Positions on the legalization of recreational marijuana run the gamut from outright support to absolute opposition and everything in between.

While most Butler County elected officials who spoke to the Butler Eagle expressed views reflecting either strong caution or complete opposition to the idea; others outside the area see the situation differently.

Most county officials said they don’t outright oppose legalization, but implementation and consideration of possible consequences is needed.

Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger said he believes legalization is inevitable, but he has concerns about possible consequences and usage causing public nuisance.

“I think eventually (legalization) will occur,” Goldinger said. “Will I still be here? I don’t know. I’m closer to the end than the beginning, I think.”

Goldinger said he worries the potential for public intoxication with marijuana can be just as dangerous as with alcohol.

“I mean, you can’t walk down Main Street and drink a beer,” he noted.

Goldinger also expressed concern of increased risk for young adults.

“I think you would see more youth using it and turning to that rather than alcohol,” Goldinger said. “I think we already see that to be honest with you.”

He noted concern with legalization being a potential nuisance for members of the public who don’t use marijuana.

“If it’s legalized, you’re going to be walking down Main Street going to lunch, and you might smell it,” Goldinger said. “And some people don’t want to smell that.”

Butler Mayor Bob Dandoy sees both sides of the legalization argument. He said it could generate tax revenue toward infrastructure, heath care and education; but resources and agencies would need to be established to regulate it.

“If you legalize it, then you have to control it,” he said.

He also said he thinks neighborhood churches and schools could object to additional dispensaries and manufacturers in the area.

Meanwhile, some area elected officials take a stronger stance against any plan for legalization.

State Rep. Mustello, R-11th, who voted against legalization efforts in the state House of Representatives this year, said she thinks increasing health risks for young adults would end up outweighing any potential benefits.

“Today, most people understand that cigarettes are a danger to health,” she said. “Consider that marijuana smoke can contain as much as three times the tar and four times the carbon monoxide found in regular tobacco. I don’t believe that the long term health risks to individuals are worth a few dollars of tax revenue to the state.”

While Butler County legislators have opposed recreational marijuana legalization, that’s not the case when looking at other parts of the state.

State Reps. Rick Krajewski, D-188th, of Philadelphia County, and Dan Frankel, D-23rd, representing part of Allegheny County, introduced the legislation that never made it to a vote in the Senate earlier this year.

“This is the moment for Pennsylvania to act,” Krajewski said in a May news release.

Krajewski said the bill reflected what they learned through a process of holding hearings examining cannabis laws in other states and gathering input from health professionals, justice reform advocates, entrepreneurs, and community members. He said the process led him to believe legalization can be done in a way that prioritizes safety, fairness and benefit for residents across the state.

Just like congressional legislators, Goldinger and Dandoy have different opinions on how a recreational marijuana system should operate.

The recent plan pushed by Democrats included a state-run system where the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board would have opened and operated stores with state employees.

Dandoy said the board’s liquor stores should be the model for marijuana stores with tax revenue from purchases funneled into community resources.

Goldinger, on the other hand, is in favor of some state regulation but is weary of seeing marijuana being sold in state stores. It’s a stance a bipartisan bill currently in the state General Assembly, which would provide for oversight and licensing of private marijuana sales, embraces.

“I just don’t think states should be in the business of selling marijuana,” Goldinger said.

Goldinger said he wants to take a “wait-and-see” approach to analyze the effects of Ohio’s recreational marijuana sales that began in August 2024 before entertaining legalization in Pennsylvania.

However, the district attorney said he is open to a conversation about decriminalization.

Despite the term, decriminalization does not make marijuana use or possession legal. Decriminalization would reduce charges related to small amounts of marijuana for personal use to summary offenses, similar to minor traffic offenses or public drunkenness charges.

In Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Allentown, York, and Bethlehem have decriminalized offenses dealing with small amounts of marijuana for personal use.

Goldinger said Pennsylvania classifies the possession of small amounts of marijuana as a misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $500. If the penalty were to be lessened, it would become a summary offense.

In states with legalized recreational marijuana, there is no fine for possession of small amounts.

“If you’re going to make the penalty that minimal, why not just make it a summary offense and decriminalize possessing a small amount of it?” Goldinger said.

Most small possession charges are already being resolved at the magistrate level with fines, Goldinger said, which declutters the court system. He also said the single charge is all it takes to create a criminal record that can inhibit the ability to get a job or coach a child’s sports team.

“I mean, if there are any, it’s less than five people that are in (Butler County Prison) simply because they possessed marijuana, and I wouldn’t be shocked if it was zero,” Goldinger said.

He did express concern the number of charges issued for driving under the influence could increase if recreational marijuana were legalized or decriminalized.

“We have already seen an increase in DUI offenses involving marijuana with medical marijuana, so (we) would see an increase in that as well,” he said.

Goldinger said overall DUI numbers have decreased in recent years, but the number of marijuana-related DUIs has risen to rival the number of alcohol-related DUIs.

At the city level, Dandoy said decriminalization could be effective for decreasing judicial and policing costs related to minor drug offenses, but he worries those costs could be replaced by additional policing and public education needs.

Despite any actions to legalize or decriminalize marijuana at the local or state level, at the federal level, marijuana is still classified as an illegal drug.