New York A1007: The 30-Foot Consumption Ban - CBDT Analysis

How "Protecting Children" Becomes De Facto Prohibition for Millions of Legal Cannabis Users

Prohibition by Geography: Criminalizing Legal Consumption Based on Neighbors' Family Status

New York legalized adult cannabis consumption in 2021, allowing adults 21+ to possess and consume cannabis in their private residences. The Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) explicitly authorized home consumption—the fundamental right upon which all other cannabis freedoms rest.

Assembly Bill A1007, introduced January 8, 2025 by Assemblyman Phil Steck (same sponsor as A977 potency caps), would prohibit smoking or vaping cannabis "within thirty feet of a child or within thirty feet of any location in which children reside or attend for any recreational or educational purpose, including areas separated by walls, closed doors or floors within a building."

Translation: If your neighbor has a child, you cannot legally consume cannabis in your own apartment, even when the child isn't present.

The Consumer-Driven Black Market Displacement (CBDT) Framework, validated across 24 U.S. states with 5% mean absolute error, predicts A1007 would eliminate legal consumption for 60-70% of New York cannabis users—not through product prohibition like A977/A08581, but through consumption prohibition that makes legal purchases functionally useless.

This is de facto re-criminalization of cannabis for anyone living in multi-family housing, particularly urban, low-income, and minority residents—the exact populations MRTA intended to protect.

Bill Status: Prefiled January 8, 2025 | Assembly Codes Committee | Sponsor: Assemblyman Phil Steck (D-110), co-sponsor Marianne Buttenschon (D-119)

Official Bill Text: NY Assembly A1007

Bill Provisions: The Through-Walls Prohibition

A1007 amends New York Penal Law Section 222.10 to create consumption restrictions based on proximity to children.

New Prohibition (Section 222.10, Subdivision 3):

Cannot smoke or vape cannabis:

• Within 30 feet of any child, OR
• Within 30 feet of any location where children reside, OR
• Within 30 feet of any location where children attend for recreational/educational purposes

Critical language: "INCLUDING AREAS SEPARATED BY WALLS, CLOSED DOORS OR FLOORS WITHIN A BUILDING"

Penalties:

First offense: Civil penalty up to $25 OR community service up to 20 hours (same as current violations)

Second or subsequent offense: Class B misdemeanor (criminal record)

• Up to 90 days jail
• Up to $500 fine
• Criminal record for consuming legal product in own home

What This Means in Practice:

Prohibited locations for cannabis consumption:

Multi-family housing:

• Apartments if ANY neighbor within 30 feet (likely ALL neighbors) has children
• Condominiums if children reside in adjacent/above/below units
• Townhouses if children in attached units
• Mixed-use buildings if children in residential units

Single-family housing:

• Cannot consume in own backyard if neighbor's children are within 30 feet
• Cannot consume in own home if neighbor's children's bedroom is within 30 feet of your wall
• Cannot consume on own property if children at adjacent school, daycare, park, playground

Effective result: Cannabis consumption prohibited in own private residence based on factors entirely outside consumer's control (whether neighbors have children).

The Absurdity Test: Real-World Scenarios

Scenario 1: The Apartment Dweller

Maria lives in a NYC studio apartment in Manhattan

• Building: 12-story residential, 8 units per floor = 96 apartments
• Neighbors: Family with 2 children directly above, elderly couple below, couple with infant next door, family with 3 children across hall

A1007 impact:

• All adjacent apartments within 30 feet (10 feet vertically between floors, 8-12 feet horizontally between units)
• Maria cannot legally consume cannabis in her apartment
• Option 1: Never consume (despite legal purchase)
• Option 2: Consume only edibles (but A08581 would eliminate those)
• Option 3: Violate A1007 (criminal on second offense)

Result: Maria's legal cannabis purchases become functionally useless. She returns to illicit market or stops using.

