Massachusetts
Massachusetts Officials Allow Marijuana Transports Over Water To Martha’s Vineyard And Nantucket Amid Supply Concerns
“It really is a positive change and we’re really hopeful that this means a bright future for cannabis on Martha’s Vineyard.”
By Bhaamati Borkhetaria, CommonWealth Beacon
Cannabis businesses on Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket will be able to transport marijuana over state waters starting midnight on Friday, under an administrative order by the Cannabis Control Commission.
Commissioners last week heard concerns from patients, advocates and residents of the islands, about the looming loss of access to safe and legal cannabis on the two islands because cannabis could not be transported to and from the mainland. The situation was presented as being particularly dire for medical marijuana patients.
The commission voted unanimously to pass the administrative order “regarding the transport of marijuana and marijuana products over state territorial waters to and from marijuana establishments and medical marijuana treatment centers in the counties of Dukes and Nantucket.”
“This was turned around in a really quick time frame,” said Commissioner Kimberly Roy. “At the end of the day, this was about public health and public safety and patients and consumers alike having access to safely regulated products.”
The two islands have long been siloed from the mainland cannabis market because the commission has not written regulations on transporting cannabis over water.
The problem stems from the unusual status of marijuana: legal under state law but illegal at the federal level. Transporting cannabis over federal waters could lead to prosecution for operators.
This has forced dispensaries on the Vineyard and Nantucket to source all of their marijuana from cultivators on the islands, an expensive move. And now, the only cultivator on the Vineyard is set to close its operations.
There are currently two dispensaries on Martha’s Vineyard: Island Time and Fine Fettle. Island Time temporarily shut its doors in May and Fine Fettle has said that without the commission’s intervention, they will close by the end of the summer.
The woes sparked a lawsuit against the Cannabis Control Commission, with businesses arguing there are water routes from the mainland to the islands through state territorial waters, rather than federal waters.
Island Time, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, was previously cited by the commission when the owner, Geoff Rose, transported cannabis products to Martha’s Vineyard over state territorial waters. According to the lawsuit, the commission ruled that cannabis products cannot be transported from the mainland to the Vineyard or Nantucket.
With the new administrative order, cannabis businesses will no longer be reliant only on cultivators on the islands but will be able to transport cannabis and cannabis products to the islands using state water routes.
“Today is a great day in providing equity for operators on the islands,” Rose, who plans to reopen his business, said in a phone interview. “I truly appreciate the efforts of the cannabis commission to address this very important issue which has been long overdue for attention. I look forward to continuing to serve patients and consumers with safe and high-quality products.”
Adam Fine, the attorney representing Island Time and the other cannabis business involved in the lawsuit said that the plaintiffs are planning to drop the lawsuit following this administrative order.
Added Chloe Loftfield, Fine Fettle’s general manager: “It really is a positive change and we’re really hopeful that this means a bright future for cannabis on Martha’s Vineyard.”
While the administrative order will provide immediate relief for dispensaries struggling to stock their shelves, the commission will still have to update their regulations to incorporate the change. Commissioner Bruce Stebbins also encouraged the commission to prioritize and expedite the granting of licenses based in Dukes County and Nantucket.
This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
New Hampshire House Votes To Table Marijuana Legalization Bill That Passed Senate, Potentially Killing Reform For Years To Come
Photo courtesy of Max Pixel.
Massachusetts
Farm Bill provision threatens Massachusetts animal welfare rules – AOL
The Farm Bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives April 30 could undermine a Massachusetts law aimed at preventing animal cruelty.
The sweeping agricultural bill includes a section called the “Save Our Bacon Act,” which prohibits state and local governments from having farm animal welfare protections that extend to products originating in other states.
The measure specifically targets Massachusetts and California state laws that prohibit certain farm animals from being held in extreme confinement.
Massachusetts Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, both Democrats, released a statement opposing the inclusion of the measure in the Farm Bill.
“This is a highly controversial and poisonous policy that ignores the will of the people. These state laws were overwhelmingly supported by a popular vote — they shouldn’t be overridden because of big-dollar lobbying,” the senators said in their statement. “We have significant concerns about the House-passed Farm Bill, including this overreaching and harmful provision that should not be in the Farm Bill and needs to be removed.”
