Appendices - Public Consumption Of Cannabis Policy In Clackamas County

Appendix I. Stakeholder Interviews 

Purpose

This section describes the methods and findings of the stakeholder interviews conducted by CCPHD staff. 

Methods

CCPHD staff interviewed 25 stakeholders. Stakeholders represented a range of County departments, community organizations, and businesses in the cannabis industry. Questions were sent to interviewees in advance. Each interview was held over the course of one hour. See a list of stakeholder roles and organizations, as well as the interview questions. 

Notes were taken during each interview and subsequently reviewed by division staff to distill key themes within each question. Counts should be viewed with a level of uncertainty because of the possible omissions in content that may have occurred through this process, as well as differences in note-taking styles between the three staff conducting interviews. 

Interview Findings

Current Impacts

Overall, 24 unique impacts were identified through interviews in response to the question What are the current impacts of (legalized recreational) cannabis on the program you oversee? On the people who use your program? Of these 24, 10 were cited more than once across interviews (Figure 1), and 14 were only mentioned once. 

The two most frequently mentioned impacts were "worsens mental health" (n=5) and "no impact" (n=5). These results highlight stark differences in perspective in general, but the split is even more pronounced when considering the industry or program that respondents represented. Interviewees from behavioral health programs discussed how cannabis worsens mental health, citing disproportionate impacts on youth and the use of cannabis leading to or exacerbating conditions like depression, anxiety, suicidality, and psychosis. Conversely, stakeholders who described current cannabis legalization as having no impact mainly worked in administrative public service roles or in the cannabis industry.

The next two most frequently cited impacts were "gateway to other substances" and "restrictions on renters". Each were mentioned by four participants. Stakeholders from law enforcement and behavioral health related personal experiences in their work when discussing cannabis use leading to the use of other substances. Regarding restrictions on renters, stakeholders described how this group, including those living in low-income housing, have no access to private space to consume cannabis, thus putting them at risk of possible eviction when choosing to smoke indoors. 

Of the remaining impacts mentioned that appeared more than once, six were identified by two participants each. These included: providing pain relief, normalizing a historically stigmatized drug (cannabis), causing children to miss school because of cannabis related causes (confiscation penalties, violence at home), creating unknowns in policies because of lack of regulation standards (law enforcement response protocols and prescription dose recommendations in conjunction with cannabis use), causing unwanted odors in public spaces, and contributing to housing loss. 

Figure 1. Current Impacts of Cannabis on Cross Sector Programming.

• Worsens Mental Health: 5
• No Impact: 5
• Gateway to Other Substances: 4
• Restrictions on Renters: 4
• Pain Relief: 2
• Normalization: 2
• School Impacts: 2
• Limited Regulation: 2
• Environmental Smell: 2
• Contributes to Housing Loss: 2

Positive impacts that were only cited once include improving mental health, creating a revenue stream for services, providing general health benefits, catalyzing the industry to create safer products, and creating jobs. Negative impacts that were only cited once include decreasing respiratory health, decreasing household ability to respond to other impacts, increasing crime, creating fire hazards, decreasing human capital, decreasing household budget, creating a point inequity in enforcement/ticketing that disproportionately impacts communities of color, and causing traffic to and from rural areas where grow sites are located. 

Future Short-Term Impacts

Twenty unique impacts were identified in response to the question What future impacts would public consumption of cannabis have on the work you do or the people you serve? Of these 20, half surfaced multiple times. 

The most common impact described was “increased normalization” (n=6). Stakeholders suggested that legalizing public consumption of cannabis would create greater access to and acceptance of cannabis by the public. These effects illustrated a shared belief among stakeholders. However, some understood them to be positive (revenue, public support) while others viewed them as negative (use of other substances, mental health impacts). 

The next most frequently cited impacts were “increased use” (n=5) and “decreased road safety” (n=5). Stakeholders posited that new public venues to try cannabis would lead to more new cannabis users, including youth because it would be easier to obtain. They also suggested that established cannabis users would consume more because of greater accessibility. 

There were two primary reasons cited for decreases in road safety. The first concerns users not having a frame of reference for cannabis limits—as opposed to potential experience with alcohol and its effects—and therefore not being reliably certain of when it is safe to operate a vehicle. Secondly, stakeholders noted that public venues for cannabis consumption would create travel needs that would likely be met with personal vehicle use, especially in rural areas where public transit is less accessible. Participants believed these factors would create conditions leading to increased safety complaints and DUI issues. Some stakeholders anticipated that public consumption of cannabis would lead to increased worsening of respiratory health outcomes like asthma, COPD, and other long-term impacts that come from inhaling smoke (n=3). This concern applied not only to the cannabis users themselves, but those exposed to secondhand smoke, as well. 

Stakeholders highlighted that one short term impact would be supporting cannabis businesses by creating new business opportunities (n=3). Local shops could become social gathering spaces, thus benefiting from increased sales. Additional impacts that surfaced in two distinct interviews included increased use of other substances, increased risk of fire, increases in citizen complaints relating to negative impacts from public use, increased car traffic in rural communities where grow sites are offering consumption opportunities, and the need to create crowd management regulations at events that permit public consumption. 

Figure 2. Future Short-Term Impacts of Public Consumption of Cannabis Policy. 

