|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The grass may soon be a little greener in New Bedford.
Local politicos are hashing out their differences over a new way to increase a pot of tax revenue: pot. Cannabis consumption lounges are legal in Massachusetts, as of 2026, and New Bedford’s City Council has a hankering to lighten the tax load.
“Lounges can create jobs,” said Ian Abreu, longtime councilor. “They can attract visitors and tourists who want social cannabis spaces… [and] local tax revenue from hospitality and cannabis licensing can help our city budget.”
The City Council’s normally crossed left and right wings have aligned behind a cautious optimism that cannabis lounges, with the proper regulations, could be pretty dope.
“In short, yes,” said Ward 3 Councilor Shawn Oliver, adding that, “any decision should be made with community input and careful consideration of zoning, health, and safety standards.”
Councilor Shane Burgo staked out similar ground: “My approach would be to evaluate a proposal carefully rather than take a blanket position in advance,” he said. “I remain open to continued discussion.”
But it’s not all copacetic.
Mayor Jon Mitchell, in a statement made through his public information officer, wasn’t so high on the idea: “I am skeptical that residents would welcome cannabis lounges into their neighborhoods,” he said. “With the legal availability of marijuana in Massachusetts, there is ample opportunity for private consumption that does not affect neighborhood quality of life.”
The highest hurdle, however, may not have anything to do with marijuana. Several city councilors — most vocally Ward 5’s Joe Lopes — are tying their support to cannabis lounges to re-allowing tobacco lounges and cigar bars. Lopes said he would support a “one-to-one” permitting policy that exactly balances the number of cannabis and tobacco joints in New Bedford.
“There’s no reason to allow one, but not the other,” Lopes said.
The Board of Health’s stand against tobacco
New Bedford has no cigar bars or tobacco lounges today, and that’s because of the city’s Board of Health.
Within its published tobacco regulations, the Board of Health created restrictions that include: limiting the types of allowable nicotine products, prohibiting the sale of tobacco to anyone under 21 years old, and outright banning tobacco-smoking bars.
The board in recent years has made concerted efforts to discourage the use of tobacco, nicotine, and alcohol among the city’s youth. On its website, the board’s substance use prevention program outlines dual goals for tobacco prevention, “to reduce the flow of tobacco and nicotine products to underage youth and to prevent harmful use overall.”
The reasons for doing so are well-established. Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke exposure cause more than 480,000 deaths in the U.S. every year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and more than 16 million Americans are living with a smoking-related disease. The American Cancer Society found that smoking causes about 20% of all cancers and about 30% of all cancer deaths in the U.S.
Using marijuana likewise contains risks, according to the CDC and Massachusetts’ Cannabis Control Commission, including for heart health, brain function, mental health, and — when inhaled via smoking — lung health, too.
The Board of Health’s three members did not return The Light’s requests for comment.
A number of city councilors said they would tie their support for cannabis lounges to the loosening of the Board of Health’s cigar bar policy. Lopes, Oliver, and Ward 2 Councilor Scott Pemberton all specifically hung their support for cannabis lounges on changing the tobacco policy. Abreu, Burgo, and Council President Ryan Pereira also cited other “considerations” or “proper regulations” without specifically naming cigar bars.
Of the councilors who responded, only James Roy unequivocally supported cannabis lounges. Four councilors did not respond to a request for comment: Derek Baptiste, Naomi Carney, Leo Choquette, and Brian Gomes.
Entangling the cannabis issue with tobacco could make the path forward a little more hazy.
What safety regulations would consumption lounges follow?
In December, the state’s Cannabis Control Commission legalized cannabis lounges, or “social consumption” sites, in cities and towns that opt in. Its new regulatory framework took effect Jan. 2. The rules allow existing cannabis dispensaries, new establishments, and temporary pop-ups to seek a permit for on-site cannabis consumption. The regulations also impose some fairly strict controls.
Top of mind for many in New Bedford is road safety around these lounges. Every consumption lounge would be required to build “a transportation strategy with local public safety partners’ input,” according to the CCC. The news website Axios Boston described a regulation for “mandatory rideshare plans.”
Cannabis lounges will not be allowed to sell alcohol. Employees must undergo trainings that focus on impairment recognition — basically, not letting someone get behind the wheel when stoned.
All menu items would also include projected times for onset of intoxication.
The CCC requires cities and towns to design social equity standards to encourage “participation in the regulated marijuana industry by people from communities that have previously been disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition and enforcement,” according to its website.
For the first three years of social consumption, only applicants whose businesses are 51% owned by social equity participants can apply for licenses, The Light previously reported. The CCC offers business training to social equity applicants.
