern that your Planning Board, headed by Dan LaRoche (the Town
Planner), had zoned cannabis cultivation in such a way that disenfranchised local Monson farmers
from participating in the local cannabis industry. This was done by limiting cannabis cultivation to
industrial-only districts, which is a very small portion of the town that does not include farmland.
This can be seen very plainly on the attachment that I've included where the color purple indicates
the industrial district and light yellow indicates the surrounding rural residential district, which
makes up the majority of the town and is full of farmland.

I found out last week that the Board of Selectmen in Monson has proposed the attached bylaws
regarding Adult Use Cannabis in the Town of Monson. When I read these bylaws, I was taken aback
because they are at a huge risk of violating state law [Chapter 94G: Regulation of the Use and
Distribution of Marijuana Not Medically Prescribed]. They also contain perhaps the most draconian
bylaws that I have seen written in the state of Massachusetts (and I have been reviewing many over
the past few months). That being the case, I'll lay out my thoughts in two stages. First, I will present
to you what is wrong with these bylaws and why they are at risk of violating the state statute, and,
second, I will give this governmental body a decision that you must now make having proposed
these bylaws.

First, let me address a number of sections and elements of these proposed bylaws that I find
troubling. These are the first bylaws that I have seen in the state of Massachusetts that attempt to
restrict education around cannabis. Per Section 3, subsection (b). [Physical Requirements] of the
proposed bylaws:

All aspects of the marijuana establishment, except for the transportation of product or
materials, relative to the acquisition, cultivation, possession, processing, sales, distribution,
dispensing, or administration of marijuana, products containing marijuana, related
supplies, or educational materials must take place at a fixed location within a fully enclosed
building (including greenhouses) and shall not be visible from the exterior of the
business. They may not be permitted to be located in a trailer, storage freight container,
motor vehicle or other similar type potentially movable enclosure.

I find it interesting that the Board of Selectmen is proposing here that educational materials cannot
be distributed outside of a marijuana establishment. This would seem to go against the whole idea
of medically prescribed cannabis. Why would the Town of Monson not want a marijuana facility to
have the ability to spread education about cannabis? Does the Town of Monson not want patients
and consumers to learn more about cannabis so that they can treat their ailments most effectively
and consume responsibly? This is perplexing from my standpoint and I believe that it goes against
everything that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts stands for, as this is a state that houses some
of the best educational institutions in the world. Does the Board of Selectmen in the Town of
Monson wish to prevent education on the topic of cannabis?
As someone that is a home grower of cannabis and passionate about organic cultivating, I find the
subsection (iv) around Ventilation to be curious:

Ventilation – all marijuana establishments shall be ventilated in such a manner that no:
1. Pesticides, insecticides or other chemicals or products used in the cultivation or
processing are dispersed into the outside atmosphere

Does that mean that a medical or adult use marijuana cultivation facility in Monson can put
whatever pesticide it wishes on the cannabis plants as long as those pesticides are not "dispersed
into the outside atmosphere?" My reading of this section is that pesticide use is okay within your
cultivation facilities and its okay that the workers within that facility are exposed to pesticides as
long as they are not "dispersed into the outside atmosphere"

Section (c) subsection (i.) Location:

Marijuana establishments are encouraged to utilize existing vacant buildings where

possible.

It's interesting to me that marijuana establishments are "encouraged to utilize vacant buildings" but
are completely restricted under these bylaws from being encouraged to use vacant farmland. Does
the Town of Monson not wish for the cannabis industry to benefit local farmers that wish to
dedicate a parcel of their land to grow a bumper crop to help support their agricultural activities?
Why should the Town of Monson favor development in vacant buildings that, to date, have not
found other businesses to move in? There is likely a reason that these buildings are vacant. I can
guarantee you that one of those reasons is the high cost of work involved to ensure such buildings
are brought back up to code. What that means is that you are favoring corporations that are able to
spend millions on renovations while you prevent farmers from cultivating cannabis on their own
land. This is not only financially irresponsible, but it is discriminatory.

The distance requirements that you are proposing has a clause in it that the town can waive these
distance requirements if the "...occupants of the above-listed facilities will not be adversely
impacted by the operation of the marijuana establishment." Therefore, it would seem that any
dispensary proposing a facility in Monson, as long as they prove that they've built a fortress around
their cannabis plants, can put that facility vicinity near a school as long as those school children are
not "adversely impacted." Am I reading that section correctly? This would seem to go against what
you are proposing as far as the zoning of cannabis establishments. On the one hand you are being
highly restrictive on where operations are located and, on the other hand, you're saying that you'd
be willing to waive buffer zones for the right kind of establishment.

Subsection (iv)
No marijuana establishment shall be located on a parcel which abuts a residential use
(including commercial residential uses such as hotels, motels, lodging houses, etc.) or
residential zoning district.