• Increased Normalization: 6
• Decreased Road Safety: 5
• Increased Use: 5
• Worsens Health Outcomes: 3
• Supports Cannabis Businesses: 3
• Gateway to Other Substances: 2
• Increased Fire Risk: 2
• Complaints from Citizens: 2
• Update Crowd Management Reg: 2
• Traffic Impacts: 2

Most of these impacts were understood to be negative, except for supporting local cannabis businesses. Increased normalization and increased use are inherently neutral observations, but stakeholders interpreted them differently, perceiving them as either positive or negative. 

Additional short term positive impacts of public consumption that only surfaced in one interview include the destigmatization of cannabis, increased user education about cannabis, and improved public health. Additional short term negative impacts include increases in criminal offenses, the creation of barriers to access public consumption spaces, continued use in rental housing, increased trips to the emergency room for over consumption (particularly in first time users), increasing exposure to secondhand smoke, creating need for employee drug testing procedures, and worsening mental health outcomes. 

Future Long-Term Impacts

In response to the question What long term impacts would public consumption of cannabis have on the work you do or the people you serve? (long term = 1-5 years) stakeholders cited 13 unique impacts. However, because of the extensive discussion that the previous two interview questions created, many stakeholders referenced impacts already discussed, but applied to a longer period of time. 

The most common response was continued normalization of cannabis (n=8). Other impacts that resurfaced from previous questions included supporting cannabis businesses and providing a gateway to other substances (n=3 each). The expansion of cannabis production facilities to meet increased demand surfaced as a new impact, as did the potential for reduced cannabis use over time (n=3 each). A few stakeholders suggested that because of normalization, cannabis use would have less appeal for some current and potential users. 

Additional impacts that appeared twice included continued worsening of respiratory health outcomes, continued decreases in road safety, the development of a new workforce, and increases in cannabis potency.

Figure 3. Future Long-Term Impacts of Public Consumption of Cannabis Policy. 

• Increased Normalization: 8
• Supports Cannabis Businesses: 3
• Gateway to Other Substances: 3
• Expanded Cannabis Facilities: 3
• Decreased Use: 3
• Worsens Health Outcomes: 2
• Decreases Road Safety: 2
• New Workforce: 2
• Increased Potency: 2

Other long-term changes that were suggested in only one interview included increases in road safety, increases in public health, decreases in youth potential, and decreases in mental health outcomes. The increases in road safety were associated with a net substance use shift of people driving under the influence of alcohol to driving under the influence of cannabis, which the stakeholder suggested could be safer comparatively. 

Groups That Would Benefit From Public Consumption of Cannabis Policy

Sixteen unique benefactors were identified as being impacted by public consumption of cannabis policy. The most frequently cited benefactors were local cannabis businesses (n=9). Stakeholders suggested that public consumption policy would drive demand and increase sales opportunities and create more career paths with good wages. The next most frequently cited benefactors were patients who would see increased access to locations allowing consumption of medically prescribed cannabis (n=8), as well as programmatic recipients of cannabis-related tax dollars like schools and enforcement programs (n=8). 

Stakeholders cited several other groups that would benefit from increased access and use of cannabis. This included the tourism industry (n=7) as cannabis consumptions sites would draw visitors to the state; small businesses such as print shops, marketing companies, and food suppliers that would see increased demand from cannabis businesses (n=6); the broader cannabis industry as a whole (n=5); and event planners (n=2) that could offer cannabis at their events. 

Further impacts noted by stakeholders included the social benefits of recreational users (n=5) and renters with restrictions (n=5) having more spaces available to consume cannabis. The benefits attributed to the general public (n=3) and people driving (n=2) related to a net shift in substance use from alcohol to cannabis, which stakeholders thought would lead to less violence, driving under the influence of alcohol, and other negative societal side effects of alcohol. 

Figure 4. Groups Cited That Would Benefit from Public Consumption of Cannabis Policy. 

• Local Cannabis Businesses: 9
• Patients: 8
• Tax Collectors/Recipients of Dollars: 8
• Tourism Industry: 7
• Small Businesses in General: 6
• Recreational Users: 5
• Renters with Restrictions: 5
• Cannabis Industry: 5
• General Public: 3
• People Driving: 2
• Event Planners: 2

Other groups that would benefit that were only cited in one interview include tourists, Black males, people who are houseless, people living in assisted living facilities, and rental property owners. 

Groups That Would Be Harmed by Public Consumption of Cannabis Policy

Fourteen unique groups were identified that would experience negative impacts from public consumption of cannabis policy. The most frequently cited group was the general public at large (n=11). This was largely attributed to the health impacts and undesirable odor of secondhand cannabis smoke. The second most frequently cited group was youth (n=10), who were cited for two primary reasons: the impacts of cannabis on developing brains and the social costs of use, including missing school and consuming other substances. 

Some groups were cited as being impacted due to their exposure to settings where cannabis would be used, including public safety officers responding to enforcement requests (n=2), neighbors to grow sites (n=2), and people near businesses/events permitting consumption. Additionally, people driving were mentioned as facing the impacts of others operating vehicles under the influence of cannabis. 

