A day after lawmakers drastically altered the timeline for licensing retail marijuana shops in Massachusetts, there isn't much complaint on Beacon Hill about the six-month delay Legislative leaders passed.

Only about a dozen Representatives and Senators publicly endorsed legalizing recreational marijuana this past November, so it's not much of a surprise that the six-month licensing delay was passed in informal session - when any member could have objected and stopped the bill. Only a handful of members were present in the legislative chambers Wednesday when the bill was passed on to Gov. Charlie Baker's desk.

Senate President Stan Rosenberg defended the move and and House Speaker made Wednesday to pass the bill without public hearing or debate, telling the Boston Herald that pro-marijuana stakeholders "knew exactly what was going to be in the bill when it came to the floor because there had been communication with them repeatedly."

“This is not the end of the world. It’s a small delay, it’s a short delay. People will get what they need. We are not going to undermine the will of the voters," Rosenberg told the Herald.

Lawmakers bought themselves another six months to put forward a comprehensive bill to add safety mandates and increase the tax on marijuana sales to pay for that regulation. What they didn't do was alter the homegrown or possession parts of the law, which is where some lawmakers may have moved to block the bill.

"I think, we'd want to give it enough time to make sure that we hash out any questions or issues that people had. At the same time we want to do something as quickly as possible to make sure the will of the voters is carried out," House speaker robert DeLeo told the State House News Service during a brief hallway interview at the capitol Thursday.

Gov. Charlie Baker said Wednesday he finds the six-month push-back "acceptable" and is analysing the bill before deciding whether to sign it.

"I think as a general rule you want to shy away from using informal sessions to achieve these kinds of policy goals. It certainly is an optics issue, but informal session themselves are perfectly legitimate and have been used on many occasions for - I mean, obviously used mostly for non controversial issues," said Stonehill College political science professor Peter Ubertaccio, who said waiting for next year's formal sessions could have delayed things even further.