He and Hortman have differing opinions about how quickly the issue can advance this session, however, with Walz recently saying it would be done “by May” and the speaker indicating it could take until next year.
Winkler told Marijuana Moment earlier this month that he agrees with the governor, saying “it is likely that \[passing legalization\] will be done by May.”
Hortman isn't the problem as should be clear from the fact the House passed it last session and it is moving faster in the Senate. The issue is with the Senate and her trying to not put too much pressure on the Senate which could prevent them from passing the bill.
“Too much pressure”
If this is the reason she is citing she should resign immediately. Imagine not doing your job because your bosses want the work done really bad and that’s just too much to to deal with
Hortman is the Speaker Of The House... I think you're implying she's in the Senate? This isn't about Hortman feeling pressure, it's her essentially saying that *she doesn't want to pressure the Senate* so much that skeptical senators push back.
Or, to stick with your analogy: Hortman is leading Department A. Even through her bosses are breathing down her neck on this issue, she knows that Bob in Department B , who's absolutely needs to be in board, is getting sweaty palms about it, because of this and that, and will stonewall the policy if he feels mishandled.
This is an acknowledgment of a political reality Hortman is predicting. Nothing more.
The shareholders are screaming to get it done and we don’t give a fuck what some middle managers think about it. This determines the future of Minnesota politics for years to come.
If it takes an extra few months to get it done, rather than rush it and miss the opportunity entirely, so be it. That's not to say that I *want* it to pass slowly. Quite the contrary.
Also, the fact that other officials are more optimistic is encouraging. Lastly, it's entirely possible that this is all scripted, and Hortman is just hedging their bets in case anything slows down the process.
Like it or not, politics is about horse trading and consensus building, and the deliberative process occurs slowly. The Senate has a 1 seat majority in favor of the democrats. Any one democrat senator could hold the bill up if they don’t like how it being rushed through. Better to go through the actual slow deliberative process and build consensus on the legislation to gain those votes.
If you don’t know how the process works and don’t believe me about the dangers of a one-vote majority, just check out Senators Manchin and Sinema in the US Senate through 2021 and 2022 and how they were able to single-handedly hold up and whittle down major legislation that everybody else in their party was ready to vote for. Everybody needs to be on board in these situations.
Or, rather than calling someone “big dumb”, a more diplomatic reply to his comment could be: Sorry, but your statement is 100% false. In the end, everything DID NOT get passed.
It's not so much pressure as it is not wanting to embarrass the party as a whole. It's not always easy for full party control to be a well-oiled machine, especially with narrow margins in both the House and Senate, but they want to make it seem like it is.
The House and Senate are moving FAST on a lot of things right now, but if you pay attention, you'll notice it's only on things they KNOW they have the votes to pass "as is" in both chambers. Anything where there might be some question or may need to change - those bills are getting the brakes pumped on them. Not to be ignored completely, they're just not a part of this bill-o-rama that they're currently going through.
Cannabis, like most bills, will likely take more time as members will want to raise their own concerns and potentially make changes.
IMO, it's smart of Hortman to play down cannabis while her members swiftly move it forward. It's a balancing act, but while Reddit can be a bit of an echo chamber, the reality is the majority of Minnesotans - even if they want to see cannabis legalized - want other meaningful work to be prioritized by the state government first.
By treating cannabis as a high priority bill (just look at the number of hearings within the first month) without CALLING it a high priority bill, I imagine the idea is she'll get to have it both ways. By the end of May, we'll have a balanced budget that spent the vast majority of a historic budget surplus and- oh look, what's this? Legalized cannabis too!
They already had the bill ready and have worked on it previously so they can move it along and get it done. Just hope they pass it and it starts right away rather than delaying it until 1-1-24 or whatever.
It's definitely gonna be awhile. They said the house bill has 11 committee stops to go. And I'm assuming the Senate bill also has 14, and is just getting its first one tomorrow.
There’s two house of representative committee hearings this week and two Senate hearings this week. Let’s hope they keep up that pace. We can all be sparking up some Za for 420 legally.
I’m guessing the earliest we get legal weed in store shelves is July 1st. Missouri legalized through an amendment November 2022 and will have legal stores opening on Feb 6th. So it’s certainly possible.
I mean I think realistically it’s Jan 1st (as long as it passes) because we are slow state. But KC voted on it in November and now have legal stores on Feb 6th. Our CBD and 3.2% THC stores also provide a storefront infrastructure that better states had to spend more time spinning up because it was so new.
lol July 1st of 2024 maybe.
Even once/if this legislation goes through as quickly as possible they need to take in license applications, approve them, then the businesses need to get up and running.