This clause completely disenfranchises every farmer in the town of Monson, which I believe to be in
violation of Massachusetts state law, which per Section 57 of Chapter 55 of the Acts of 2017 states
that the Cannabis Control Commission must "...encourage full participation in the regulated
marijuana industry by farmers and businesses of all sizes." In my reading of the statute, as signed
into law by the Governor Baker, this language of your proposed bylaws are in violation of the state
statute because they clearly prevent farmer participation in the cannabis industry.

d. Reporting Requirements.

ii. The local Building Commissioner/Inspector, Board of Health, Police Department, Fire
Department and Special Permit Granting Authority shall be notified in writing by
the marijuana establishment facility owner/operator/ manager:
1. A minimum of 30 days prior to any change in ownership or management
of that establishment.
2. A minimum of 12 hours following a violation or potential violation of
any law or any criminal or potential criminal activities or attempts of
violation of any law at the establishment.

The Town of Monson, in my reading of these reporting requirements, seems to view cannabis still
as an illegal substance and implies that you'd have a concern that employees of a marijuana
establishment would be partaking in illegal activity, despite the extremely high level of security
regulations required by the state. Given that a marijuana establishment is required to have 24
hours of surveillance through security cameras, I find it hard to believe that any criminal activity
would occur at such operations. And, if it did, I would assume that a marijuana establishment would
handle reporting such activity to the authorities in the manner that any other business in town
would. Do you have these same reporting requirements for other businesses in Monson? Criminal
activity can occur anywhere where items of value are being sold. Your local Best Buy is filled with
very expensive electronics. Do these kinds of businesses have such reporting requirements? I
would ask the same thing of subsection (iii), which requires a marijuana establishment to appear
before the Special Permit Granting Authority on a yearly basis. What is your reasoning for this? Do
you require such yearly reporting for other Monson businesses?

Subsection (ii) of Reporting:

ii. The owner or manager of a marijuana establishment is required to respond by phone

or email within twenty-four hours of contact by a Town official concerning their
marijuana establishment at the phone number or email address provided to the
Town as the contact for the business.

Will the Board of Selectmen be held to these same standards? If a marijuana establishment contacts
the Board of Selectmen in Monson with a question, will you reply to that marijuana establishment
in twenty-four hours? It seems only fair.
Section (e) Issuance/Transfer/Discontinuance of Use Subsection (vi):

A marijuana cultivation or product manufacturing establishment shall be required to

remove all material, plants equipment and other paraphernalia prior to surrendering its
state registration/license or ceasing its operation.

1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for a marijuana establishment

the applicant is required to post with the Town Treasurer a bond or other
form of financial security acceptable to said Treasurer in an amount set by
the Planning Board. The amount shall be sufficient to cover the costs of the
Town removing all materials, plants, equipment and other paraphernalia if
the applicant fails to do so. The Building Inspector shall give the applicant 45
days’ written notice in advance of taking such action. Should the applicant
remove all materials, plants, equipment and other paraphernalia to the
satisfaction of the Building Inspector prior to the expiration of the 45 days
written notice, said bond shall be returned to the applicant.

I'd like to point out that none of this process would need to take place if marijuana cultivation
occurred on farmland. A cultivator that only has a cultivation license will not have "paraphernalia."
A farm that is only cultivating cannabis will simply have organic plants and organic plant matter.
The only processes that occur during cultivation is the growing and the drying and curing of the
plant. The cannabis flower also has no effects on people or animals unless it is combusted. Plant
matter on its own has zero psychoactive effect. Therefore, cultivation should be treated as any
other agricultural activity. Cannabis is a plant. Farmers grow plants. Should a farm no longer be
operating under a cultivation license, then that farm will simply cease operation for the commercial
market. Perhaps the Board of Selectmen in Monson is unaware that it is completely legal per the
state statute for a caregiver to grow as many marijuana plants as he/she wants to on his/her land,
provided that those plants are contained within a household, a greenhouse, or a fenced in area.
Under the state statute, a farmer can grow as much cannabis as he/she would like and provide that
dried and cured cannabis to patients in need, per the state's gifting allowance. In fact, farmers have
been providing patients with access to medical cannabis far before any medical
marijuana dispensary was even licensed by the state. Therefore, the cultivation of cannabis on
farmland is nothing new. In fact, most cultivators on the farm have far more experience with this
plant than most of the owners of our state's medical dispensaries. The only difference is access to
the commercial market for farmers, which you are now preventing with these bylaws.

Section 4.

Application Requirements

The approval of a Special Permit for any marijuana establishment is up to the discretion of
the Planning Board who will be making its determination based on selecting the marijuana
establishments that it finds are in the best interests of the Town....

