Arizona senators have dialed back a pair of measures that would penalize people who create “excessive” amounts of marijuana smoke or odor, with members advancing revised versions of the legislation following criticism that, as introduced, they would have added criminalization provisions back into the state’s cannabis use laws.
The latest bill and companion resolution, sponsored by Sen. J.D. Mesnard (R), were amended by the Senate Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, with a floor vote on third reading now imminent. While the bill would on its own enact a statutory policy change, the separate resolution would put the issue before voters to decide.
As the original proposals moved through the legislative process, advocates and certain lawmakers voiced concerns about undermining the will of voters who passed legalization at the ballot, as well as the ambiguity around enforceability and what constitutes “excessive” marijuana smoke.
The legislation was previously amended in committee last month in an attempt to provide a clearer definition of “excessive” smoke and remove a reference to making the offense a “crime.”
The latest revised definition of excessive cannabis smoke or odor describes it as “airborne emissions resulting from the burning, heating or vaporizing of marijuana or marijuana products,” according to a summary of the adopted floor amendment.
Such emissions must also be “detectable by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities on other private property” and “occur for more than 30 consecutive minutes on a single occasion or on three or more separate days within a 30-day period.”
Members further revised the legislation in response to criticism that the committee-passed versions continued to lack clarity and would pose the threat of criminalization by making the offense a class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail, a maximum $500 fine and up to one year of probation.
That, too, was ultimately changed in the bill (SB 1725) and resolution (SCR 1048) that are teed up to advance through the full Senate.
Specifically, the legislation stipulates that “excessive marijuana smoke or odor is a public nuisance if the person’s conduct is intentional or the person knowingly and substantially interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property,” a summary of the amendment says.
The proposals also now specify that “lawful possession or use of marijuana does not preclude a finding of nuisance, except that a court may consider possession of a valid registry identification card as a mitigating factor,” and they provide that “a person is not liable for committing a private nuisance unless the person has received notice of the interference and fails to abate it within five days.”
Under the revised legislation, the affected party would first have to file a compliant with local officials before they pursue action with the state, but only if the municipality has already adopted an ordinance regulating excessive cannabis smoke or odor.
A person would be deemed in violation of the law if a local court has issued a written order directing them to “abate excessive marijuana smoke or odor that constitutes a nuance” and that person “knowingly violates or refuses to comply with the order.”
Each day of non-compliance after failing to adhere to the order would be consider a separate offense, and failure to comply would be a petty offense, rather than a criminal violation.
Hellbound and Down 