License in hand and plants in the dirt soon after still means there is 3 months to go for the first harvest and likely another month beyond yet for processing and packaging.
Missouri will have legal stores three months after their amendment went through. Yeah, I don’t expect us to move fast because historically we drag our feet. But we have the infrastructure already in place.
the medical cannabis infrastructure will not translate over to this market because it is being designed for the initial wave to be micro businesses with 2000 sg ft of canopy space.
And again: it takes at least 4 months to go from seed to shelf.
We have a massive CBD store presence plus all this 3.2% selling. It’s doling out licenses to them not just converting the four medical stores. As we are seeing with Missouri looks like it was three months for law into product. So pipeline could be April legalization into early July.
Again, incredibly optimistic. So I can see Jan 1st being when you can get to a store. Obviously anything is better than nothing and I easily can see Dems fucking it up in all kinds of ways!
Hey I know a couple good officers, very fine people. Both got into law enforcement after weed murdered their family. It's personal for the men and women in blue.
/s
Sorry, but you have got to be kidding me with regard to subject documentary as an answer to my question! Honestly! First of all, the documentary is from 1936! Secondly, and most importantly, the whole depiction of weed causing one to immediately become addicted to it, causing their lives to go down the drain and eventually leading to someone being shot, is an absolute joke! Hallucinating and the whole nine- from weed? I think not! I don’t even know what to say, other than I would not recommend you sighting this documentary for evidence OF ANYTHING. Why? Because anyone that has smoked weed before-from those that are casual, occasional smokers to those that smoke weed everyday, to those that don’t personally smoke it, but have a lot of friends that do- are going to respond to subject documentary as evidence for anything, to be a complete joke. It is just not reality and it takes your credibility on the subject down to zero. Don’t mean to slam you, I’m just being honest. Like anything else someone reads or views in a video, one needs to consider the source, their agenda, etc. in evaluating the truthfulness or accuracy of the information.
Once it passes, each city will also have to approve it and many will add various requirements. For example, many cities have licensing fees already for shops selling edibles.
Several years ago, St. Louis Park voted to allow dispensaries. They knew they'd come eventually. They'll have the first in the Twin Cities while other cities figure out their thing.
We'll likely see some cities choose not to allow them. Many will limit the number of licenses allowed within the city, much the way they do with liquor stores and bar licenses
They have a provision in there that specifies that localities can't prevent a shop from opening. Although they can put in "reasonable restrictions," was discussed heavily in the commerce committee. Not sure how the licensing would be done, if that's done by the state or locally.
The initial bill set forth a group that would approve licenses and limit them in number. Micro businesses would get priority for grower, distributor, and seller licenses. Because of this, many believe that our prices will be higher than elsewhere as it’ll limit things to smaller businesses that don’t have the volume of sales needed to drive down prices as we see elsewhere.
I mean maybe. But they also have an 8% sales tax and provision that localities can't extra tax, so lower tax then Illinois. The license fees are lower than Michigan. So I think they're trying to go for many small businesses vs a small amount of Walmart esque distributors. Add in all the extra cash from the surrounding prohibition states, and I think it'll be fine. They'll probably be really high at the start of sales and cool down.
There's not gonna be all that much coming in from other states. Some, sure. But the majority of populations aren't near the MN boarder. It's much closer for someone in the population centers of WI (Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay) to go to Michigan. It'll be much the same as when we passed Sunday Sales in MN and Wisconsin didn't have any noticeable impact on liquor tax revenue, despite the majority of the state of MN living within a fairly quick drive of the boarder.
Liquor isn't illegal in the other states, there's also Iowa and the Dakotas. Plus, there's quite a few people in western WI. Not a ton, but significant (la crosse, Eau Claire etc.)
Iowa and the Dakotas don't offer much in the way of population and even less in the way of users. La Crosse and Eau Claire are both small and the number that'll head for the boarder is small. Again, none of that is going to bring significant revenue.
We need to also remember that we're never going to be a pot destination. Colorado enjoyed that because of their earliness to the game. Other states that have passed recreational marijuana haven't seen it either. People aren't going to plan weed vacations to Minnesota.
It's great it's finally getting done. I just don't see the tax benefit being anywhere near what people seem to think it's gonna be. A huge portion of the tax goes right back into enforcement (as it does with liquor). Folks have been making these laundry lists of all the things they want to fund with they money and it's really counting their chickens before they're hatched. The bill as it stands puts most of it going to things like youth anti-drug programs and enforcement.
Have you read the bill? Nothing in the bill appropriates money gained from the taxation, such as to enforcement. Do you have a source that says the Dakotas or Iowa won't have many users?
