The Denver City Council should reconsider a controversial amendment to the city's marijuana rules that it approved last week.

The amendment, which was given initial approval by a 7-5 vote, would ban smoking marijuana on private residential property where the activity "is clearly observable from a public street, highway or sidewalk." The proposal is unenforceable, will provoke fruitless disputes and, if it were followed, would restrict many pot users almost exclusively to the indoors.

After all, as Councilwoman Susan Shepherd pointed out before voting against the amendment, even the unfenced back yards of corner properties are often visible from a sidewalk or street.

To a substantial degree, we fear, the amendment amounts to a symbolic statement that will cause more confusion and frustration than it can possibly be worth, as well as waste police time.

The amendment was conceived by Councilwoman Jeanne Robb with the best of intentions. She notes that language in Amendment 64 cautions that "nothing in this section shall permit consumption that is conducted openly and publicly or in a manner that endangers others," and argues that open and public includes anywhere on private property where someone can be seen from a sidewalk or street. Perhaps the courts will agree with her interpretation. However, we think it's more likely that judges will clarify the definition of public consumption to mean marijuana use off private property, not on it.

The most revealing exchanges at Monday's meeting involved councilmembers asking Police Chief Robert White how his officers would respond to a complaint about marijuana use that violated the Robb amendment.

"Our primary focus would be compliance," White replied, "so if there was a scenario where someone called the police and once we got there and the person might have been smoking ... which might have been a violation, and they saw us and went into the house, that's compliance. That would pretty much be the end of our action."

White added that such a complaint would be "a very low priority as it relates to the many calls that we have to respond to."

"We're not getting a warrant ... we're not going into anyone's house," he said.

In other words, long before an officer arrived on the scene, the infraction would usually be over and the smoker gone.

Surely police have better things to do. And surely the council does, too.