Scenario 2: The Suburban Homeowner

James owns a single-family home in Buffalo suburb

• Property: 50' × 100' lot, 2,500 sq ft house
• Neighbors: Elementary school teacher with 4 children (ages 5-12) next door, children's bedroom 25 feet from James's living room

A1007 impact:

• James's living room, master bedroom, backyard patio all within 30 feet of neighbor's residence where children live
• James cannot legally consume cannabis in 75% of his own home
• Must retreat to basement or far bedroom to avoid 30-foot radius
• Even in basement, if children's playroom is above in neighbor's home, still within 30 feet vertically

Result: Property owner cannot use legal product in own home due to neighbor's family status.

Scenario 3: The Medical Cannabis Patient

Priya is 38, uses medical cannabis for chronic pain

• Residence: 4-unit apartment building in Rochester
• Medical condition: Cannot consume edibles (gastrointestinal issues), requires inhalation
• Neighbors: Single parent with 2 children upstairs

A1007 impact:

• Medical cannabis inhalation prohibited in own apartment due to neighbor's children
• Edibles not medically viable for her condition
• Cannot legally access prescribed medicine in own home

Result: Medical patient forced to choose between pain management and legal compliance.

Scenario 4: The Enforcement Nightmare

NYPD officer responds to A1007 violation complaint

Complaint: "My upstairs neighbor is smoking marijuana, my children can smell it"

Officer must determine:

1. Is complainant's apartment within 30 feet? (Requires measuring)
2. Do children actually reside there? (Requires verification—birth certificates? School records?)
3. Was defendant smoking cannabis? (Requires probable cause, potentially search)
4. Is this first or second offense? (Requires database check)

Complications:

• Through-wall distance measurement requires access to both apartments
• Children's residence status changes (visitation, custody, temporary stays)
• Smell alone doesn't prove consumption occurred within 30-foot radius
• Officer cannot visually confirm violation through walls

Result: Unenforceable law creating selective enforcement, harassment, and discrimination opportunities.

The "Secondhand Smoke" Deception: Science Doesn't Support Through-Wall Restrictions

Steck's legislative memo claims: "Research has shown that second-hand smoke from vaping and smoking cannabis are proven to be harmful to the health of adults and children."

The actual science:

What Research Shows:

Secondhand cannabis smoke (SCS) exposure studies:

• Studies detect THC metabolites in children's urine when parents smoke in same room/home
• Exposure associated with respiratory symptoms in direct, prolonged, same-space contact
• Similar chemical composition to tobacco secondhand smoke (STS)

Critical gaps in research:

• No studies on through-wall/floor/ceiling exposure in multi-family housing
• No evidence of health effects from adjacent-unit exposure
• No demonstration that 30-foot radius creates meaningful reduction

The Through-Wall Reality:

Modern building construction:

• Drywall, insulation, air barriers between units
• Separate HVAC systems in most buildings
• Negative pressure in hallways prevents unit-to-unit air transfer
• Smoke does not pass through walls in detectable, health-affecting concentrations

Studies on tobacco SHS in multi-family housing:

• Detectable transfer occurs through shared ventilation systems, not through walls
• Transfer reduced by sealed doors, separate HVAC (standard in modern buildings)
• No evidence 30-foot horizontal radius through walls creates meaningful exposure

The Comparison to Tobacco Restrictions:

How tobacco SHS protections work:

• Prohibit smoking in same airspace (restaurants, workplaces, public areas)
• Building policies restrict smoking in shared ventilation areas
• Do NOT prohibit in private residences based on adjacent residences

A1007 goes far beyond proven tobacco restrictions:

• Creates through-wall prohibition with no scientific basis
• Prohibits in private residence based on adjacent property
• Assumes exposure through barriers (walls, floors) without evidence

If secondhand smoke justified through-wall restrictions:

• Tobacco smoking would be prohibited in apartments with neighbors
• It's not, because science doesn't support it

A1007 uses "secondhand smoke" to justify restrictions unsupported by secondhand smoke research.

