Council adds medical pot restrictions

City councilmembers hailed their unanimous vote as a way to protect the public against unwanted secondhand smoke, noting the city and police department have received numerous complaints from residents of multi-family buildings.

But San Mateo’s proposed law would significantly restrict where people can smoke prescription pot, leaving some patients who prefer to light up without a place to go within city limits. Smoking medicinal marijuana would only be allowed in a private vehicle, although it’s illegal to drive while intoxicated; or in detached single-family homes, which in today’s red-hot real estate market are averaging $1.25 million.

Medicinal marijuana wasn’t originally included in San Mateo’s 2015 smoking ban that primarily focused on tobacco products. At the time, city officials noted state laws regulate medical marijuana and it wasn’t included in San Mateo’s rules prohibiting smoking in multi-family residences.

However, because Proposition 64 bars marijuana smoke “in a location where smoking tobacco is prohibited,” jurisdictions are now using the landmark law meant to bolster recreational pot as a way to restrict medicinal uses.

Councilmembers described San Mateo’s regulations as vital to sheltering neighbors from secondhand smoke and noted there are other means of ingesting pot that don’t involve exposing others. 

But advocates of reforming marijuana laws say rules like San Mateo’s unfairly interfere with patients’ ability to treat a variety of conditions from cancer to seizures. And unlike tobacco, no studies have shown that marijuana is harmful to the health of either users or those exposed to secondhand smoke, said Dale Gieringer.

As director of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Gieringer drew sharp distinctions between medicinal pot and tobacco smoke.

“Unlike cigarettes, whose odor sticks around for days, marijuana smoke does not leave a strong after-day odor. Pot smokers typically smoke just a fraction as much leaf as tobacco smokers, rendering the risks of second-hand smoke even smaller,” Gieringer said in an email.

But city officials said they were motivated to update San Mateo’s regulations following residents’ complaints about their neighbors lighting up.

“I appreciate the medicinal value of marijuana for many of our residents, but we all have to be mindful of the living environments of our neighbors in multiple-unit buildings with shared ventilation systems,” Councilwoman Maureen Freschet wrote in an email. “Being exposed to noxious marijuana smoke and the associated odor poses a nuisance as well as a health hazard to other tenants, and this law will give our officers the authority to address and resolve these issues on a complaint basis.”

Councilmembers also noted there are other means by which to ingest marijuana, like edibles, and that the amended smoking ban doesn’t prohibit pot from being used medicinally.

“It’s just an extension of the smoking ban and the main reason is because smoke travels between walls and electrical outlets and it bugs people and is bad for people’s health,” said Mayor David Lim, who noted the city isn’t superseding state laws. “We’re restricting it from being smoked, but we can’t say no medical marijuana.”

But Gieringer said being able to smoke medicinal marijuana can provide more immediate relief to those in need. Alternatives such as edible marijuana take longer to go into effect and users can have a harder time moderating their dosage, he said.

“Inhalation is the most effective way to administer marijuana for medical conditions requiring prompt treatment, such as seizures or migraine attacks, or for extreme nausea or appetite loss,” Gieringer said.

Councilman Joe Goethals noted the ban still allows for smoking in appropriate places and other forms of medicinal consumption are available.

“You don’t have to smoke it, but if you’re going to smoke it, smoke it somewhere where it’s not going to affect somebody else,” Goethals said.

But options would be limited once the revised ban goes into effect, the enforcement of which will be complaint driven. On top state prohibitions against smoking pot in public, the city would ban any type of smoking or vaporizing within multi-family residences including balconies, patios and common areas.

Based on the expansion, the only places a person could smoke any type of marijuana — recreationally or medicinally — is in a private vehicle or detached single-family home. Smoking theoretically could be permitted in a pot café, but the city has taken preemptive steps to ban commercial operations before the state is slated to start issuing licenses next year.

The law would also apply to those who own their own townhomes or condominiums — a private property issue some cities have avoided interfering with.

Gieringer noted his organization is also opposing current statewide legislation that seeks to ban marijuana smoking or vaporizing in public housing unless it’s amended to exclude medicinal uses. Equating tobacco to medical marijuana is especially burdensome to patients who are already regulated, he said.

“Note too that while tobacco smokers are free to go outside and smoke their cigarettes, consumption of marijuana in streets and other public places is expressly forbidden by Prop. 64,” Gieringer said. “Therefore, the proposed ban is much harder on patients who need marijuana for medicine than on tobacco smokers.”

samantha@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106

Twitter: @samantha_weigel