City councilors said they’d ensure even higher standards based on neighborhood input and health standards. Burgo, for example, outlined the requirements and processes he would pursue before approving an establishment: “Important factors would include neighborhood impact, public safety, enforcement capacity, zoning and location, equity considerations, and whether a proposed model aligns with the character and needs of our city. I would also want to hear from residents, public safety officials, and other stakeholders before making a final determination.”
Others, like Oliver, believe that publicly accessible and regulated consumption lounges would decrease complaints about public smoking. “Providing dedicated, regulated locations could help reduce use in public spaces and promote responsible behavior,” he said.
It’s an opportunity for New Bedford’s councilors to pursue an equity-minded and budget-conscious development, all rolled up in the same policy.
For New Bedford, it may be a chance to turn a new leaf.
Email Colin Hogan at chogan@newbedfordlight.org
Here we go. We are focusing on what’s best can we do to bring revenue into our city. Stop and think, is this going to help our society here in New Bedford or is it another careless decision made for us? We need cleaner decisions and care greatly that it helps pave the way for a stronger future for our families.
New Bedford needs to take care of the major problems we have with existing pollution and not bring in something more that will allow negative choices and result in harmful outcomes. Revenue does not have to be a decision such as this.
True, but it’s a person’s right to smoke tabacco, this does not cause impairment. Now marijuana does cause impairment. Even if it is legal, it’s another thing to be DUI. That’s my problem!
It seems to me that after decades of research which has proven, whithout doubt, that smoking causes cancer, heart disease and other maladies, that we should all recognize that putting any type of smoke into your lungs is unhealthy.
So, if taxpayers are spending millions of dollars encouraging people not to smoke why would we contradict this effort by allowing cigar and cannabis clubs?
And what about the workers in these establishments who do not smoke? They become subject to the ill effects of second hand smoke.
Good sense tells us that encouraging any form of smoking is writing a death sentence, or at least poor health, for smokers.
Tobacco lounges and cigar bars/lounges do not IMPAIR the participants, as marijuana/weed does. Now a days all establishments are no smoking, so if you choose to go into a tabacco or cigar lounge/bar you are aware, you will be amongst firsthand, secondhand smoke. At no expense except the situation you put yourself in. Marijuana endangers a person’s reflexes and other things, no that is introduced putting people’s safety on the road. The only thing that happens from the other is bodily stench reeking from their pores.
Sorry, cigars are made of tobacco and tobacco can cause serious heath complications. No doubt.
I would be most concerned about people driving around stoned. I am not aware of any existing tests that law enforcement can now use to determine that.
Jane, not sure but I think it’s DUI, driving under influence. Or OUI, operating under influence. I don’t know for sure, I think.
Yes, but with alcohol you can blow a breathilizer and get an instant result. “Proving” someone is too stoned to drive requires a legal limit (none exists) and a roadside test method (none exists). It would come to the officer’s discretion…
Maybe, make them take a blood test?
Can’t do it and get results on the spot.
I was for legalization, or at least decriminalization, but Massachusetts (our lazy legislature mostly) whiffed this big time by allowing the new recreational industry to be dominated by corporate marijuana. Let people grow it at home, form coops like Spain does, or have a state-owned dispensaries like NH and PA liquor stores. We already know from cigarettes, opiates, and alcohol that capitalism and intoxicants do not mix.
New Bedford has been called a business unfriendly community. People who have there hand out must not work for our city inany capacity.
So our City Councilor’s should go take a walk by some of our present cannabis lounges for example take a walk by front steps of the downtown library or by the neighboring bus station. Throw a little urine in with the weed and you’ll surely attract plenty of tourists. Only a month in 2026 and New Bedford could really use a recall election.
My first recommendation is to move past the revenue issue. It makes no sense to raise revenue from an activity that is either potentially dangerous to others or clearly negatively impacts health. Our society has spent a large sum of resources on research regarding the danger of tobacco smoking. Why make it even more attractive and socially acceptable just to collect a few more dollars in taxes.
Regarding cannabis lounges, in my opinion there is a problem beyond the likely health issues of cannabis smoking. As has been pointed out by several, there is no quick and efficient test to determine that someone has become impaired by excessive cannabis use. That creates a significant problem on the highways both around the establishment and beyond. I certainly would not want to have my home located near one. Excessive alcohol use is much easier to notice by others like bartenders; also, the tests available are quick and relatively foolproof. That is not the case with cannabis which will make its users much bolder regarding getting behind the wheel. Most now realize the drastic consequences of a DUI conviction regarding alcohol.
A friend and I drive to Tiverton ,Portsmith or East Providence for cigars. Unfortunately we are spending our money there. As usual the the State and City have good intent but no common sense. Alcohol is as detremental to health as are either cannabis or tobacco. Are we going to ban bars?
S