Pot Pubs in Boston?
By allowing on-site consumption, a Massachusetts measure would treat marijuana users more like drinkers.

A marijuana legalization initiative that is expected to appear on the Massachusetts ballot in 2016 would allow on-site consumption at businesses that sell cannabis products. In my latest Forbes column, I explain why that's a big deal:
When the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Massachusetts unveiled the text of its 2016 legalization initiative this month, the group highlighted several features of the measure but omitted the most interesting one. The Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act would allow consumption of cannabis products on the premises of businesses that sell them, subject to regulation by the state and approval by local voters.
That's a big deal, because until now no jurisdiction has satisfactorily addressed the obvious yet somehow touchy question of where people can consume the cannabis they are now allowed to buy. The legalization initiatives approved by voters in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska all promised to treat marijuana like alcohol, which implies allowing venues similar to taverns where people can consume cannabis in a social setting. Yet all four states say businesses that sell marijuana may not let customers use it on the premises.
Although a few "bring your own cannabis" (BYOC) clubs have popped up to accommodate people who want to use marijuana outside their homes from time to time, the legality of such establishments is a matter of dispute. The result is that people can openly buy marijuana without fear, but they still have to consume it on the sly, just like in the bad old days. The problem is especially acute for visitors from other states, since pot-friendly hotels are still pretty rare.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I like that people in liberal strongholds like Taxachusetts still have to fight tooth and nail for their right to consume recreational drugs. It helps dispel the myth that progressives are in any way interested in ending the drug war.
I'm in Illinois, deep deep Blue. Want to bet that this is the last state to ever decriminalize? And even that will happen (if it ever does) with the government kicking and screaming the whole way, just like their recognition of (limited) gun rights.
If they do you know they'll regulate the fuck out of it, as with alcohol but with less common sense and more state intrusion.
As long as they can cartel-ize pot like they have alcohol distribution here in IL, I think they would go ahead and "decriminalize".
As long as they can cartel-ize pot like they have alcohol distribution here in IL, I think they would go ahead and "decriminalize".
TEH SQUIRRELZ IZ HIGH!
It's been suggested (correctly) that Chicago would be a natural place for a midwest distribution point, and that the revenue would be beneficial toward the goal of reducing the sea of red ink. Of course, the reality is that you can't effectively cartel-ize because it's so easy to grow, any revenue would be accompanied by yet more spending so deficits could become even greater, and there's not one IL politician who wants to champion the issue.
I really regret moving here.
Wait, you are in Nicole City...er, Chicago?
Just northwest. I am horribly offended that you haven't gotten together with me for drinks.
We Chicagoland HyR-ers seem to not have the get-togetherness our coastal pals do.
It's because of antisemites like you. Nikki, of course, is just omni-bigoted.
I strongly protest the accusation of antisemitism....but I will cop to antinicoleism.
Drop me an email. We can preview the place I suggested for the September visitor.
And (l'esprit d'escalier), "liberal" has nothing to do with it. Conservatives got there first. It's all about how control-freaky states are.
Wow, man, this is, like, I mean, y'know?
Yeah.
On-site consumption is a terrible idea. You're going to let those dope fiends shoot up a few marijuanas and then let them get behind the wheel of a car once they're all hopped up on the weed? Those crazy bastards will be racing up and down the sidewalks running over little kiddies just for fun. THINK OF THE CHILDERN!
Running over little kiddies for fun would be disgraceful. One ought only do it for 50 points and to proceed to the next level
+50
A Chicagoan attributes a different meaning to LSD than other folks do.
+200 abandoned cars in winter.
I thought they were supposed to smoke it in the woods - like everyone else.
I'm afraid they're following the recent model of tobacco rather than liquor.