Amendment would bar on-site cannabis use at events, limit permits to retail shops

A legislative committee reviewed a proposed amendment to S278 that would bar on-site cannabis consumption at events authorized under a two-year pilot program and limit event permits to licensed cannabis retail establishments.

Legislative counsel Sophie Satani told the Government Operations & Military Affairs committee the amendment narrows section 5 of S278: it would remove the current sentence that allows persons 21 and older to consume cannabis at authorized events, add the phrase "retail establishment" to limit which licensees can hold event permits, and delete a requirement that permits be distributed equitably among license categories.

The change, the amendment sponsor said, is a compromise intended to secure most of the sponsor’s policy goals while addressing public-safety concerns. "I decided to change my amendment because I'd rather get 80% of what I'm after instead of none," the representative said, adding that preventing consumption is the principal objective because of liability and safety risks.

Committee members pressed the sponsor and counsel on several implementation issues. One member asked whether Representative Nent's separate amendment—limiting events to municipalities that vote to opt in—was part of this proposal; counsel said that is a separate amendment. Another member asked whether the amendment covers public and private events; counsel said the House General version provides for five public and private event permits and that language would need clarification.

Members also questioned how a ban on consumption would be enforced at private events. The sponsor said enforcement would rely on permit conditions and the licensing authority or municipalities withholding future permits from establishments reported to have allowed consumption. "My hope is the people who are obtaining the license will do their best to prevent consumption so that they can in the future get another event permit," the sponsor said.

Several members expressed skepticism that private-event hosts would pay for a permit if consumption were prohibited. One committee member argued the restriction would likely deter private applicants: "I don't really understand why anybody would even bother getting a private event license and paying for it," the member said. Another member warned about edibles and delayed reactions, saying such products make on-site monitoring difficult.

The committee agreed to pause taking a formal position and asked for cleaned amendment language to allow more time for review before further action. The chair then moved business to the floor for the next stage of consideration.

The committee did not take a vote on the amendment during the transcripted discussion; next steps depend on whether cleaned language or separate amendments (such as Representative Nent’s opt-in proposal) are adopted on the floor.