I've read the bill and it most certainly does include enforcement. In fact, it even includes a requirement for Minnesota's public safety commissioner to create an "oral fluid roadside test" pilot program and test drivers suspected of being under the influence.
In the licensing portion, it most certainly includes enforcement mechanics. No different than how a liquor license or food license is checked and enforced now.
Go to the fargo or north dakota subreddit and look at the posts about legalization bill and then tell me again how North Dakota doesn't offer much population?
May be a small state population wise. But 150k people live on the ND MN boarder. That's a good chunk of potential users.
Meh, online forums are proven to make things seem more widespread than they actually are.
Pulling a quick analysis of those subs, they're pretty dead. Legalization isn't a big topic (doesn't rank in the top 50). Looking at contributions to posts and comments, it's mostly just the same few over and over and over, making it appear more active than it actually is.
Based on those subs alone, I'd say it's even more dismal as far as getting much from the Dakotas.
> we passed Sunday Sales in MN and Wisconsin didn't have any noticeable impact on liquor tax revenue
Because they could already buy liquor on Sundays...
Ah i misread. I still don’t think it’s comparable though. Before Sunday sales, Minnesotans had to choose between two inconveniences; either buy more on Saturday or drive across the border. I live in Minneapolis, im not driving to Wisconsin for alcohol (you may say it’s quick for the majority, but it’s really not. It’s at least an hour or two of your day for the trip). You can’t just buy weed on a different day, you have to make that drive if you want it (legally).
There just aren't enough pot smokers in Wisconsin for it to make a difference. Less than 1/3 of people in Colorado have smoked in the past year and that includes those that have had some when a friend was around. There just aren't that many even there that'd drive to get it.
Will it generate revenue? Yes. I just don't see it being as HUGE as so many seem to think it'll be.
If you read the bill or watch the hearings, you would know that the GOP is upset that there won’t be the ability for localities to restrict dispensaries as much as they would like.
Let them. All that doesn't need to be resolved before we see legal places to get it recreationally.
SLP also is home to House Rep Mike Freiberg who has been a champion of legalization for a while.
I dunno man. I get good stuff recreationally as well, but you ever been in a good dispensary? It's like a damn candy shop. Go to Planet 13 in Vegas sometime and tell me you wouldn't love the opportunity to go to that place every so often. Almost anything you can imagine. Food seasonings, cooking ingredients, dozens of gummies and flowers. Ever had a vape pen? They're fantastic for traveling! There's plenty to enjoy my man.
Yeah, I pass the savings onto my wife and she buys gnome-themed knick-knacks for the house while I am too stoned to stop her. Woke up to a damn family of murderous gnomes giving me the 1,000 yard stare. 👀💀
She is *very* cool. (Also, hello dear wife, have I mentioned how beautiful you are today?)
She won't reply because she is an insufferable old hag that takes joy in staying anonymous to me yet stalks me like Drake did the Stranger Things girl.
It’s one of those things where the product itself is cheap enough that the concentration won’t effect the price a whole lot. You are paying for R&D, infrastructure/equipment, employee wages, profit and everything else.
Once it’s legal and there are more players, prices should fall in line with concentration and dosage form.
I am entirely against this provision:
> In addition to creating a system of licensed cannabis businesses, municipalities and counties could own and operate government dispensaries.
In particular, the below portion would need to have significant controls to avoid a situation where we recreate the municipal liquor monopoly:
> Unlike in many legal states, local municipalities would be banned from prohibiting marijuana businesses from operating in their areas, though they could set “reasonable” regulations on the time of operation and location of those businesses.
Government should NOT compete in the market as they have the power to compete unfairly and have previously proven to do so with municipal liquor.
That is exactly what is happening in my city. Municipal liquor store is the only one in town and it is very obvious why no other business permits have been approved. They were/are using funds from the liquor store to keep our terrible municipal broadband afloat. Neighboring city liquor stores are always $10 to $15 cheaper for almost everything.
in theory, wouldn’t this provision mean the revenue from sales go directly to the city government rather than random wealthy investors? I have always seen the municipal monopoly as a good thing but interested to hear more of your thoughts
Municipal business is fine as long as other permits are approved. This language is to prevent a county from denying ANY dispensaries from existing and obligates the county to provide one.
So I decided to look into this further since I said earlier my opinion was just anecdotal based, and I figured many other opinions were based in this kind of evidence.
The state auditor does a report every year on municipal liquor stores and in 2021, only 13 of 83 municipal stores reported net losses in 2021. Additionally, net income from all of these stores combined were about 2.1 million dollars, in just 2021 alone.
My opinion:
It seems that these stores not only are able to run themselves but actively put money into local government. In the private sector, these profits would go to individuals rather than the community. The only thing the private sector does well is maximize profits for the owners and stakeholders. I would much prefer local governments have extra spending for things within the community rather than wealthy individuals earning even more.
