Via Shutterstock.

Updated with comment from Councilmember Jack Evans and Chairman Phil Mendelson.

A permanent ban on pot clubs in D.C. is now one step closer to becoming law.

Ward 5 Councilmember and Judiciary Committee Chair Kenyan McDuffie introduced the legislation for mark-up, which mirrored the emergency legislation passed immediately after legalization. While the council briefly overturned the ban on private cannabis clubs early this January, swift lobbying from the mayor and police chief led to a second vote that kept the emergency legislation in place.

That means that restaurants, bars, and other venues cannot let people smoke pot on the premises. At a December hearing, dozens testified that the prohibition hurts the poor and patients who can’t smoke at home because they live in public housing or have young children around.

Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans introduced a motion to table discussion on the bill until April, when the emergency legislation expires.

At-Large Councilmember Anita Bonds and Ward 8 Councilmember LaRuby May voted alongside Evans to table the bill, while McDuffie, Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh, and Council Chair Phil Mendelson voted against the motion.

This was the second time that Chairman Mendelson—who is not on the Judiciary Committee—cast the swing vote during today’s hearing. Evans took issue with Mendelson’s participation, calling it “unusual” and “unprecedented.”

Mendelson’s director of communications, Lindsey Walton, says that “Evans’ characterization is not correct. The law is clear that the chair has the right to be there.”

“I was there when those rules were made,” Evans told DCist. “It wasn’t contemplated that a chair would come to a meeting with a full quorum and thwart the will of the majority. I think he abused his authority. It’s outrageous what he did today.”

But Mendelson doubts it. “That’s false. He’s the longest-serving councilmember, but was he serving 40 years ago? The rule dates back to the beginning of the council. I’ve been to mark-ups many times. It’s not an issue unless you lose a vote and want to complain about it.”

Mendelson’s attendance also angered D.C. pot activists. “It’s very clear now that he is the enemy,” says DCMJ’s Adam Eidinger. “He stole victory from us. We had three votes and we only needed three votes.”

The Drug Policy Alliance said in a release that, “It is clear that Chairman Mendelson and Mayor Bowser rigged the process against the people.”

Eidinger says that marijuana advocates are open to compromise on the legislation, and that a meeting with Mayor Muriel Bowser indicates that she is, too.

He also took issue with the councilmember “carrying water for cannabis,” namely Evans. “I hold Evans responsible for the way things went down today. There was plenty of time for Evans to write an amendment but he did nothing all month,” says Eidinger. “He kind of lost it for us today. A few words would have opened the door for extremely limited public use.”

Evans disagrees. He says he spoke with Eidinger this morning, and the activist agreed with the tabling strategy. “I would have introduced [an amendment] if they had one, but they didn’t have one.”

Tom Lipinsky, Evans’ communications director, says, “Our committee staff has been talking with Adam Eidinger and other advocates on an amendment, but it’s not ready yet. Amendments have to be deemed ‘legally sufficient’ to be introduced and this one wasn’t.”

Evans says that he, Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau, and others are working on an amendment that balances “expand[ing] the ability of people to use it with the administration’s view of needing to control it.”

The permanent ban goes to the full council next month for a vote.

“If this bill is made permanent, a Congressional rider prevents the Council from enacting future legislation to revise or alter the ban down the road,” said Kaitlyn Boecker, policy affairs associate at the Drug Policy Alliance. “By passing a permanent ban, the Council committee charged with managing local marijuana policy is tying its own hands and voluntarily limiting the District’s sovereignty and its ability to legislate.”

If it passes, “we will do a referendum to overturn it,” says Eidinger, though he’s unsure if they can collect the signatures in time for the 2016 election. “We have these rights under Initiative 71.”