Liberty Lake council hears divided public on secondhand marijuana and tobacco smoke, staff urges nonpunitive approach

Liberty Lake City Council members spent a workshop hearing more than an hour of public comment on Tuesday, March 18, about secondhand marijuana and tobacco smoke drifting between closely built homes and whether the city should add smoking to its chronic nuisance ordinance.

Supporters of an amendment and several neighbors told the council smoke from nearby properties forces children and adults indoors and, in some cases, harms residents with medical conditions or veterans with sensitivities. "It's about protecting the health and safety of every resident to breathe clean air where they work, play and live," said David Clay, a Liberty Lake resident who opened public remarks on the topic. Medical student Adam Wallace, another resident, said, "Parents should not have to worry about their kids breathing in marijuana or tobacco smoke while playing in their own backyard." Other residents said they use marijuana for medical reasons and asked how enforcement would work.

City staff framed the question as a legal and enforcement issue. Mark (identified in the meeting as the city administrator) reviewed state law and local code and described the city's recommended path: do not amend municipal code Title 6, chapter 7 (the chronic-nuisance ordinance) to add smoking as a listed nuisance. The presentation noted state cannabis statutes and the state "smoking in public places" law as the legal baseline and highlighted that existing Liberty Lake code already forbids home-occupation activities that create smoke or odor detectable beyond the property line. Staff also told council that, historically, the police department and development services have received few or no formal complaints explicitly tied to secondhand smoke crossing property lines.

Council members and staff raised practical and constitutional concerns about making private backyard smoking a trigger for the city's most severe civil remedy. Chief Simmons told the council he and staff consulted the county prosecutor and were told the prosecutor's office would likely "not... touch it" and considers enforcement of such an ordinance difficult; he also cited recent court decisions touching on privacy and curtilage that complicate civil or criminal enforcement. Several council members echoed those concerns and asked for alternatives. Councilmember Spencer summarized the tension: state law and public-health findings recognize harms from secondhand smoke, but private residences are treated differently in statute and practice.

Rather than advance the draft amendment that would add smoking to the chronic-nuisance list, staff recommended pursuing nonpunitive remedies and alternatives to a code amendment. During discussion council asked staff to return with options that could include: coordination with homeowners associations (HOAs) on private covenants, a civil-infraction approach or other lower-penalty enforcement options, a code-enforcement pathway distinct from the chronic-nuisance process, outreach and education, and potential incentive-based measures to encourage behavior change. Councilmembers also asked staff to clarify prosecutorial and constitutional risks and to bring back draft language if an enforceable civil option is identified.

Residents who testified urged a solution when neighbor-to-neighbor discussions and HOA petitions have failed. Several asked the council for some form of municipal recourse short of the ultimate remedies in the chronic-nuisance code. Councilmembers asked staff to return with research and recommended next steps before deciding on ordinance text or enforcement changes.

Looking ahead, the council did not vote on any ordinance change at the meeting; staff will report back with recommended nonpunitive remedies, any draft civil-infraction language, and more detail on enforceability and HOA coordination.