By Shelby Huffaker, MPH | Chair, San Diego Americans for Safe Access
On August 20, 2024, the Carlsbad City Council voted to adopt Ordinance No. CS-475 – 4/1 (Burkholder – No), prohibiting the smoking or vaping of cannabis and tobacco products in multi-unit residences. While the reasons underlying the creation of this ordinance may be well-intended, we at the San Diego Chapter of Americans for Safe Access believe that a prohibition on the smoking or vaping of cannabis and cannabis products in multiunit residences will result in numerous unintended consequences to patients, consumers, and the public at large. The reasons for this are outlined in detail below.
In certain circumstances, inhalation may be the most medically advantageous route of consumption for patients relying on cannabis to manage their health conditions.
- Compared to other consumption methods (e.g., ingestion, sublingual application), inhalation has the fastest onset time, meaning maximum symptom relief can be achieved within five to ten minutes. Like the use of inhalers for immediate asthma relief, inhalation methods provide a unique benefit for individuals using cannabis to address conditions or symptoms that progress rapidly and aggressively, such as nausea, migraines, and pain.
- Dry herb vaporization, an inhalation-based consumption method by which dried cannabis flower is heated rather than ignited, is recommended by health researchers. “Informed health care professionals may consider making recommendations to their medicinal cannabis patients for vapourization of the plant, particularly for those who want the rapid relief that oral administration fails to provide.”
- Inhalation may also be a safer route of consumption than other methods for some patients. For example, ingesting (i.e., eating) cannabis may not be safe for patients with liver disease, people living with disabilities that impair the ability to swallow or digest solid foods, or people with food allergies.
The harms associated with smoking or vaping cannabis are minimal and do not present the same harms as smoking or vaping tobacco/nicotine.
- Unlike research on tobacco, a substantial body of research has yet to demonstrate a relationship between smoking cannabis and lung cancer. Similarly, cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD).
- Occasional and low cumulative cannabis exposure (e.g., 1 joint/day for 7 years or 1 joint/week for 49 years) is not associated with increased risk of adverse pulmonary outcomes.
- While other cannabis products that do not involve smoking or vaping are necessary tools for many medical cannabis patients, they are not inherently healthier or safer. Edible products, for example, are more difficult to dose and may be accidentally ingested by small children or pets (ingesting raw cannabis flower, by contrast, will do nothing more than cause an upset stomach).
An ordinance prohibiting the smoking or vaping of cannabis in multiunit residences will unfairly disadvantage groups already harmed by the disproportionate effects of the War on Drugs.
- In California, 90% of units in multiunit residences were rented instead of owned in 2021. Renters in the state are significantly more likely to be cost-burdened. Therefore, any policy targeting multiunit residences is more likely to affect people of lower socioeconomic status.
- Renters in California are also more likely to be people of color.
- In the U.S., Black people are arrested for cannabis-related offenses at 3.6 times the rate as white people despite similar usage rates. Implementing an ordinance such as the one proposed, without providing accessible alternative locations to consume one’s medicine, would be a continuation of the costly, ineffective, and unjust War on Drugs.
An ordinance prohibiting the smoking or vaping of cannabis in multiunit residences is duplicative, likely unpopular, and an infringement on individual liberties.
- Many multiunit residences already prohibit smoking or vaping. An ordinance such as the one proposed is duplicative, unnecessary, and cost-ineffective.
- According to the California Department of Health, in 2018, 17.7% of California adults reported using cannabis in the past 30 days. Of those, 58% reported smoking as their primary consumption method. With a population of 113,495, this equates to 11,651 adults in the City of Carlsbad who smoke cannabis at least once a month — many of whom do so because of legitimate medical purposes, or simply as a healthier alternative to alcohol, opioids, etc.
In conclusion, while the intent behind Ordinance No. CS-475 – 4/1 may be to protect public health, it overlooks the unique needs of medical cannabis patients and the realities of cannabis consumption. Prohibiting the smoking or vaping of cannabis in multiunit residences not only limits a vital method of symptom relief for many patients but also disproportionately impacts marginalized communities already affected by discriminatory policies and enforcement practices. We urge the Carlsbad City Council and other governing bodies to consider the broader implications of such ordinances and explore more equitable solutions, such as designated consumption areas, that respect individual rights and public health without perpetuating harm or injustice.
Are you a medical cannabis patient and/or property owner in Carlsbad who will be negatively affected by the new smoking/vaping ordinance (taking effect in January, 2025)? Contact us!