Stakeholders cited some groups as facing impacts because of health and social reasons. They believed low-income groups (n=3) and communities of color (n=2) would still face barriers to accessing public consumption spaces, and people in recovery may be increasingly exposed to substance use opportunities and therefore face setbacks (n=2). People with existing mental health diagnoses were also mentioned (n=2), as they may try cannabis for the first time and experience negative side effects. 

Other groups that were cited as experiencing negative impacts in only one interview included health care providers, for needing to treat more cannabis-related conditions; the alcohol industry, for competing sales; rural areas, due to increased traffic; and employers at large, from a workforce that includes more cannabis users. 

Figure 5. Groups Cited That Would Experience Negative Impacts from Public Consumption of Cannabis Policy. 

• General Public 11 Youth 10 People Driving 5 Low Income Groups 3 People in Recovery 3 Public Safety Officers 2 Grow Site Neighbors 2 People with Mental Health Diagnoses 2 People/Businesses Near Events 2 Communities of Color 2

Recommendations 

Interviewees suggested a wide range of recommendations to reduce the negative impacts and maximize the positive impacts of public consumption of cannabis. Overall, 40 unique recommendations were made. A majority focused on reducing negative impacts. 

Fifteen recommendations appeared across at least two distinct interviews. They can be grouped into the following policy buckets:

• Place-based recommendations
  • Zoning requirements (n=6)
  • Designated public spaces (n=5)
  • Ventilation requirements (n=4)
  • Advertising regulations (n=2)
  • Change in parks codes/policies (n=2)
• Enhancing enforcement and regulation systems
  • Consumption monitoring (n=5)
  • Intoxication regulations (n=4)
  • Enforcement training (n=3)
  • Road safety measures (n=3)
  • Penalties for non-compliance (n=2)
  • Licensing fees (n=2)
  • Policies preventing youth from accessing cannabis (n=2)
• Education systems
  • Education campaigns (n=6)
• Long term research on the impacts of public consumption (n=5)
  
   

• Zoning Requirements: 6
• Health Education Campaigns: 6
• Designated Public Spaces: 5
• Consumption Monitoring: 5
• Long Term Impact Research: 5
• Ventilation Requirements: 4
• Intentional Revenue Distribution: 4
• Intoxication Regulations: 4
• Update Enforcement Training: 3
• Road Safety Measures: 3
• Advertising Regulations: 2
• Change Parks Codes/Policies: 2
• Penalties for Noncompliance: 2
• Licensing Fees: 2
• Enforcement Barring Youth: 2

Figure 6. Recommendations to Mitigate or Enhance Impacts of Public Consumption of Cannabis Policy. 

Key Interview Takeaways

An analysis of the 25 conversations revealed the following key takeaways:

• The most common concern for county stakeholders regarding current cannabis consumption levels are the impacts on mental health outcomes. 
• The overarching impact of most concern associated with state-enacted public consumption of cannabis is the normalization of cannabis and increased acceptance, access, and use. Depending on the stakeholder’s line of work and perspective, normalization would either generate positive or negative impacts. 
• Primary negative impacts of concern for stakeholders include decreases in road safety from those driving under the influence of cannabis, widening the pathway to other substances by increasing access to cannabis, exacerbating respiratory health outcomes for cannabis smokers and those exposed to secondhand smoke, and complaints related to increased community cannabis use.
• Primary positive impacts cited by stakeholders include supporting local cannabis business revenue, employees and associated economic markets, and increasing access to cannabis to those who otherwise have no space to consume it.
• Stakeholders most frequently cited specific groups that would benefit from public consumption policy (cannabis businesses, medical cannabis patients, recipients of cannabis tax dollars), whereas the groups that would be negatively impacted were cited in broader terms (the general public, youth, people driving).
• Only two of the 25 stakeholders discussed the disproportionate impact of cannabis, either currently or in light of possible future policy, on communities of color. 
• The most suggested mitigations or enhancements to public consumption of cannabis policy include place-based health and safety regulations, bolstering enforcement resources, clarifying regulation structures, developing education systems, and conducting ongoing research on policy impacts. 

Stakeholders and Interview Questions

Table 1. Stakeholder Roles and Organizations.

Role	Organization
Medical Director	Clackamas County
Alcohol Drug Education Program Coordinator	Clackamas County
Owner	Cannabis Agricultural Business Park
Officer	Clackamas County Sheriff
Director	Clackamas County Behavioral Health
Certified Alcohol and Drug Counselor	Clackamas County Behavioral Health
Community Corrections Manager	Clackamas County Sheriff - Community Corrections
Probation Supervisor	Clackamas Juvenile Department
Manager	Clackamas County Parks
City Manager	City of Molalla
Economic Development Manager	Clackamas County
Cannabis Grower	N/A
Resident Service Coordinator	Clackamas County
Property manager	Clackamas County
Volunteer	Stafford Hamlet Board
Library Director	Clackamas County
Community Engagement Coordinator	City of Milwaukie
Executive Director	National Alliance on Mental Health (NAMI)
Executive Director	Oregon Healthy Equity Alliance (OHEA)
Planning Director	Clackamas County
Safety Program Manager	Clackamas County
Vision Zero Coordinator	Clackamas County
Social Services Division Director	Clackamas County
General Manager	Stone Creek Golf Course
Director	Clackamas County

Interview Questions

1. What is your current role? 
2. What populations do you serve or represent? 
3. What are the current impacts of cannabis in the community you serve? 
4. How significant are these impacts? 
5. What short term impacts would public consumption of cannabis have on the work you do or the people you serve? (short term = 6 months-1 year)
6. What long term impacts would public consumption of cannabis have on the work you do or the people you serve? (long term = 1-5 years)
7. What impact would public consumption of cannabis have on social norms related to marijuana use?
8. Who could benefit from public consumption of cannabis? What are the benefits?
9. Who could be harmed from public consumption of cannabis? What are the harms?
10. What rules, programs, or strategies would you like to see implemented to avoid potential negative impacts or maximize potential benefits from public consumption? 
11. Is there anything else you would like to share on this topic?