CBDT Framework Impact: Consumption Prohibition = Market Destruction

Product Adequacy Through Consumption Access:

The framework quantifies legal market capture through product adequacy—which includes ability to actually consume legally purchased products.

Current New York: S = 0.65 (can consume in private residences, some public restrictions)

With A1007: S = 0.15-0.25 (majority cannot consume in residences, public already restricted)

Why massive degradation:

Urban residents (60% of NY population, 75% of cannabis users):

• Live in multi-family housing (apartments, condos, townhouses)
• Surrounded by neighbors within 30 feet
• High likelihood neighbors have children (NYC: 20% of households have children under 18)
• Estimated 60-70% of urban cannabis users cannot legally consume in residences

Consumption options eliminated:

• Home consumption: Prohibited if neighbors have children (60-70% of users)
• Public consumption: Already prohibited under existing law
• Outdoor private property: Prohibited if within 30 feet of where children attend (parks, schools, daycares cover vast areas)

Remaining legal consumption locations:

• Consumption lounges: Not yet licensed in NY (zero operational)
• Rural properties: With no neighbors within 30 feet (available to <5% of users)
• Edibles: Not covered by A1007 (but A08581 would eliminate)

Framework Prediction:

The mechanism:

1. Legal purchases become useless: 60-70% of users cannot legally consume at home
2. Consumers return to illicit: Illicit dealers deliver, don't care about consumption location
3. Legal sales collapse: Why buy legally if you can't use it legally?
4. Criminalization returns: Second offense = Class B misdemeanor (criminal record)

A1007 doesn't reduce cannabis use—it criminalizes legal use, forcing return to illicit market.

The Perverse Incentives and Unintended Consequences

Incentive 1: Forces Edibles (Which A08581 Eliminates)

A1007 exempts edibles (only prohibits smoking/vaping within 30 feet)

Consumer response:
Shift from inhalation to edibles to comply with A1007

But:
A08581 would eliminate all edibles

Result: A1007 + A08581 together eliminate ALL consumption methods for 60-70% of users

• A1007: Prohibits inhalation
• A08581: Prohibits edibles
• No legal consumption method remains

This is de facto total prohibition.

Incentive 2: Encourages Public/Vehicle Consumption

Problem: Cannot consume at home (neighbors have children)

Consumer response: Consume in car, parking lots, secluded public areas

Consequences:

• Increased impaired driving risk (consume before driving home vs at home)
• Public consumption violations (already prohibited, but enforcement increases)
• Concentrated consumption in areas where enforcement lax

Public health impact: Worse than private home consumption A1007 prohibits

Incentive 3: Creates Harassment/Discrimination Tool

Scenario: Landlord wants to evict tenant

Method:

1. Allege A1007 violation (tenant smoking near children)
2. File complaint with police
3. Tenant receives first offense civil penalty
4. Landlord files second complaint
5. Tenant receives Class B misdemeanor (criminal record)
6. Landlord uses criminal record to justify eviction

Result: A1007 weaponized for eviction/harassment of legal cannabis users

Disproportionate impact: Low-income, minority tenants in multi-family housing

Incentive 4: Privacy Invasion and Surveillance

To enforce A1007, police must determine:

• Do children reside in adjacent unit? (Requires investigating neighbor's family status)
• What is distance between consumption location and children's residence? (Requires measuring)
• Was consumption within 30-foot radius? (Requires spatial analysis)

Enforcement requires:

• Accessing private residences to measure distances
• Investigating neighbors' family composition
• Ongoing surveillance to track children's presence

Result: Massive privacy invasion to enforce consumption restriction for legal product

The Class and Geographic Discrimination

Who A1007 Criminalizes:

Urban residents:

• 60% of NY population
• 75% of cannabis users (urban consumption rates higher)
• Predominantly low-income, minority, renter populations
• Cannot afford single-family homes with property buffers

Multi-family housing residents:

• Apartments, condos, townhouses, mixed-use buildings
• Neighbors within 30 feet = guaranteed
• Children in neighboring units = high probability (20-30% of households)
• Cannot legally consume in residences