Having traveled to municipalities across the state of Massachusetts, I can assure you that the
residents and voters of the Commonwealth want local ownership of this cannabis industry,
which encourages the participation of the community’s residents and farmers. The people of
Massachusetts do not want large scale, out-of-state corporations running this industry. They've
seen very little benefit from an industry dominated by large players. Patients have seen
little benefit because there are still high financial barriers for obtaining a medical marijuana card
and, when they do, prices for cannabis are extremely high. I have Crohn's disease and I am a
medical marijuana patient in Massachusetts. I would consider myself part of the middle class. I have
a mortgage and a wife and two daughters that I am providing for and cannabis from a medical
dispensary is extremely expensive for me and very hard to budget for. I can only imagine what it's
like for folks that are less financially secure than our household. What this means is that, the more
restrictive municipalities are about allowing cannabis businesses in town, the longer the illicit
cannabis market will remain alive and well. The people of Massachusetts voted for the legalization
of cannabis because they wanted marijuana to be regulated and to create an industry that gave
access to consumers through the legal rather than the illicit market. These bylaws will not only
prevent local operators from entering the industry, but they will, also, encourage cultivators to
grow and sell illicitly both within Monson and across the state. It should be in the "best interest" of
Monson to give access to its local community both in terms of local businesses and in terms of
access to cannabis be it for medical or adult use purposes. That is what the voters of Massachusetts
voted for and that is what a majority (57.7%) of Monson voters voted for. For the Board of
Selectmen to assume that Monson voters and residents want such restrictive bylaws is being out of
touch with your constituency. I have communicated with many residents and voters in Monson and
they are appalled at these proposed bylaws and do not find them to be in their "best interests."
Quite the contrary, these bylaws favor large wealthy corporations over local entrepreneurs and
local patients and consumers. Put simply, these bylaws are bad for the voters and residents of
Monson, and, I can only imagine that you are already getting emails and phone calls expressing
this.

The rest of this section (Application Requirements) is completely written for existing medical
dispensaries and clearly does not take into account any other business model that is allowed for per
the state regulations [935 CMR 500.00]. In other words, these bylaws completely disregard the
adult use marijuana state statute and the adult use marijuana regulations as put forth by the state
sanctioned Cannabis Control Commission. This Cannabis Control Commission was formed not only
to oversee both the state's medical and adult use programs, but, also, to encourage businesses of all
sizes as required by Chapter 55 of the Acts of 2017. On top of this, after Chairman Steven Hoffman
was appointed, he said clearly in black and white that he wanted the Commission to be run like a
"big startup." As such, I believe this state-sanctioned body as well as Chairman Hoffman would be
interested to know that the Town of Monson in these bylaws has decided prevent local cannabis
startups from entering this brand-new industry in Massachusetts in favor of big business. These
bylaws not only restrict business, but they risk setting up a monopoly for a small group of large
corporations, which completely goes against the free market and entrepreneurial spirit of the
United States of America. The idea of the free market is a concept embraced by both liberals and
conservatives alike. And, so, to assume that the majority of residents and voters in Monson would
be okay with bylaws that promote local monopolies is an enormous oversight by your town officials
and it is very uncreative local government. The people across Massachusetts that I speak with are
looking for governments both locally and statewide to represent them and their "best interests."
They are tired of the status quo and they are tired of the middle and lower classes losing at the
expense of the very wealthy and at the expense of a local government that is not properly
representing them. This sentiment goes beyond just the cannabis industry across the state of
Massachusetts. I write to you confidently that our elected officials will be put on notice in the years
ahead as a younger generation comes of age and realizes how out of touch their representatives are
with their needs.

Lastly, I would like to say that I find it interesting that, although Monson has been identified as 1 of
29 communities in the state of Massachusetts designated as an area disproportionately impacted by
the war on drugs, this is not mentioned anywhere in these proposed bylaws. The Massachusetts
state statute specifically says that individuals and communities disproportionately impacted by the
war on drugs must fully participate in and benefit from the cannabis industry. Therefore, I find it
shocking that this is not even acknowledged in your proposed bylaws. For Monson to be classified
as a community disproportionately impacted, some of the research qualifications that the Cannabis
Control Commission used was wealth disparity and unemployment. What that means is that
Monson has one of the higher gaps in the state between its wealthy and its poor with a higher rate
of unemployment. For Monson not to acknowledge this classification in your proposed bylaws and,
instead, create restrictive bylaws that favor large wealthy corporations over local businesses and
local farmers is a slap in the face to all of the hard-working citizens of Monson and it's not
something that they will stand for.

Given my above comments on these proposed bylaws, which I believe are not in line with what the
residents of Monson want and, also, greatly risk of being in violation state law, I believe that you
and the Board of Selectmen have two options:

1. You can choose to work with the group of local activists that are upset with these
proposed bylaws and we will rewrite them such that they are more in line with state law,
state regulations, and the people and farmers of Monson.
2. You can choose not to work with us and we will work on our own to make sure that these
bylaws are not passed and that more inclusive bylaws are drafted and approved.

Those are your two options. We are choosing to be as rigid with our proposal as you have been with
these proposed bylaws.

Please reply with your decision.

My Regards,

Eric R. Schwartz
Co-founder
Farm Bug Co-op
eric@farmbug.coop
farmbug.coop