GreenLeaf Feb 2021

A 2017 study “Helping Settle the Marijuana and
Alcohol Debate: Evidence from Scanner Data”
showed a sizable decrease in liquor sales following
cannabis legalization with alcohol sales down
by as much as 16.2 percent.
Spadafora ran on a platform of transparency but
offered no response when I reached out via email
to address the conflict of interest and hypocrisy of
stalling cannabis retail while he appears to retail
a far more harmful product.
A call to Spadafora’s listed phone number on the
Malden City Council shows it is not in service.
Finding that a Craig Spadafora had a publicly
listed email on the restaurant’s website, I decided
to pose as a potential customer looking to book a
big bash to see if he would retail liquor to me.
He responded quickly to that email offering, “a
beverage setup fee of $100.00 to have a cash
bar available (applied for alcohol or soda sales).”
Getting back on official city business, not that important,
selling a cash bar, City Councilor Spadafora
will get right back to you.
At the hearing thirteen Malden citizens offered
spoken and written testimony against the Resolve.
No Malden citizens spoke in support of
Spadafora’s Resolve.
Speaking at the hearing, Jenelle DeVits, a member
of the Malden Cannabis Licensing Enforcement
Commission (CLEC), “Let’s be clear, the
resolution before you tonight is asking the CLEC
to violate our city ordinance and to shut down
our process down altogether, because this body
or the anti-marijuana residents failed to organize
appropriately over the last three-plus years to put
a question on the ballot, regarding restrictions on
the number of licenses as required by state law. If
there was really such a concern and motivation to
elicit feedback from our residents why did the city
council or these concerned residents fail to put
the question before the largest turnout of Malden
voters on this year’s Presidential ballot or even
last year’s mayoral ballot, I hope you all take a
pause and ask why now, three years later there is
a push to wait for an off-year election when we all
know turnout will be much lower and not representative
of the voters citywide. If the city council
wants to properly change our ordinance there is
a legal process to do that, which does not involve
a non-binding resolution directing the CLEC to
violate the city’s current ordinance.”
Kimberly Gillette, another Malden resident with
oral testimony, “This resolve would at best support
the closure of our process or at worst protect
a monopoly for the only two businesses that
made it through the first phase of applications.”
DeVits concluded, “Trying to direct the CLEC to
violate the current ordinance is not appropriate
and only raises questions of whether pausing at
this junction will be a violation of state law, such
a pause may be argued by some to be a de facto
ban on additional licenses or may be seen as
limiting the number of licenses below five which
we know can only be approved by a majority of
Malden residents through a ballot question while
residents had a full three years to get this question
on the ballot, that has not happened.”
Warren Lynch, a cannabis applicant in the city is
hopeful despite the results of the vote, “I spoke
with two City Councilors who voted yes on the
Resolve, and they both said that they do not
agree that cannabis licenses should be delayed
a full 12 months, and only voted yes on what
they viewed as the main point of the non-binding
Resolve, which is that the cannabis licensing
process in Malden could use some clarification in
a few places."
DeVits also isn’t giving up, "I plan to urge the
CLEC to keep moving forward with a monthly rolling
basis application process per our current City
ordinance that remains unchanged, even in light
of the split vote on the non-binding resolution."
J15