For those of us who spend quite a bit of time of using Denver's system of green belts and parks, it's not at all unusual to catch a whiff of marijuana smoke on on evening stroll.
Advocates for marijuana prohibition like to point to this phenomenon as evidence of how partial marijuana legalization in Colorado has caused the state to descend into a pit of vice not dissimilar to that described in Reefer Madness.
Given that it's still illegal to use marijuana in public parks, streets, and other public space, many drug war advocates blame the proliferation of public cannabis use on the fact that its use is no longer likely to lead to serious jail time or anything other than a citation and a fine. To "take back the parks," it is assumed, it will be necessary to once again impose draconian sanctions of jail time on users.
What is ignored in all of this, of course, is the fact that it is government intervention in the first place that drives marijuana users to go to parks. In most of the state, it remains illegal to use marijuana in restaurants, bars, or any other private business where people might congregate to use marijuana on private property. There are laws in place that specifically prohibit anyone from using marijuana in the same place that sells marijuana or in other establishments such as bars and restaurants.
While it is legal to use marijuana in one's own home, landlords such as apartment owners are (rightly) free to prohibit marijuana use on their property. This means that residents of most rental housing must either smoke in the parks or nowhere at all.
Imagine, for example, if alcohol were partially illegal, but was not permitted in any restaurants, bars, or apartment buildings. It wouldn't be long before the parks were filled with people getting drunk on park benches and soccer fields. Teenagers still drink in these places precisely because it's not legal for them in private businesses.
In hopes of providing some place for marijuana users to congregate in private businesses, however, a slight majority of Denver voters approved the expansion of use at private businesses. The local CBS affiliate explains:
Results show 53.5 percent of Denver voters decided in favor of Initiative 300, which will allow local businesses to apply for permits for public cannabis consumption beginning in late January.
Not so fast, says a state regulatory agency:
State regulators delivered a blow to supporters of social marijuana use in the city of Denver.
Just days after Denver voters passed a measure allowing public consumption at certain businesses, the Colorado Department of Revenue enacted a new regulation prohibiting cannabis use in bars.
Naturally, this new regulation removes established restaurants and bars from becomes places where cannabis users could legally congregate. And, since it's illegal to use cannabis where it's sold, this means the only business model that might work is a place that serves food — but no alcohol — and requires cannabis users to bring their own cannabis. It's unknown if this business model will actually be sustainable for any potential business owners. Keep in mind, also, that no business must allow cannabis use. Its use would remain totally up to the business owner.
Moreover, the regulation appears to all forms of consumption, and not just smoking. While there are issues of second-hand smoke in the case of smoking, this concern to does not extend to other forms us cannabis consumption. Thus, arguments about the externalities of smoking fail to address the larger issue of consumption, and cannot be an appropriate basis for a blanket ban on public use.
The loosening of regulations is likely better than nothing, but it's simply another case of the state miocromanaging the private sector, and will no doubt lead to more cannabis users congregating in public parks than would have occurred otherwise.
Choosing Alcohol Over Cannabis
The apparent rationale for the new regulation is the claim that people who use both cannabis and alcohol at the same time are a threat to public safety. One bartender remarks:
Alcohol messes up people well enough. (If you) add marijuana to it, we can’t be in control of the customers for a safety standard as well...
This may be true, but one could just as easily make the claim that the problem is not cannabis, but alcohol. Given the myriad of health problems and public safety issues related to alcohol use, why is it that alcohol is the favored drug while cannabis is relegated to the outer darkness?
While those who favor alcohol over cannabis like to drape themselves in the mantle of "science" there simply is no reason why alcohol should be considered less of a public safety or health problem than cannabis. The basis for the new regulation is not science but mere public opinion. An overwhelming majority of the population uses alcohol and is fine with its public use. Knowing this, state regulators have chosen to regulate cannabis use where alcohol is used, and not the other way around.
This is perhaps for the best since, if given a choice, I'd rather have potheads in parks than drunks, since drunks are more likely to get belligerent and pass out at a picnic table — or worse.
However, it's important to remember that if we're going to complain about people smoking joints in parks, they're likely doing it there because there's no legal place to do it within reach. The answer to this is not harsher penalties or more government intervention. The answer lies in allowing local entrepreneurs to respond to local market demand and provide services in places other than the neighborhood bike path.