Appendix II. Framing Analysis

PURPOSE

This section describes the methods and findings of the frame analysis conducted on testimonies submitted to the Oregon Legislature for House Bills 2233 and 3112. 

METHODS

Testimonies submitted during the hearings held for HB 2233 in 2019 and HB 3112 in 2021 were downloaded from the Oregon Legislative Information System (OLIS) website. Descriptive variables collected on each testimony included the type of organization that submitted the testimony, the organization name, and the stance stated on the bill. For each session, each testimony was read once to identify major themes. During the second reading, testimonies were coded to identified frames. For HB 3112, two staff reviewed the testimonies, discussed major themes, conducted independent coding of the sample, and then reviewed results to reach alignment. 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND FRAME DESCRIPTIONS

 

HB 2233 

Sample Size Description

Twenty-eight documents submitted as testimony were reviewed.

Testimonies by Organization Sector

Five sectors representing the local cannabis industry, the public at large (residents), government actors, advocacy groups in general, and advocacy groups focused on health issues submitted 28 testimonies. The two most prominent sectors were local cannabis industry (n=8) and residents (n=6). 

Figure 7. Organizations by Sector That Submitted Testimony for HB 2233.

• Local Cannabis Industry: 8
• Resident: 6 
• Government: 5 
• Advocacy: 4 
• Health Advocacy: 4 
• Unknown: 1

Testimonies by Bill Stance

A narrow majority of testimonies submitted (n=15) were in support of HB 2233. Twelve testimonies were in opposition of the bill, and one was neutral. 

Figure 8. Bill Stance of Testimonies Submitted for HB 2233.

• Support: 15
• Oppose: 12
• Neutral: 1

HB 3112 

Sample Size Description

Overall, 71 documents submitted as testimony were reviewed. Of these 71 documents, 13 were supplementary reports, amendment documents, or presentation slides. These were not included in the frame analysis, leaving the final sample size at 58 testimony documents. 

Testimonies by Organization Sector

For roughly one third of the sample size (n=20), there was not enough information available to determine which sector the speaker was representing. Seven different sectors were identified: local cannabis industry representatives, law firms, the public at large (residents), government actors, academic institutions, advocacy groups focused on health issues, and advocacy groups focused on culturally specific services and communities of color (CoC). The two most prominent sectors that testified were representatives from the local cannabis industry (n=13) and law firms (n=12). Local cannabis industry speakers included BIPOC cannabis business owners, cannabis industry advocates, and cannabis workers associations. 

Figure 9. Organizations by Sector That Submitted Testimony for HB 3112.

• Local Cannabis Industry: 13 
• Law Firms: 12 
• Residents: 7 
• Government: 3 
• Academia: 2 
• Health Advocacy: 1 
• CoC Advocacy: 1

Testimonies by Bill Stance

A majority (n=38) of the testimonies submitted were in support of HB 3112. Ten testimonies opposed the bill. Eleven either stated they were not taking a position or did not clearly articulate a position in the documentation submitted. These “neutral” testimonies typically provided commentary on the mechanics of the bill itself from a legal or technical/implementation perspective.

Figure 10. Bill Stance of Testimonies Submitted for HB 3112.

• Support 38 Neutral 11 Oppose 10

FRAMES

 

HB 2233

Supporting Frames Overview

Eight unique, positive frames were identified in the analysis. The most common frames in support of the bill were Cannabis Equity - Use (n=8) Support Business (n=7), Promotes Tourism (n=6), and Normalized (n=5).

Figure 11. Frequency of Supporting Frames for HB 2233.

• Cannabis Equity- Race: 1 
• Support Regulation: 2 
• No Negative Health Impacts: 2 
• Good Partner: 4 
• Normalized: 5 
• Promotes Tourism: 6 
• Support Business: 7 
• Cannabis Equity - Use: 8

Supporting Frame Descriptions

Table 2. Frames Found in Support of HB 2233.

