8 years after legalizing marijuana, California will finally allow cannabis cafes

While supporting the legalization of marijuana in Florida last August, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stressed the importance of laws protecting bystanders from exposure to pot smoke. “We need the state legislature to responsibly create laws prohibiting (cannabis) use in public spaces,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, “so that we don’t inhale marijuana everywhere we go, as is the case in many Democrat-run cities.” Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (Ohio), expressed similar concerns, saying that “we don’t fully understand how this new regime coexists with not polluting our public spaces.”

Expanding legal options for using cannabis outside the home, as California finally did eight years after legalizing recreational use, is a promising way to address these problems. On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom, who last year vetoed a bill allowing Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes in California, signed a revised version of the law into law. Assembly Bill 1775 allows dispensaries, with a local permit, to sell hot food and non-alcoholic beverages along with marijuana products. Such businesses will also be allowed to host “live musical or other performances” as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol routinely do.

State law previously allowed on-site consumption at specially licensed marijuana stores, but their culinary options were limited to pre-packaged snacks and drinks. California marijuana sellers hope the new exemption will help them compete with unlicensed marijuana dealers who don’t have to collect taxes or comply with burdensome state and local regulations. “Cannabis cafes will play a huge part of the future of cannabis in our state and help defeat the illicit drug market,” said Assemblyman Matt Haney (D – San Francisco), the bill’s sponsor.

California’s new flexibility is an important step toward solving a puzzle that was typically overlooked in the early days of legalization: When will people be able to legally purchase marijuana, where will they be able to legally consume it? The main answer was that at home, which was not practical for guests from other states, may not have been allowed in rental items and precluded consumption in many social settings. This loophole has inspired creative solutions such as members-only clubs and cannabis-friendly bus tours, which in turn have inspired repression through local government disapproval.

Since then, early legalists such as Colorado and Alaska have gradually emerged, changing their rules to allow cannabis consumption outside of private residences. Some states that later legalized marijuana, such as Massachusetts and Illinois, at least theoretically allowed on-site consumption from the beginning. However, regulatory approval of specific companies is slow and opportunities are few and far between in most places.

Consider Las Vegas, which attracts approximately 40 million visitors annually from around the world, a significant percentage of whom visit one or more of the two dozen dispensaries located near the Strip. Once tourists make purchases, what should they do with them?

“Cannabis may not be used in any public place,” warns the Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board. “You cannot use cannabis in a moving vehicle, even if you are a passenger.” The board adds that “cannabis may be consumed on private property (such as in a home)…unless the property owner prohibits it.”

Eight years after Nevada voters approved the legalization of recreational facilities, this private property exception still won’t get tourists very far. The Lexi Las Vegas bills itself as “the only cannabis-friendly hotel in the city,” and so far only a handful of licensed cannabis lounges operate, although more are in the works.

When options for legal consumption are extremely limited, it’s hardly surprising that people smoke or vape in places where it’s especially likely to annoy passersby. Conversely, when residents and visitors can easily use marijuana at private businesses that cater to cannabis consumers, they will be less likely to irritate those opposed to the smell.

Ohio voters approved legalization last November, and licensed recreational sales didn’t begin until August. But last May, Vance already complained that “you take your kids downtown to a restaurant in Cincinnati and you pass about five people who are high.” He added that “it smells terrible” and “I don’t want it.” Vance suggested that “we just need a different cultural sensitivity, that if we’re going to move to a more open regime, people need to actually take some responsibility and not do it around, you know, six-year-old children.”

If Ohio lawmakers want to build and strengthen this “cultural sensitivity,” they should allow people to smoke pot in designated areas where Vance and his family are less likely to encounter them. “It is up to the property owner to decide how and whether to address the issue of cannabis consumption on their property,” said Tom Haren, an attorney who worked for the legalization campaign in Ohio Sending Columbus in April. But as Get it done notes that state law “prohibits people from burning plant materials in enclosed public spaces, except outdoor patios, smokehouses and hotel rooms designated for smoking.”

Newsom cited a similar law in California when he vetoed Haney’s original bill last year. “I am concerned that this bill could undermine long-term protections for smoke-free workplaces in California,” the governor said in his veto.

The amended law states that workers at cannabis cafes have the right to wear employer-provided respirator masks. It also states that local governments may “require appropriate ventilation and filtration systems,” defined as systems that “prevent the migration of smoke and odors to any other part of the building in which the consumption lounge is located, or to an adjacent building or site.” While local licensing authorities must “consider” such systems, they are under no obligation to use them.

“I commend the author for introducing additional safeguards, e.g
“protecting employees’ freedom to wear a respirator, paid for at the employer’s expense, and requiring employees to receive additional guidance on the dangers of secondhand cannabis smoke,” Newsom said when signing the bill. However, “any future measures that depart from this tailored approach,” he warned, “will not be looked upon favorably.”

Jim Knox, executive director of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network in California, dismissed the “additional safeguards” as “nonsense” and a “hype.” The union representing clinic workers, which supported the bill, appears to disagree. And if states can find a way to tolerate marijuana smoking among consenting adults, it should help alleviate the nuisance that worries people like Trump and Vance.