The Chanhassen City Council voted Monday to prohibit the smoking of cannabis in parks and other public places after a discussion about the merits of treating tobacco smoke differently than that of cannabis.

The council actually approved two measures: one to ban the smoking of both cannabis and tobacco in parks and another to also prohibit the smoking of cannabis – but not tobacco – in public places more generally. Vaping falls under the city’s definition of “smoking.”

The discussion leading up to the vote shed light on how cities in Minnesota are dealing with the state’s move to legalize recreational marijuana, which went into effect July 1.

City attorney Andrea McDowell Poehler, in kicking off the discussion, explained that state statute carves out three spaces where cannabis use is permitted: in private residences, on private property not generally accessible by the public, and at places and events licensed to permit on-site cannabis consumption.

That being said, the permission to consume cannabis in these spaces does not necessarily imply its prohibition elsewhere, but the legislation does give local governments some say. Local governments are allowed to adopt an ordinance establishing a petty misdemeanor offense for cannabis consumption in public places.

The ordinance to prohibit the smoking of cannabis and tobacco in city parks passed swiftly with little discussion.

The same could not be said, however, for the measure that dealt with the prohibition of cannabis smoking in public places.

Councilor Mark von Oven asked why the ordinance banned the smoking of cannabis in public places but not the smoking of tobacco.

“What I’m not a fan of is anybody blowing any type of smoke in my face or my children’s faces,” he said. “But what I’m a bigger non-fan of is – this just feels discriminatory to leave out a certain type of smoke.”

He wondered aloud what it would look like if two people were walking down the street together and one was smoking tobacco and the other cannabis.

“I think it’s unrealistic from our ability to actually prohibit it, to actually do something about it, to police it,” von Oven said. “And preventing a cloud of smoke when we’re walking down a sidewalk, whether it’s cannabis or tobacco is pretty clear. I think that makes a lot more sense, it’s a lot more sustainable.”

Both types of smoke can be harmful, von Oven said, “and the only difference is, we grew up with one where my parents were in the front, smoking cigarettes, and that was normal life, and the other one was represented by an egg in a pan frying your brain. So I think we have to shed some of our biases, and not discriminate for our future laws, by going down a path by saying one’s fine and the other’s not.”

Councilor Jerry McDonald pushed back on the inclusion of tobacco in the ordinance. “There’s a difference between cannabis and smoking cigarettes,” he said.

McDonald likened cannabis to alcohol and stated that smoking tobacco in public places doesn’t have the same effect.

“There’s nobody in this room who wants that cloud of smoke in their children’s faces,” von Oven asserted. “I think this is a very unique situation where we are saying that one effect on others is not OK, and another effect on others is completely OK. And to me, they’re the same cloud of smoke. They’re the same thing.”

McDowell Poehler noted that the prohibition of tobacco use in public places is uncommon and that she would have to review the city’s authority to do so.

The motion for an ordinance prohibiting the smoking of cannabis in public places was carried without the inclusion of tobacco. All members of the council, excluding von Oven, voted in favor of the motion.