Frame	Description
Cannabis Equity - Use  Communities need safe places to use cannabis, especially for those in public housing; has health benefits; the current system is broken in this regard and needs to be fixed. (n=8)	We view this bill as an important step to ensure that the changes we have made in our laws operate in an equitable and fair manner. Not everyone in Oregon benefits from the new legal framework we have created around cannabis use in the same way; and there are changes we need to make to our laws to ensure equity. More specifically, there are many people in our communities who live in public housing or rentals where cannabis possession and use is disallowed. Meanwhile, those of us who own homes are free to possess and consume cannabis freely. This creates an economic inequity, where people who can afford to purchase a home are able to benefit from legal cannabis, while poorer individuals are essentially prohibited from using a legal product. (4) Renters and those living in public housing oftentimes aren’t even technically allowed to possess cannabis in their own homes, even for medical use. Right now we are leaving our patients our in the cold, literally, by forcing them to break the law and stand on the street in order to get the quick relief of inhaled cannabis (such as nausea due to chemotherapy). (14)
Supports Business Cannabis consumption will support local businesses and business owners, trickle over into other industries, and fuel Oregon's economy. (n=7)	HB 2233 solves a critical problem in that cannabis consumers and producers from around the state are hampered by a cannabis legalization policy that is half finished; cannabis is legal yet there is virtually nowhere to consume it. (18)
Promotes Tourism Cannabis industry is a tourism driver in Oregon, limiting this bill would limit tourism. (n=6)	The benefits of social consumption extend to small businesses like mine, governments in the interest of further revenue, the tourism industry, and consumers that might not have anywhere else to legally consume. (26) Oregon has an opportunity to build its brand of craft, local, sustainable cannabis during a time when many states don’t have the benefit of developing a legal and regulated industry. Visitors to Oregon can purchase cannabis but may find themselves with no legal place to consume it. This bill would allow those tourist dollars to come to Oregon supporting local jobs, and building a brand for when the Federal government legalizes the regulation of cannabis across the U.S. (9)
Normalized Cannabis culture has become common and accepted as part of our society. Restricting public consumption is outdated, devalues the culture, and perpetuates stigma. (n=7)	I have been a soccer/hockey mom, a technology professional, an executive board member of non-profit foundations, and have used marijuana my entire adult life. The need to bring cannabis consumption out of dark alleys and into the light of everyday life is critical in the struggle to de-stigmatize those who use it. Indeed, cannabis prohibition itself has been the real crime. To those who express concerns about “normalization”, I submit that cannabis normalization is the only just resolution to decades of unjust politically motivated criminalization. (10) The market is ready to offer controlled environments for licensed businesses to educate and offer cannabis experiences to consumers, while legal-aged residents are due the opportunity for accessible, safer use opportunities. (21)
Good Partner Cannabis industry and stakeholders will take steps to benefit the community and make a positive impact in the state, details ways in which the legislation would accommodate health concerns. (n=4)	Today we are asking the legislature to take the next logical step by passing HB 2233 which would permit social consumption sites. We will be active partners with government to ensure that this policy will work for everyone; cannabis producers, consumers and communities at large across Oregon. (26)
Support Regulation Advocates for providing OLCC with the resources they need to uphold regulation. (n=2)	In addition to these two bills, we also strongly support increasing the number of inspectors and investigators at the OLCC, allowing the agency to do a better job of ensuring compliant activities among its licensees. (19) I also believe providing the OLCC with the resources they need to carry out the functions of the agency such as funding of an IT system should be a high priority this legislative session. (25)
No Negative Health Impact HB 3112 will support the overall cannabis industry. (n=2)	Cannabis was added to the clean air act after we voted to legalize it for adult use. Cannabis smoke and tobacco are not the same! Adding Cannabis to the clean air act completely ignores science. (24) Unlike tobacco smoke, cannabis smoke is not associated with cancer, despite the federal government trying to prove that it is and generalized opponents to social consumption using this sort of fear mongering to prevent us from rolling out legal protections for an industry that generates hundreds of millions a year for the state and that a majority of Oregonians want. (15)
Cannabis Equity - Race Cannabis consumption prohibition and regulation has disproportionately affected communities of color. Providing safe spaces where public consumption is legal helps reverse this. (n=1)	For years, cannabis prohibition has disproportionately affected underrepresented communities, especially communities of color, and the impacts of the enforcement and prosecution of cannabis consumption laws were shouldered heavily by racial minorities. By providing safe, legal, and regulated spaces for adults to consume cannabis, Oregon is not only ensuring that law enforcement can focus their efforts elsewhere but would make it much less likely that those same underrepresented communities would continue to be affected by current restrictions on public cannabis consumption. (9)

Opposing Frames Overview

Six unique opposing frames were identified in the analysis. The most common was ICAA & Health, which was used in eight testimonies opposing the bill. The next most frequent frames were Impacts Youth, Road Safety, and Lack of Regulation. 

Figure 12. Frequency of Opposing Frames for HB 2233.

• Misses the Mark: 1 
• Neighbor Impacts: 4 
• Road Safety: 5 
• Lack of Regulation: 5 
• Impacts Youth: 6 
• ICAA & Health: 8

Opposing Frames Descriptions

Table 3. Frames Found in Opposition of HB 2233.

