Would any provision or new by-law to prevent hemp Agriculture or farming be considered a conflicting by-law? Does the Attorney General look at all of the other Town by-laws when considering any new by-laws sent to the attorney general for legal consideration?

I believe if you check, the answer is no, which probably, in part, is the reason for the many conflicting by-law issues in Templeton already. I also believe that anyone making statements such as "I can't believe the state was stupid enough to legalize pot" is basically calling voters stupid, which is most likely not a smart thing to do, especially if you are elected. Since some in Templeton once thought it was a good idea financially to have the Town be a dumping ground for trash, material, some of which was sure to be hazardous material, and the like, perhaps farming or growing pot rather than dispensing it by way of retail establishments should be something the Town considers in a logical fashion rather than on an emotional level? Would that be a good re-use of say the old Temple Stuart property. Keep in mind, before we get all hysterical one way or another, there has been a reported shortage of ending entities to provide start up money for any pot facilities. Apparently there is concern within the banking industry about possible federal interference concerning the conflict with passed state laws and the continued federal opinion/law about pot being illegal at the federal level. Apparently, the federal government has a hard time accepting the will of the people.