Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 9/13/2022
AMHERST – The Board of License Commissioners deliberated potential updates to the marijuana and liquor license regulations at its meeting on Sept. 1.
Section 11 of the “Regulations for the Licensing of Marijuana Retail Establishments” created conflict within the board by reading that no outside area shall be used as a gathering space for customers. Despite suggestions to change the word to loitering, board member Gastón de los Reyes said it should be up to the establishments to decide what they want to allow with the board’s approval.
“I still wonder what’s the problem with loitering, I don’t really see it,” Reyes said. “I remember when I practiced law in Springfield, I was asked to dig up all of the parts of the general laws that could be used to harass homeless people because the business district client didn’t like them. It’s a lot of First Amendment violation and who cares if people are hanging around?”
Slaughter said loitering implies somebody is hanging around with no particular reason and that they added the line as an attempt to stop anyone from “potentially causing trouble.”
“Maybe the thing to do is look at if we have anything or if the state has anything relative to outside of bars or package stores, that kind of thing,” Slaughter said. “I think the intent there is that you are trying to keep the place safe and functional, it’s not about somebody enjoying the weather.”
Other requirements and conditions include that the applicant must have developed a plan to ensure no diversion of marijuana products to the illegal market or to minors. Section 8.01 reads the Local Licensing Authorities (LLA) may impose “reasonable conditions of approval on any license issued” including the requirement of a police detail for the premises and/or additional security measures, paid for by the applicant.
Section 18 of the regulations listed a duty for the licensee to report to Town Manager Paul Bockelman and the LLA in all instances where public safety personnel are called to the premises, regardless of the event or severity. The original time limit following the event was 24 hours, which was critiqued by members of the board as well as the overall requirement to file a report.
Slaughter said the intention of the requirement is to make sure the licensee is aware of situations on their property and to be consistent with the Host-Community Agreement. Slaughter said the agreement featured a “fair amount of language around safety and security around the location and the things that the licensee is responsible for.” He said while it was unlikely for situations to happen inside of the building, he thought it was important for licensees to be aware of other situations.
“It may be overly prescriptive or dramatic here because this is such a change and there are a lot of folks that are still pretty uncomfortable with legalized marijuana,” Slaughter said “Maybe not in Amherst, but I think there are places and people that want to see a little refined approach because of the nature of the product, much in the same way that alcohol has. If you want a tavern license, you need to have windows that are visible to the street. What you’re seeing there in that antiquated language of the alcohol stuff is that concern at the end of prohibition about the difficulties that might come with alcohol establishments.”
Board member Dillon Maxfield questioned if approaching marijuana like alcohol after prohibition was overblown.
“I think lesson learned with that one is I don’t think we necessarily need to be as over the top strict with it, especially when we’re talking about something like marijuana as opposed to alcohol,” Maxfield said. “It’s been years, but I’ve seen people throwing fists outside of McMurphy’s, I think we’re going to see less of that with something like marijuana.”
Reyes agreed with Maxfield, saying that if the board wanted to implement something like this then they should also be prepared to create a similar duty for all the package stores.
“I disagree with having a requirement for retail cannabis that we don’t have for retail alcohol and I suspect that if we tell all the liquor stores that they have this kind of duty to file a report, we’re going to get an earful,” Reyes said.
Slaughter was open to removing or changing the requirement but no changes or requirements were finalized.
Alcohol Regulations
Licensing Coordinator Steven McCarthy described most of the proposed updates to the alcohol licensing regulations as “housekeeping adjustments” and said that the document should be ready to be adopted following final discussion and tweaks.
One of the more significant possible changes would require all managers and servers to complete a Training and Intervention Procedures for Servers of alcohol (TIPS) certification. McCarthy said the certification is currently required for short-term licenses, but not establishments despite Slaughter saying that they have “strongly recommended” the certification. The program costs $40 per certification.
Maxfield, a bartender, said that was “definitely” a cost which would be put on the employees.
“When I had to do mine I wasn’t paid for it, I wasn’t reimbursed for it,” Maxfield said. “It’s one of those things where am I really going to fight about what ended up being less than $100? If we do that, it’s essentially going to be a tax on employees. I like the idea of it, it wasn’t a total waste of time. I think maybe 15 minutes out of it was helpful as opposed to maybe the two hours but I think it’s good to have somebody [certified].”
Board member Hallie Hughes said she has previously been TIPS certified for a Jones Library fundraiser and was asked about the program’s usefulness.
“It’s not that hard to do,” Hughes said. “Was it useful? I mean, it was common sense. It took like two hours, I did it online at my own pace.”
The board landed on what Slaughter described as a “middle ground” by changing the language to require at least one manager to be TIPS certified, but the document was not voted on. Due to time constraints, the board did not discuss another significant proposal that would give the board authority to order “any licensee to engage as many private detail police officers from the Police Department which in the board’s judgment are necessary to maintain law and order.”
The conversation will resume at the board’s next meeting on Sept. 15.