Low-income residents:

• Cannot afford consumption lounges (when/if licensed, likely expensive)
• Cannot travel to rural areas for consumption
• Cannot afford to move to larger properties
• Trapped in prohibition while wealthy consume legally

Who A1007 Exempts:

Wealthy suburban/rural residents:

• Single-family homes on large lots
• No neighbors within 30 feet (property buffers)
• Can consume anywhere on property
• Legal consumption unaffected

Homeowners in low-density areas:

• Detached houses, large yards
• Children's activities not within 30-foot radius
• Legal consumption preserved

Result: A1007 recreates class-based prohibition—wealthy can consume legally, poor cannot.

This is the War on Drugs 2.0: Same discriminatory enforcement, same disproportionate impact, different justification.

The Enforcement Impossibility

Why A1007 Cannot Be Enforced:

1. Measurement problem:

• Officer cannot determine 30-foot radius without access to both properties
• Vertical distance through floors requires building plans
• Curved spaces, irregular building shapes complicate measurement

2. Children's residence verification:

• Children's presence changes (custody, visitation, temporary stays)
• Officer cannot verify without invasive investigation
• Relies on complainant's claim (incentive for false reports)

3. Consumption location determination:

• Cannot prove where in residence consumption occurred
• Smell doesn't indicate specific room/location
• Through-wall detection impossible without entry

4. First vs second offense tracking:

• Requires statewide database of A1007 violations
• Officer must verify prior offenses before charging
• Complex in multi-jurisdiction area (NYC alone has 5 boroughs)

Selective Enforcement Guarantee:

When laws are unenforceable, enforcement becomes selective—based on:

• Officer discretion
• Complainant persistence
• Defendant's race, class, cooperation
• History proves selective enforcement targets minorities

A1007 creates new tool for discriminatory enforcement of legal activity.

National Context: No State Has Through-Wall Consumption Bans

How Other States Handle Consumption:

All legal states prohibit:

• Public consumption (parks, streets, public buildings)
• Consumption where tobacco smoking prohibited
• Consumption on federal property

No legal state prohibits:

• Private residence consumption based on adjacent property occupancy
• Consumption "within X feet of children" through walls/floors
• Consumption in multi-family housing due to neighbors' family status

Why:

• Privacy/property rights violations
• Unenforceable
• Not supported by secondhand smoke science
• Discriminatory class impact

Even tobacco restrictions don't extend through walls:

• Tobacco SHS more studied, more dangerous than cannabis SHS
• Still no through-wall restrictions in private residences
• If tobacco doesn't justify it, cannabis certainly doesn't

States That Tried Extreme Consumption Restrictions:

Massachusetts (considered apartment building bans):

• Discussed prohibiting cannabis consumption in multi-family housing
• Rejected: Privacy invasion, enforcement impossibility, discriminatory
• Instead: Allowed building policies (landlord choice), not state law

California (local consumption bans):

• Some cities tried to prohibit home consumption in rentals
• Courts struck down: Property rights, legal activity cannot be prohibited in residences

Lesson: Consumption restrictions in private residences face constitutional challenges and fail enforcement.

A1007 would be challenged immediately on privacy, property, equal protection grounds.

Steck's Prohibition Trilogy: A977 + A08581 + A1007 = Total Prohibition

Phil Steck has introduced three bills that, combined, would completely eliminate legal cannabis use:

A977 (Product Elimination):

• Caps THC at 15% flower, 25% other products
• Eliminates 90-95% of legal products
• Consumers cannot buy products they want

A08581 (Category Elimination):

• Bans all edibles, all flavored vapes
• Eliminates 60-70% of product categories
• Forces smoking (most harmful consumption method)

A1007 (Consumption Elimination):

• Prohibits smoking/vaping for 60-70% of users (multi-family housing)
• Edibles exempt, but A08581 eliminates edibles
• Combined with A977/A08581: Zero legal consumption options

The Combined Impact:

If A977 + A08581 + A1007 all pass:

Products available: 2-5% of current inventory (low-potency flower only)
Consumption methods: Smoking only (edibles banned by A08581)
Consumption locations: <30% of users (no multi-family housing)
Legal market share: 0-1% (de facto prohibition)

This is the goal: Steck voted FOR legalization in 2021 (one of Assembly sponsors), now introduces three bills to repeal it without formally repealing MRTA.