Frame	Description
ICAA & Health  Public consumption of cannabis would lead to violation of the Oregon Indoor Clean Air Act (ICAA), exposing workplace employees and Oregonians at large to harmful secondhand smoke. (n=8)	As written this bill also weakens Oregon’s Indoor Clean Air Act (ICAA), which prohibits smoking of tobacco, nicotine and cannabis in indoor public spaces and workplaces, and will lead to increased exposure to secondhand smoke. Smoke of any kind, when inhaled is unsafe for human health…The intention of the ICAA is to protect employees and the public from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Creating exemptions, like allowing temporary events to allow indoor smoking or vaping, threaten to weaken the law and encourage exemptions to allow additional smoke shops, cigar bars, and hookah lounges. (7) Adding any additional consumption and sale of marijuana items at temporary events, including licensure of premises at which temporary events are conducted, would Continue to exacerbate the existing and already challenging enforcement challenges.
Impacts Youth The legislation will negatively affect youth. (n=6)	Normalizing the use of cannabis through social consumption sends the wrong message to our youth and increases the likelihood they will seek out cannabis. We should not be expanding access to cannabis before we have adequately addressed, and put into place, prevention-based policies and programs. (13) My concern is the youth in Oregon. I am new to this state and utterly amazed at how common and normal it is for youth to engage in smoking….Allowing for public consumption, cafes and licenses at special events, we would be further allowing our children to believe that marijuana is safe and ok to use. Marijuana can severely impact the developing brain and lead to emotional and cognitive issues well into adulthood. Additionally, when youth consume marijuana at younger ages, they’re much more likely to become addicted and misuse other substances later in life. (3)
Road Safety Public consumption of cannabis will increase the number of road crashes, injuries, and fatalities. There are limited resources and regulations available to support law enforcement in managing cannabis -related driving. (n=5)	Providing additional opportunities to consume marijuana, particularly at locations which people may travel to and from using automobiles is only going to exacerbate a situation we already struggle with in Lane County. (8) Oregon currently has one of the highest rates of DUIs in the country, allowing individuals to get high outside their homes will inevitably see a dramatic increase in these numbers in years to come. Furthermore, as most marijuana cultivators are in rural areas, HB 2233 would undoubtedly force more individuals to spend more time driving to and from such events/lounges. Thus, putting more traffic on our rural roads and subjecting rural residents to more drug impaired drivers. (22)
Lack of Regulation Infrastructure or research is not in place to support the bills, the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC) is already overwhelmed and will be unable to enforce regulation, and counties are not equipped to deal with health impacts. (n=5)	This bill is premature. ….. Can you answer the following: - Is the affect of higher concentrations of THC on the the brain incremental or exponential? - At what ratio of THC:CBD is psychosis likely? - What are the appropriate guidelines for limits on consumption? - What is the standard dosage for marijuana and at what point does the dosage create intoxication? (2)
Neighbor Impacts Legislation would have disparate impacts on neighboring properties in rural areas. (n=4)	The large amounts of traffic coming and going from such events/lounges will create unacceptable noise levels in rural areas, destroying the very peace and quiet of these areas and the reason why most elect to live there in the first place. Like Colorado it will also inevitably result in more impaired drivers frequenting rural roads. These events and lounges don’t belong in rural areas, they should be limited to urban downtown areas and if necessary collocated with existing marijuana dispensaries, away from ALL residential neighborhoods, not just urban ones. (22)
Misses the Mark Legislation will not address the issues that pro-legislation groups say it will, cannabis lounges will not be for everyone, people will still consume on street corners, people do not come to Oregon for just cannabis tourism. (n=1)	While smoking lounges sound lofty in terms of removing people from smoking marijuana in public view HB2233 does little to remove those who are openly smoking marijuana from public view….Providing additional opportunities to consume marijuana, particularly at locations which people may travel to and from using automobiles is only going to exacerbate a situation we already struggle with in Lane County. (1)

HB 3112 

Supporting Frames Overview

Eight unique, positive frames were identified in the analysis. The most common frame was Racially Just Policy (n=35), which appeared twice as often as Right Reinvestment (n=14), the next most frequent frame. Three frames were also identified in the HB 2233 analysis (Cannabis Equity – Use, Economic Support and Health Benefit). These frames did not appear as frequently in testimony for this bill.

Figure 13. Frequency of Supporting Frames for HB 3112.

• Targeted Universalism: 1 
• Cannabis Equity - Use: 3 
• Economic Support: 3 
• Health Benefit: 3 
• Lead the Way: 6 
• Better Government: 7 
• Racially Just Policy - Economic: 10 
• Right Reinvestment: 14 
• Racially Just Policy: 35

Supporting Frame Descriptions

Table 4. Frames Found in Support of HB 3112.

