>>>>I live in a very liberal town (my guess is that about 80% vote liberal). In 2016 when Massachusetts voted to legalize recreational marijuana, the residents of the town overwhelmingly voted For (that is, for legalizing pot). Now, this year. When a family wanted to open a store to sell the marijuana for a recreational use, the liberals of the town put an Article to amend the zoning bylaw and Ban Recreational Marijuana Retailers. Funny thing that during the town meeting (took place this week) the conservatives voted not to pass the article (that is to allow the store to be open) and the liberals to pass (to ban the sale of pot in town).
>>>
>>>Neither side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.
>>
>>It can get complicated. For example - if you want to allow it for sale in the city then there is going to have to be some sort of rules to go along with that - like not having such a retailer within 2000 feet of a school....etc etc etc. If a vote came up to allow the retailers in but didn't include some guidelines like that then I wouldn't want them in. Have some reasonable laws and rules and guidelines then sure go for it. Eventually the prohibition will end and those in on the ground floor will get rich - might as well roll with it.
>
>All the points you made above didn’t apply to our town. We have very strict rules. And the one store for the recreational pot would be at least a couple of miles from any school.
>
>The main arguments those who were against the store were as follows:
>1. People who will drive to the store from other towns will smoke pot in town (in a park or on a bench) and then drive back being stoned. Therefore endangering lives of the town residents. This was the main argument.
>Hypocrisy: it is ok if people in other towns drive stoned, but not in our town.

...except that it's still illegal to smoke the pot out in public like that -- and of course if the park is a national park no dice there either.

>2. Pot is a gateway drug to other more potent drugs. Hypocrisy: liberals votes for the state to allow for the recreational pot; and it is ok if residents of other town use pot as a gateway to more potent drugs (and other towns are within ½ mile). But not in our town.

..the 'gateway drug' theory has been long proven untrue. Furthermore - if pot is legal it would actually help with this issue. The problem is that if pot is illegal then you have to go to a street dealer -- and those guys (or gals) might also deal in other drugs - if it's legal then you go to the store and there is no one trying to sell you a bag of coke to go with yer pot.

>3. High school kids will somehow get pot (probably ask “Victor” lol) from this store. Some former high school students came to the microphone and said that throughout all of their school years they could (if wanted) easily get pot; and cheaper than it would be sold in the store. I even asked my two kids, who went through the entire school system. And they said, pot was easier to get than beer :).

I question this. First of all black-market pot is going to be cheaper than the store-bought pot because the street dealer ain't payin all the taxes. I don't think that you're going to increase the odds of someone willing to sell pot to a child just because there is a store. The person selling to the child obviously don't give a crap. As for 'Victor' - he knows that kids shouldn't be taking recreational pot for a large number of reasons and would have nothing to do with that (or anyone who would).

>The argument of the conservatives was that since now pot is legal in the state and this family wants to expand the store for the recreational pot (they already have the store for the medical marijuana use), it is ok, since they are already in business. And stand to make more money, and why now?! Since, otherwise, another town will open a store and make money just as well.

I agree with that - I think - but I don't think that finances should be the sole motivator though.