Prohibition by a thousand cuts.

Political Dynamics and Passage Probability

Passage Probability: 8-12% (Very Low)

Why A1007 Faces Near-Certain Defeat:

1. Obvious constitutional problems:

• Privacy invasion (consumption in private residence)
• Property rights violation (cannot use legal product in own home)
• Equal protection (discriminates based on housing type)
• Immediate legal challenges if passed

2. Enforcement impossibility:

• Police, courts, advocates all recognize unenforceable
• Creates selective enforcement tool
• Law enforcement opposition likely

3. Class discrimination too blatant:

• Wealthy suburban residents unaffected
• Urban, low-income, minority residents criminalized
• Civil rights groups will mobilize

4. Contradicts MRTA's intent:

• MRTA explicitly legalized home consumption
• A1007 would prohibit home consumption for majority
• Directly undermines 2021 legalization

5. No state precedent:

• No legal state has through-wall consumption bans
• No tobacco precedent for residential restrictions
• Novel, extreme overreach

6. Industry and advocacy united opposition:

• Cannabis industry, social justice advocates, civil liberties groups all oppose
• Broad coalition against

7. "Secondhand smoke" claim weak:

• No evidence of through-wall health effects
• Science doesn't support 30-foot radius restriction

Why Even 8-12% Probability:

"Child safety" framing:

• Emotionally powerful
• Some legislators fear opposing "child protection"
• May attract support from uninformed lawmakers

Urban vs rural divide:

• Rural legislators may not grasp impact on urban residents
• Might see as "reasonable restriction" without understanding enforcement

Paired with A977/A08581:

• Steck positioning as "compromise" (choose consumption restrictions vs potency caps)
• Risk: Legislature accepts one to avoid others

Likely Outcome:

Short-term: Dies in Assembly Codes Committee (never reaches floor)
Medium-term: Reintroduced 2026, faces same opposition, fails again
Long-term: Used as negotiating chip for other restrictions

Passage would trigger:

• Immediate lawsuits (NYCLU, NORML, industry groups)
• Preliminary injunction likely (court blocks enforcement)
• Constitutional challenge successful
• Law never enforced even if passed

Framework Comparison: Complete NY Bills Portfolio

The Six Bills: Three Prohibition, Three Optimization

Evidence-Based Optimization:

S3294A (Medical Expansion - SIGNED):

• Expands patient access
• Legal share: +0.8-1.2 pp
• Approach: Remove barriers, increase access

S08332 (Farmer Relief):

• Supply-side rescue
• Legal share: +1.5-2.5 pp
• Approach: Economies of scale, equity preservation

S1137 (Equity Capital - Conditional):

• Capital access (if reformed)
• Legal share: +2-4 pp (reformed) or +0.1-0.3 pp (current model)
• Approach: Capital deployment with structural reform

Prohibition Disguised as Safety:

A977 (Potency Caps):

• Product elimination
• Legal share: -15 to -17 pp
• Approach: Eliminate 90-95% of products

A08581 (Category Ban):

• Category elimination
• Legal share: -12 to -14 pp
• Approach: Eliminate edibles, flavored vapes

A1007 (Consumption Ban):

• Consumption elimination
• Legal share: -9 to -12 pp
• Approach: Prohibit consumption for 60-70% of users

Summary Table:

Combined Steck bills (A977+A08581+A1007): -36 to -43 pp collapse = De facto total prohibition

Conclusion: A1007 Is Prohibition Cosplaying as Child Protection

New York's cannabis market achieved optimization through potency tax repeal, enforcement scaling, and medical expansion. The state demonstrated that evidence-based policy builds legal markets.