What is Massachusetts’s Question 3?
In 2016, Massachusetts voters passed Question 3, or an Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals, with 78% of the vote.
The measure banned the sale of eggs, veal or pork from animals that were “confined in a cruel manner.” It eliminated enclosures that prevented an animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs or turning around freely.
All of these products sold in Massachusetts must be compliant, regardless of whether the animals were raised on farms in or outside Massachusetts. Therefore, out-of-state farms must comply with Question 3 in order to sell their products in Massachusetts.
Town Line cares for 50 cows, reserving some each year for meat to sell at its farm store.
The law is similar to California’s Proposition 12, which also lays out specific freedom of movement and minimum floor space requirements for how veal calves, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens are kept. It also doesn’t allow the sale of any products from animals confined in ways that don’t meet their standards, including those produced in other states.
What is the Save Our Bacon Act?
The Save Our Bacon Act seeks to block California’s and Massachusetts’s laws on out-of-state producers by saying that no state “may enact or enforce, directly or indirectly, a condition or standard on the production of covered livestock other than for covered livestock physically raised in such State or subdivision.”
The legislation would apply to any domestic animal raised for the purpose of human consumption or milk production, but not animals raised primarily for egg production.
Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, originally introduced the Save Our Bacon Act in July 2025.
“California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3 pose a major threat to family farms and food security — both in Iowa and across the country,” she said in a press release at the time. “The Save Our Bacon Act reaffirms livestock producers’ right to sell their products across state lines, without interference from arbitrary mandates.”
The act was added as a section in the Farm Bill, which was then passed by the House on a vote of 224-200. The bill next heads to the Senate, where its fate is unclear as lawmakers both across and within party lines have butted heads on several provisions.
This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Farm Bill provision threatens Massachusetts animal welfare rules
Massachusetts
Smoke from North Attleborough fire visible for miles
Fire broke out at an apartment building in North Attleborough, Massachusetts, on Monday afternoon, sending a column of smoke high into the air.
NBC affiliate WJAR-TV reports the smoke was visible from miles away from the building on Juniper Road.
More details were not immediately available.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Massachusetts
Life Care Center of Raynham earns deficiency‑free state inspection
Life Care Center of Raynham has received a deficiency‑free inspection result from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, a distinction awarded to a small share of the state’s licensed nursing homes, according to a community announcement.
The inspection was conducted as part of the state’s routine, unannounced nursing home survey process overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. These comprehensive, multi‑day inspections evaluate multiple aspects of facility operations, including staffing levels, quality of care, medication management, cleanliness, food service and resident rights.
State survey records show that Life Care Center of Raynham met required standards during its most recent standard survey, with no deficiencies cited, based on publicly available state data.
The announcement states that fewer than 8% of Massachusetts nursing homes achieve deficiency‑free survey results. That figure could not be independently verified through state or federal data and is attributed to the announcement.
In addition to the state survey outcome, the facility is listed as a five‑star provider for quality measures on the federal Medicare Care Compare website. The five‑star quality measure rating reflects above‑average performance compared with other nursing homes nationwide, according to federal rating methodology.
Officials said the inspection results reflect ongoing compliance with state and federal standards designed to protect resident health and safety. According to the announcement, the outcome is attributed to staff performance and internal quality practices.
This story was created by Dave DeMille, ddemille@gannett.com, with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Journalists were involved in every step of the information gathering, review, editing and publishing process. Learn more at cm.usatoday.com/ethical-conduct.
-
Health6 minutes agoAlzheimer’s drugs slammed as ‘ineffective’ in major review, but critics push back
-
Sports12 minutes agoFlorida judge rules prosecutors can access Tiger Woods’ prescription drug history after DUI arrest: report
-
Technology18 minutes agoAI robot changes your tires and balances them too
-
Business24 minutes agoCalifornia consumers accuse popular Italian food brand of tomato fraud
-
Entertainment30 minutes ago
Is ‘Blue Dot Fever’ a real problem for the concert industry?
-
Lifestyle36 minutes agoWhat the postcards leave out: 5 moments in history that still echo along Route 66
-
Politics42 minutes agoCommentary: Those $1,000 Trump accounts don’t match the hype
-
Science48 minutes ago
Contributor: Fuel drug development, not Big Pharma’s profits