Frame	Description
Racially Just Policy  HB 3112 will enact policies that will center and benefit communities of color who were disproportionally impacted by cannabis regulation, prohibition, and criminalization in the past during the War on Drugs. (n=35)	This bill is a form of reparations that BIPOC communities are due after centuries of racism and white supremacy dominating this county. (8) We recognize that over 100 years of draconian cannabis policies and disparate cannabis related arrests, convictions, and sentencing have had long-lasting legal, social, economic, and inter-generational consequences to these specific communities. (42)
Right Reinvestment Reinvestment of cannabis tax revenue back into communities of color that have experienced the most harm from the industry is a just investment and good use of public dollars. (n=14)	As a legal cannabis consumer, I want the taxes I pay on recreational cannabis to be reinvested in the community, giving opportunities to Black and Brown entrepreneurs. (5) We, as consumers, cannabis business community, and simply concerned citizens, believe the use of cannabis tax revenue to repair harm done to Black, Indigenous and Latinx communities is an appropriate and necessary way to restore rights and opportunities. (57)
Racially Just Policy - Economic Communities of color face challenges entering the cannabis industry. HB 3112 will create systems changes that will level the playing field for BIPOC business to thrive in the industry. (n=10)	Moreover, the success of HB3112 provides the opportunity to level the playing field for those currently working in, or endeavoring to enter, the cannabis industry through community investment, and the redirection of existing funds to assuage educational and health inequities. (21) While the cannabis industry of Oregon captured some $1Billion dollars in revenue in the year 2020, only a handful of license holders were Black, Brown or Indigenous. It’s time to shift this paradigm. (40)
Better Government The Cannabis Equity Governing Body is a crucial element to ensuring community voice is integrated into government policy and decision-making. Incorporating a racial equity lens to policy development and program oversight is a practice that will improve government. (n=7)	We believe strongly it is the social responsibility of the people of the state of Oregon – not just the cannabis industry, but the entire state – to make right the wrongs committed in decades past. (27) States have a compelling interest in ensuring that its resources and funding are not distributed in a manner that perpetuates the effects of discrimination, a risk presented by continuing to use ineffective race neutral language. Therefore, HB 3112 was intentionally crafted to establish a cannabis equity program that meaningfully addresses the historical harms to Black, Indigenous and Latino/a/x communities while remaining constitutionally sound. (42)
Lead the Way Oregon has the opportunity to be a national leader in advancing policy focused on racial equity in cannabis by passing this policy. (n=6)	In my work as both an activist and a journalist, I have found that states have left equity completely out of any cannabis legalization legislation. In the past couple of years, only a few places in the U.S. have worked for cannabis social equity programs with little success in what they set out for. The Oregon Cannabis Equity Act stands to not only better serve the state of Oregon, but also to set precedent for the rest of the United States. (61) Racial justice is one of the biggest issues facing our nation. Oregon should do right by our own citizens and help lead the way by passing House Bill 3112. (25)
Cannabis Use - Equity Currently, cannabis access is not available to people who rent or live in affordable housing, which creates an inequity attached with barriers to medicinal cannabis and risks of losing housing. (n=3)	Cannabis consumers need to have access to consumption spaces, business opportunities, and policy developments. (60) Seven current adult use states, including Oregon, currently prohibit both on-site and public consumption of cannabis products, effectively limiting lawful use to private property. This allows homeowners (and renters with accommodating landlords) to avail themselves of the benefits of legal reform, but it provides no protections for most renters, for persons living in public housing, or for persons experiencing homelessness. For members of the latter groups, cannabis legalization is either an illusion or a trap. (67)
Economic Support HB 3112 will support the overall cannabis industry. (n=3)	The language of the Cannabis Equity Act addresses a compelling government interest like no other in the history of economic and health regulations….The economic benefits to this industry are also undeniable. (4) One of the largest barriers to entering and expanding in our Industry is a complicated – meaning many layers (state, county, city) – licensing process. One needs to become an expert in land use, water use, city codes, etc. or have the cash to hire many lawyers. This bill creates built in advocates with a governing body who works cross functionally to stand up for key elements of the program and is tasked with long term sustainability. (33)
Health Benefit The bill will support better health outcomes. (n=3)	The language of the Cannabis Equity Act addresses a compelling government interest like no other in the history of economic and health regulations. As demonstrated during the COVID 19 pandemic, cannabis medicine was deemed essential. (4) I am a Cannabis advocate and can personally attest to the wellness benefits I have been provided by its use. It has helped me in overcoming debilitating pain and inflammation while helping others to do the same by their accounts. (57)
Targeted Universalism Focusing on the needs of the few who face the highest barriers in the cannabis sector, and addressing their needs through systemic policy solutions, benefits everyone. (n=1)	Furthermore, investment of much-needed resources into programs that rebuild wealth for the Black and brown communities decimated by the Drug War is a worthy use of cannabis tax revenue. These investments in education, home ownership, business development, and job training, will benefit all Oregonians. (25)

Opposing Frame Overview 

Seven unique opposing frames were identified in the analysis. The most common opposing frame was Color Blind Policy. It was used in 8% of all the testimonies and 50% of the opposing testimonies (n=6). The next most frequent frames were Impacts Youth – Education Fund, ICAA & Health, and Government Overreach. Four of the frames were also identified in the analysis of HB 2233 (ICAA & Health, Impacts Youth, Road Safety, and Lack of Regulation). These frames did not occur as frequently in testimonies for this bill in comparison to HB 2233. 

 

Figure 14. Frequency of Opposing Frames for HB 3112.

• Road Safety: 1 
• Impacts Youth: 1 
• Lack of Regulation: 1 
• Government Overreach: 2 
• ICAA & Health: 2 
• Impacts Youth - Education Fund: 3 
• Color Blind Policy: 6

Opposing Frame Descriptions

Table 5. Frames Found in Opposition of HB 3112.