A1007 abandons evidence for prohibition through impossible consumption restrictions.

The Framework Verdict:

A1007 is de facto prohibition disguised as child protection. By prohibiting consumption "within 30 feet of children through walls," the bill would:

• Criminalize home consumption for 60-70% of users (multi-family housing residents)
• Eliminate legal consumption locations (home prohibited, public already prohibited, lounges not licensed)
• Force return to illicit market (legal purchases become useless)
• Collapse legal market share: 17% → 5-8% (-9 to -12 pp)
• Destroy tax revenue: -$65-115M annually
• Recreate War on Drugs: Class-based, racially discriminatory enforcement
• Increase arrests: +10,000-20,000 annually (second offense = Class B misdemeanor)

The "Science" Is Nonsense:

Secondhand cannabis smoke research:

• Studies show in-home exposure (same room/apartment)
• Zero evidence of through-wall/floor/ceiling health effects
• No justification for 30-foot radius through barriers

If through-wall restrictions were justified:

• Tobacco smoking (more studied, more harmful) would be prohibited in apartments
• It's not, because science doesn't support it

A1007 uses "secondhand smoke" to justify restrictions unsupported by secondhand smoke research.

The Discrimination Is Blatant:

Who A1007 criminalizes:

• Urban residents (60% of population, 75% of users)
• Multi-family housing residents (apartments, condos)
• Low-income residents (cannot afford property buffers)
• Minority populations (concentrated in urban multi-family housing)

Who A1007 exempts:

• Wealthy suburban/rural residents (single-family homes, large lots)
• Homeowners in low-density areas (no neighbors within 30 feet)

Result: Class-based prohibition—same people targeted by War on Drugs, different justification.

The Enforcement Is Impossible:

Cannot determine:

• 30-foot radius through walls without building access
• Whether children reside without invasive investigation
• Where in residence consumption occurred
• First vs second offense without statewide tracking

Result: Selective enforcement targeting minorities, low-income residents—War on Drugs 2.0.

The Constitutional Violations Are Clear:

Privacy: Cannot prohibit legal activity in private residence
Property: Cannot restrict legal product use in own home
Equal Protection: Cannot discriminate based on housing type
Due Process: Vague, unenforceable restrictions violate fair notice

If passed, immediate lawsuits, preliminary injunction, law struck down.

The Intent Is Obvious:

Phil Steck introduced three bills (A977 + A08581 + A1007) that together would:

• Eliminate 90-95% of products (A977)
• Eliminate 60-70% of categories (A08581)
• Eliminate 60-70% of consumption locations (A1007)

Combined effect: De facto total prohibition while MRTA remains on books.

This is legalization repeal without formal repeal.

The Choice:

Evidence-based policy (S3294A, S08332 model):
Remove barriers → Legal market grows → Equity fulfilled → Tax revenue → Public health improved

Prohibition policy (A977, A08581, A1007 model):
Restrict products, categories, consumption → Legal market destroyed → Illicit dominance → Arrests return → Communities harmed

New York chose evidence with S3294A (signed), should choose evidence with S08332 and reformed S1137.

New York must reject prohibition disguised as child protection with A977, A08581, and A1007.

The data demands: Defeat all three Steck bills. Preserve optimization. Build legal market through access expansion, not consumption prohibition.

Defeat A1007. Defeat A977. Defeat A08581. Choose evidence over prohibition.

Related Analysis:

• New York Cannabis Market Analysis
• New York A977: THC Potency Cap Analysis
• New York A08581: Edibles and Flavored Products Ban
• New York S3294A: Medical Cannabis Expansion
• New York S08332: Small Farmer Relief Act
• New York S1137: Equity Investment Fund Expansion

Analysis by The Silent Majority 420 | CBDT Framework validated across 24 U.S. cannabis markets