To the Editor:

I am writing as a longtime (now retired) Princeton Board of Health member and resident acknowledging the many letters to Town Topics, etc. on the question of recreational cannabis retail stores in Princeton.

1) Numerous compelling resident expressions have given good reasons why we should not move forward with retail cannabis for a variety of public health, safety, and other factors. The Princeton Board of Health and health officer, as well as our police department’s, responsibilities and input are important in this matter. For example, I do not believe we have an accurate “on the spot” test, such as the alcohol Breathalyzer to measure (DWI) Driving While Impaired (Intoxicated). This is relevant to comparing the existence of liquor stores and initiating recreational retail cannabis. The decisions about alcohol sales were made in a different era and less complex world.

2) Promotion of retail cannabis via local government’s allowance for zoning changes can be expected to create additional health problems. These include increased smoking, motor vehicle accidents, and related impairment incidents. This is especially true with cannabis products, the dose of which cannot always be verified (in cookies, etc.).

3) A large number of New Jersey municipalities statewide, including those close to Princeton, have rejected retail cannabis. Princeton should do likewise. Otherwise, it could become a regional supplier. This would worsen already serious traffic (including air quality) and parking problems, more so with soon expected increased population density in Princeton.

4)  Increased DWI incidents and more reliance on law enforcement are likely with recreational retail cannabis. There are resulting municipal financial costs which will negate or reduce expected income, a primary reason for considering such stores. There is already a health problem with vaping, the addictive form of smokeless “smoking.” And all of this in a time of a 100-year occasion pandemic.

I, and many others, are not opposed to responsible use of cannabis. Many, however, think that Princeton could be implicitly promoting it via allowance/changes in zoning to allow retail stores. This does not appear to be prudent given the reasons above and expressed by many others. The negative reasons outweigh any possible benefits.

5) We should legally consider having a municipal referendum on Election Day in November, or sooner, regarding whether to have recreational retail cannabis in Princeton so the public can weigh in on this important and controversial issue.

Grace Sinden
Ridgeview Circle