Frame	Description
Color Blind Policy HB3112 is not fair because it only benefits a small group of people, determined by race. (n=5)	When the word “equity” is used, it is about creating new power structures that benefit the chosen few. The inclusion of “equity” in almost every bill is starting to divide the state. It is the furthest thing from unity as you could get. Redistribution of fairness is not equity. (50) I also strongly oppose what you are calling equity. Mirriam-Webster defines equity as: dealing fairly and EQUALLY with all concerned. It is not equitable to treat some people differently - charge someone less - erase a crime due to skin color or heritage. History tells us that giving special treatment to a select group of people only creates division, unrest and violence. This last year has been a perfect example. (59)
Impacts Youth – Education Fund Removing funds from the school fund does not support youth education and is not a good use of cannabis tax dollars. (n=3)	Taking away 40% of the Oregon Marijuana Account from funding the State School Fund with no way to make up for it. You cannot take more away from our children. This is heartbreaking to deny this to the ones that need this money the most. (53) Measure 91 was referred to the Oregon Voters and passed. It directed where the monies collected were to be spent. We voted on that. Yes, we wanted that money to go to schools… You had hidden in the full transcript of the measure that some of the money was to be siphoned off for other uses. Now you want to siphon even more money away from where it was originally supposed to go. We hear almost every day how the schools need more money not less. Stop with the tinkering. (59)
Lack of Regulation Infrastructure or research is not in place to support the bills, OLCC is already overwhelmed and will be unable to enforce regulation, counties are not equipped to deal with health impacts. (n=1)	The legal definition of how much marijuana can be consumed before driving has not been scientifically determined. The THC content in most cannabis products is much greater than 10 and even 5 years ago. We must use science and common sense. (47)
ICAA & Health Public consumption of cannabis would lead to violation of the ICAA, exposing workplace employees and Oregonians at large to harmful secondhand smoke. (n=2)	While there are many good aspects to HB3112, ANR has three major concerns about this new marijuana/cannabis bill: 1) the threat of weakening strong public health protections associated with 100% smokefree environments, 2) the creation of a new class of workers that would have to sacrifice their health for a paycheck, and 3) misinformation about ventilation as a protective factor. (55) Cannabis use is not riskless. There are both established and likely negative health impacts from use, particularly frequent use. The effects of secondhand/environmental exposure to cannabis smoke and vapor are currently understudied, but cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke are highly similar, differing primarily in the presence or absence of cannabinoids and nicotine. (67)
Government Overreach The state government should not be supporting or engaging in policy related to cannabis. (n = 2)	The Oregon Government is positioning its self as a drug cartel. This is corruption blatant and simple. (1) The entire point of marijuana legalization was to increase funding for education and economic development. Not for the furtherance of Oregon Governor’s Office to employ more workers (22+ at an average salary of $65,000 is $1,430,000 per year). Additionally spend state revenue for board operations – offices, furnishings, computers, hardware, software, office supplies… Travel, meals, auto expenses …. (32)
Impacts Youth Legislation will negatively impact youth and propagate normalization. (n=1)	The majority of rural communities opposed the bill. The bill is now law. Our main concerns should include equity and protecting our youth and children. On-premise consumption is irresponsible and will cost more Oregonian lives. (47)
Road Safety Public consumption of cannabis will increase the number of road crashes, injuries, and fatalities. There are limited resources or regulations available to support law enforcement in managing cannabis-related driving. (n=1)	Oregon loses dozens of lives every year due to drug driving. Do we really want to encourage on-premises consumption of THC? The legal definition of how much marijuana can be consumed before driving has not been scientifically determined. (47)

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Key takeaways from this assessment include:

• During the sessions for both bills, most of the testimonies were submitted in support of the bills.
• During the session for HB 2233, testimonies came from cannabis businesses, citizens, government agencies, and community-based and health advocacy groups. During the session for HB 3112, testimonies came from lawyers and academic institutions, as well as the same stakeholders for HB 2233. Fewer health advocacy groups testified on HB 3112. The main difference is the number of testimonies representing law firms and academia. 
• There were eight supporting frames used in support of HB 2233, and six opposing frames. 
  • The most common supportive frames focused on creating equitable access of cannabis to renters, supporting local cannabis businesses and local tourism, and the benefits of normalizing and destigmatizing cannabis. 
  • The most common opposing frames included the respiratory risk associated with indoor smoking and vaping, violation of the ICAA, negative impacts of normalization on youth, the increased risks related to road safety, and the lack of regulation on cannabis. 
• There were nine supporting frames used in support of HB 3112, and seven opposing frames. Advocates in support of the bill tended to use multiple frames in their testimonies while those in opposition only cited one or two frames.
  • The most common supportive frames included two equity arguments: (1) the bill would reverse past harms committed against communities of color because of unfair cannabis policing, and (2) the bill would invest in communities of color by increasing BIPOC representation in the cannabis industry. 
  • The most common opposing frame argued that the bill achieved the opposite of advancing equity by only benefiting a few. Other frames mirrored those found in HB 2233, including Impacts to Youth, Violation of the ICAA and Associated Respiratory Health Impacts, and Road Safety.
• There were several key differences in the advocacy frames used between the two sets of testimonies: 
  • An almost entirely new set of commonly used supporting frames was identified for HB 3112, whereas opposing frames only added one new frame and repeated others from HB 2233.
  • Differences in actors who submitted testimonies across the two sessions should be interpreted within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have limited participation from health advocates. 
  • Frames around equity almost entirely shifted to center communities of color in HB 3112 as opposed to the centering of low-income renters in HB 2233. This was likely a result of significant changes in bill and policy language between sessions and proposals. 
  • Despite the increase in overall number of testimonies between sessions, the number of opposing frames cited in testimonies for HB 3112 decreased by almost 50%. Fewer people mentioned the risk of exposure to secondhand smoke and driving under the influence, which is likely a result of having removed the allowance of indoor consumption of combustible and vape products.