The Marijuana Control Board is in the final stages of crafting regulations that will guide Alaska's forthcoming legal marijuana industry. Proponents of Ballot Measure 2 believe the vast majority of rules proposed so far realize both its spirit and intent. However, we are concerned that a few remaining provisions overlook important rights for Alaskans granted under the initiative. By far the most troubling is the fact that the proposed rules do not allow for social consumption in any establishments.
Measure 2 was designed to end marijuana prohibition and replace it with a system in which marijuana is treated similarly to alcohol. It grants many important rights for adults and localities. When we drafted Ballot Measure 2, we also made it a point to protect the rights of responsible business owners who wish to provide a location where adults can consume marijuana with other adults. Those who choose to consume marijuana should have the same right to congregate as those who choose to use alcohol. By allowing adults to consume marijuana legally inside businesses, we reduce the likelihood that they'll consume illegally outside in vehicles, on sidewalks and in parks. This is especially true when it comes to visitors who often don't have other legal options.
Following the passage of the initiative, in a rush to prevent unregulated marijuana clubs, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (which held authority over marijuana until the MCB was appointed) created a definition of "public" that is exceptionally broad, anywhere "a substantial group of persons has access," and the MCB never revisited it. In addition to prohibiting consumption on public property, it effectively outlaws use inside privately operated businesses, at events held inside privately owned venues and practically everywhere but inside a private residence.
This was not the intent of Ballot Measure 2. Our goal was simply to prohibit consumption outside on streets, sidewalks, and parks, not inside private establishments. And we certainly did not intend to prohibit consumption inside licensed, regulated marijuana retail businesses.
Unfortunately, the MCB's staff and attorneys claim that the board is unable to license and regulate retail shops that would allow on-site consumption. This is a misguided interpretation of the language and intent of the initiative.
The board is well within its scope of authority to establish various types of retail establishment licenses, including those that permit adults to consume on-site. Indeed, such a license is essential to the MCB's duties.
In fact, the proposed rules already anticipate this authority. One particular section, 3 AAC 306.900(b), states that a person or business cannot maintain, operate or lease a premises for the purpose of providing a place for consuming marijuana "unless the person is authorized to do so under this title." This provision only makes sense if the MCB has the power to authorize social consumption. The board has elsewhere demonstrated its broad authority by creating a cultivation broker license, even though Measure 2 does not mention brokers.
Importantly, one of the express purposes of Measure 2 is "allowing law enforcement to focus on violent and property crimes." Preventing adults from consuming socially inside licensed marijuana businesses could increase the likelihood that they consume publicly outside on the street, creating an unnecessary burden on local law enforcement.
The solution here is clear. The MCB should go back and amend the emergency definition of "public" consumption and create a category of retail marijuana business with specific regulations for those that allow patrons to consume on site. The board should also remove the prohibition on marijuana social clubs and create a licensing structure for similar business types. Anything less violates the intent and language of Ballot Measure 2.
I would like to thank the board and its key support staff who worked hard to create workable rules, as well as responsible industry voices and activists who advocated for effective rules that honor the spirit of the initiative. Let's hope the board can complete this work with a set of rules that respects the rights granted under our historic law.
Tim Hinterberger, Ph.D., was a sponsor of Ballot Measure 2 and is chair of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.