The Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board (MPRB) has approved a new policy that prohibits smoking or vaping marijuana in city parks, though enforcement will likely be minimal. The decision comes just months after recreational cannabis became legal in Minnesota, as officials work to balance public access with community concerns.
New Policy Details and Implementation
On Wednesday, April 17, 2025, MPRB Commissioners voted to ban smoking and vaping cannabis products in Minneapolis parks, aligning with existing restrictions on tobacco use. The policy is expected to receive final approval in the coming weeks, after which it will take effect immediately. Notably, while the ban prohibits consumption through smoking or vaping, it does not criminalize such activities, as commissioners rejected a proposed amendment that would have classified violations as petty misdemeanors.
Under the new guidelines, enforcement will primarily fall to park staff and police officers who can request violators to stop or leave the premises. However, without penalty provisions, there will be no citations or fines issued to those caught using cannabis in park spaces. This approach represents a significant departure from stricter enforcement models seen in other municipalities.
Exceptions and Allowances
While the ban covers smoking and vaping cannabis products, the board simultaneously approved measures that permit the sale of low-dose THC beverages at park concessions and events. Licensed vendors, restaurants, and event organizers will be allowed to sell products containing 5 milligrams of THC or less, maintaining consistency with the park’s existing alcohol sales policy.
The regulations also include a cultural exception, as traditional tobacco use for spiritual or ceremonial purposes will remain permitted on parkland. This provision acknowledges the significance of certain practices while maintaining the broader prohibition on recreational smoking.
Enforcement Philosophy and Public Response
The enforcement strategy adopted by the MPRB reflects what many see as a pragmatic approach to cannabis regulation. Without criminal penalties, the policy functions more as a guideline that allows staff to address disruptive behavior rather than target casual users. As one Reddit commenter noted, the rule essentially creates “a way to trespass people who are disrupting others enjoying the park appropriately”.
“If you light up a dab rig next to a kids birthday party, you’re not only an asshole, but now the parks police can come and remove you from being a nuisance,” explained another online commenter, highlighting the selective enforcement philosophy behind the decision.
Community Perspectives
Public reaction to the ban has been mixed. Some residents express concern about marijuana smoke affecting park experiences, especially for families with young children. One parent commented, “While I am in favor of cannabis use, it would be great to enjoy clean air at the park, especially when spending time with young children”.
Others worry about equity in enforcement, with some suggesting the policy could disproportionately impact certain communities. “It’s most likely going to be used against any non-white people, since police will be able to use discretion,” cautioned one Reddit user.
Advocates for more permissive policies argue that the ban particularly affects those with limited housing options. “For renters, smoking at home is often prohibited, which forces them to seek alternatives like parks or commercial areas,” noted one commenter, suggesting the rule could unintentionally target lower-income residents.
Broader Context in Minnesota Cannabis Policy
This park regulation comes amid Minnesota’s ongoing development of its recreational cannabis market. While marijuana has been legalized, the state is still establishing the framework for retail sales and public consumption. The Office of Cannabis Management continues to work on licensing procedures, with most dispensaries not expected to open until further into 2025.
City officials throughout Minnesota have been determining local regulations since the state law remained “silent” on whether people can smoke in public spaces like sidewalks or parks, essentially leaving these decisions to individual municipalities.
Conclusion
Minneapolis’ approach to cannabis in parks reflects a balancing act between acknowledging legalization and addressing community concerns. The policy creates a framework that discourages disruptive use while avoiding criminalization. As one commenter described it, this represents a “political compromise that keeps all sides of this issue as happy as possible”. While the ban officially prohibits smoking cannabis in parks, the absence of penalties suggests that discreet, considerate use may continue with minimal intervention from authorities.
