Many of you know I have been asking our local governments to allow the smoking of cannabis to be controlled the same as is tobacco. I have run into resistance and there has not been anyone else speaking on this issue. The conservative forces have determined that it needs to be controlled in the same way as alcohol with public consumption only in a specified and sealed building or a private residence. There is an assumption that people will want to congregate in these sealed buildings and sit around together in social groups smoking or consuming other forms of THC. It is also prohibited that this building serve alcohol, so these substances will be segregated. It completely ignores the use of cannabis as a medicine that is not a social drug. It completely ignores that we have changed the status of cannabis in our state to allow its use without any medical requirement.

My question for everyone here is: Does it matter?

I have spoken to many of the negative effects I see likely from this continued prohibition, not the least of which is that it is unenforceable except at the random discretion of the police and we have seen such discretion used in discriminatory ways, particularly against the poor and homeless. If these restrictions were enforced, does that not recriminalize cannabis use? Does it matter if our communities add more unenforceable statutes to their legal code? Does it matter if medical users cannot take dosages when they are away from home?


I would like a discussion of the pros and cons, realities vs the lingering fears from our many years of cannabis being defined by the War On Drugs. Will the continued prohibition have any affect on you? Will this dampen the intended tourist trade? Are we willing to simply accept that we can no longer be arrested for using, growing, or processing cannabis in our homes as the win whether it is still restricted from any open location or not? We can carry it, but not use it. It must remain in the shadows. Does it matter?