There are all kinds of reasons to be apprehensive about proposals to allow pot-smoking lounges in St. Louis: rowdy clientele, angry neighbors, impaired driving. And, of course, the specter of a societal stamp of approval on an addictive-substance habit.

But there's one big reason to set those apprehensions aside and give serious consideration to the proposals now being aired in City Hall: Every one of those concerns could apply, unaltered, to establishments currently licensed by St. Louis to serve alcoholic beverages. These establishments — also known as "bars" — operate throughout the city, as they have through most of its history, serving a product that is demonstrably more dangerous than marijuana.

The debate over whether to allow legal use of pot is over. Most of the country has legalized it in one form or another. Its continued classification by the federal government as a Schedule 1 contraband drug, alongside heroin and LSD, is widely recognized as a legal anachronism preserved by Washington's political paralysis and nothing more.

That's not to say legalized pot doesn't bring with it its own potential societal costs. It's easy to think of a lot of legal and societal trends that would have been healthier for both individuals and society than this one.

But that isn't the point. If American culture has determined that adults should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to engage in unproductive or even risky behavior — and the legality of alcohol and cigarettes has definitively settled that question — then it makes no sense to continue onerous restrictions on a substance that hasn't been shown to be as dangerous as either of those.

As the Post-Dispatch's Austin Huguelet reports, top St. Louis officials are exploring the further normalization of pot by eventually allowing the establishment of pot lounges like those that famously operate in Amsterdam. Only a few American locations — Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Colorado — have begun to allow such establishments. Meaning St. Louis would be at the forefront of what could be the next big thing in urban entertainment districts.

There are some hurdles, beginning with state rules that don't allow marijuana to be consumed at the dispensaries where it is purchased. That's not necessarily an insurmountable problem. The Republicans who control Missouri state government still claim to be fans of free enterprise, so perhaps new rules could be put in place. If not, there are potential work-arounds, like siting the lounges within pickup range of the dispensaries. Entrepreneurs are good at coming up with creative solutions to problems like these.

Board of Aldermen President Megan Green and others exploring the plan are also looking at clean-air concerns — though existing cigar lounges would seem to provide a promising template for how enclosed and controlled indoor space for smoking can theoretically reduce its prevalence elsewhere.

St. Louis officials should tread carefully here. American cities' experience with this idea is too new to assess whether the benefits are worth the costs. Amsterdam, it must be noted, is starting to restrict international "sin tourism" — which includes (though is not limited to) its pot-friendly coffee houses — because it's increasingly viewed as not worth the societal problems it brings.

Weighed against those legitimate concerns is the most obvious advantage to the idea: St. Louis could squeeze more tax revenue from a form of recreation that, like it or not, is here to stay. City regulation could keep the businesses out of residential neighborhoods and ensure they're operating responsibly.

And these particular businesses could become tourism draws, especially while they remain rare in most of America. Bluntly put, St. Louis' need for fresh economic activity right now precludes being too choosy about what form it takes.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Photo credit: manish panghal at Unsplash