November 19, 2024 – Following a two-year process during which the Sacramento Office of Cannabis Management met with public officials and lounge owners across the state, surveyed interested parties, and took scientific testimony to develop a pilot ordinance allowing for cannabis consumption lounges in the city, the Sacramento city council today voted 5-4 to allow the five-year pilot program to go forward.
Both Type 1 licenses, allowing for noninhaled cannabis lounges (drinks and edibles) and Type 2 licenses, allowing for smoking and vaping at lounges, were approved.
About 40 members of the Sacramento community spoke at today’s meeting, many from the city’s CORE Equity program for cannabis businesses. Several speakers spoke as parents, saying they didn’t want to smoke around their children at home and needed another safe alternative. The fact that Sacramento permits smoking at cigar stores and hookah lounges, and that without legal consumption spaces cannabis smokers tend to consume on the street or in parks, increasing harm to bystanders, was brought up. It was mentioned by several speakers and councilmembers that there is an inequity at play between home owners and renters, since most landlords do not allow smoking of any kind in apartments.
Also speaking in favor of the ordinance was a representative from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, who worked with Cal NORML to include worker protections in the state cannabis cafe bill (AB 1775) this year, something highlighted by the staff report and by Pam Lopez speaking for Cal NORML at the meeting. Angelica Sanchez of The Perfect Union, a UFCW shop that would like to open a cannabis lounge and café in Sacramento, also spoke at the meeting in favor of the ordinance, saying it would support small businesses and attract tourism, while putting in place comprehensive policies and systems protecting both workers and patrons.
Kim Cargile of A Therapeutic Alternative, a longstanding cannabis dispensary in Sacramento, asked for an amendment to the ordinance to allow Type 1 licenses to operate outdoors, so that she might host tea parties and massage and yoga events on her enclosed patio, where patrons would also benefit from fresh air and sunshine.
Only a handful of speakers objected to the ordinance, citing concerns about second-hand smoke. One was Dr. Donald Lyman, who ran California’s tobacco control program and was also a proponent of Prop. 64, by which California voters legalized adult recreational cannabis use in 2016. Lyman co-authored an oped in the Sacramento Bee with councilmember Eric Guerra against the ordinance, countered by a pro-ordinance oped authored by equity proponent Nina Parks.
Beginning the council’s deliberation at the meeting, outgoing Councilmember Katie Valenzuela noted that she had never seen an ordinance take so long (two years) to come to a vote, and asked for a vote that day either way. “If cannabis is legal, there should be legal places to consume,” she noted, adding that half of the population of Sacramento are renters. She suggested moving forward with Type 1 & 2 licenses, and amending Sections A & E limiting lounges to indoor spaces, so that they are only be applicable to Type 2 licenses. She reminded her colleagues to remember this is a pilot program, and said, “Let’s follow example of other cities (with cannabis lounges).”
Vice Mayor Caity Maple also spoke about the lengthiness of the process, noting that she was present as an advocate when it started. She noted that she isn’t a parent but wants to be, and would like places she could consume that wouldn’t impact her children. As others had, she noted that Sacramento’s Measure L to fund children’s programs in the city is largely funded with cannabis taxes, and said she was troubled by the double standard around hookah lounges. She also highlighted UFCW’s support.
Councilmembers and Vang and Thao expressed concerns about the ordinance based on their work with youth groups in their districts, with Vang saying the council should look at parameters for evaluating the pilot program if it does pass, and Thao saying he would support Type 1 licenses only.
Councilmember Kaplan said she was supportive of license Types 1 & 2, including the amendment to allow Type 1 lounges outdoors. “Honestly, I’ll come and do yoga,” she said, to the delight of the crowd. She brought up equity, saying, “We’re discriminating and pitting renters vs. homeowners. If we’re going to be going after people smoking cannabis, we should be going after people smoking fentanyl on the streets of Sacramento: it’s killing people.”
Councilmember Eric Guerra, who compared cannabis lounges to fentanyl lounges at a previous meeting, and held a press conference the day before the hearing in opposition to the measure, noted that of 215 cannabis permits of the city, 146 are in his council district (#6). Guerra claimed that the common theme at the meeting was business owners who want their businesses to grow. He spoke about studies claiming harm from second-hand cannabis smoke, and questioning whether existing filtration systems are effective. “Do we want to normalize smoking, or not?” he asked.
Councilmember Talamantes chimed in that she would vote no because cannabis smoke contains carcinogens. Councilmember Jennings said he was in favor of a pilot program allowing consumption, and was wrestling with whether five years was the proper time period for such a program. He said he decided he was, saying that when the CORE Program was implemented, having a safe and legal space to consume was part of the necessary business expansion. “I’m not a user of cannabis, but if I were it would put me in an odd position,” he said.
This left the vote at 4-4, leaving the question up to outgoing Mayor Darryl Steinberg, who had admitted he was torn. “We have up to 40 dispensaries that would be eligible for this pilot,” he asked, “Was there any thought given to starting with a smaller pilot, say 10 dispensaries? Why not start smaller?” The answer he got was that a lot of dispensaries wouldn’t have the space for consumption lounges at all, and since the Type 2 ventilation systems were so expensive, few would try to open those. Told that the city has 35 currently permitted cannabis stores of 40 possible permits, staff said that it was unknown how many would qualify for lounge licenses, but that they are proposing changing the permitting process, requiring a new CUP process since consumption would be added.
Steinberg, a former California Senator, said that his heart was against the ordinance because he has been anti-(tobacco) smoking throughout his public service. But as to his head, he said, “The ‘no’ argument does not stand up for me.” Prop. 64 allowed for the use of cannabis, putting it on cities to regulate, he noted. “The thing that differentiates it the most,” he said, “is the divide between renters and home owners.” He mentioned the underground economy around sales, and the anomaly of a renter who has kids at home being legally allowed to smoke the product but doesn’t want to do it in front of children.
“This will be the first time in my life I have ever gone against public health advocates for cleaner air,” he said, casting his yes vote with one condition: “I would like the intent to be that when staff brings back the regulations, it allows a councilmember to bring expanded licensing back before the council, recognizing some limitations based on geographic and equity issues,” meaning more lengthy meetings like today’s are likely to come. He noted that he would soon be out of his mayor’s office, and ventured that the next mayor may have a completely different opinion.