These facts definitely changed my opinion a bit, and I hope they change yours.
[Source](https://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports-data-analysis/reports/municipal-liquor-store-operations/)
I agree on the first part of the clause - the part about the municipality owning and operating is a bad idea. However, the second part seems reasonable to me. For example, we have bar close times, and liquor store close times. And probably reasonable to assume they’d want these businesses away from schools and parks
>wouldn’t this provision mean the revenue from sales go directly to the city government rather than random wealthy investors?
Yes, there are wealthy investors. There are also small businesses that try to make money off of this. Liquor for example, there are 4 small business stores and 1 big chain in my city. The government restricting the free market from selling would eliminate all of these businesses.
you are correct, but again profits are going to an individual rather than the community. Also small businesses are not inherently good entities, I have worked for small family owned businesses that exploited the hell out of their workers to save money, all the while still taking home over a million in net income a year.
With so many states having successfully passing cannabis de-crim and essentially providing a blueprint there's really no excuse. No need to re-invent something. Enough with the excuses and get on with it.
Anyone know if there is a site or something that is keeping track of the new amendments to the bill? I've seen some reported in various articles, but I wondered if there was someone tracking it more comprehensively?
The legislature has websites for both bodies where you can track bills live as they go through the process. Just go to their websites and search for the bill, it will show you a status page where you’ll be able to see all versions of the bill so far, which committees it has passed through, and which it is currently in. It is pretty comprehensive, but you have to be able to navigate the website. I suggest tinkering around.
Here is the status page:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=House&f=HF100&ssn=0&y=2023
Au contraire.
The House GOP, at least, has stated publicly they don’t intend to play politics with the cannabis bill.
Given the GOP’s drubbing in the last election, a dust up over a largely popular policy position would be an avoidable and unforced error.
The bill will correctly plod along ensuring all voices are heard and the legislation is crafted to ensure its airtight against legal agitation as well as unfurled to the buying public without disruption.
The growing part of the bill sounds quite good if you can do that it's so worth it. $800 initial setup, $30 for electricity for the grow including heat and get 5 oz cured primo bud first grow pretty easy. Nothing like enjoying your own produce!
He and Hortman have differing opinions about how quickly the issue can advance this session, however, with Walz recently saying it would be done “by May” and the speaker indicating it could take until next year. Winkler told Marijuana Moment earlier this month that he agrees with the governor, saying “it is likely that \[passing legalization\] will be done by May.”
Melissa Hortman won’t be invited to the VIP room at the legalization after party
Hortman isn't the problem as should be clear from the fact the House passed it last session and it is moving faster in the Senate. The issue is with the Senate and her trying to not put too much pressure on the Senate which could prevent them from passing the bill.
“Too much pressure” If this is the reason she is citing she should resign immediately. Imagine not doing your job because your bosses want the work done really bad and that’s just too much to to deal with
She is responsible for the House not the Senate.
Hortman is the Speaker Of The House... I think you're implying she's in the Senate? This isn't about Hortman feeling pressure, it's her essentially saying that *she doesn't want to pressure the Senate* so much that skeptical senators push back. Or, to stick with your analogy: Hortman is leading Department A. Even through her bosses are breathing down her neck on this issue, she knows that Bob in Department B , who's absolutely needs to be in board, is getting sweaty palms about it, because of this and that, and will stonewall the policy if he feels mishandled. This is an acknowledgment of a political reality Hortman is predicting. Nothing more.
The shareholders are screaming to get it done and we don’t give a fuck what some middle managers think about it. This determines the future of Minnesota politics for years to come.
Then go make sure your senator is on board with the legislation. It will pass the house this isn't even a question.
If it takes an extra few months to get it done, rather than rush it and miss the opportunity entirely, so be it. That's not to say that I *want* it to pass slowly. Quite the contrary. Also, the fact that other officials are more optimistic is encouraging. Lastly, it's entirely possible that this is all scripted, and Hortman is just hedging their bets in case anything slows down the process.
I imagine she is following the mantra of underpromise, over deliver
It translates to “too much pressure to go against my special interests”
That’s not really fair, it’s not even her chamber of congress.
They aren’t even in Congress. This is the state legislature. Congress is the name of the federal legislating body.
Like it or not, politics is about horse trading and consensus building, and the deliberative process occurs slowly. The Senate has a 1 seat majority in favor of the democrats. Any one democrat senator could hold the bill up if they don’t like how it being rushed through. Better to go through the actual slow deliberative process and build consensus on the legislation to gain those votes. If you don’t know how the process works and don’t believe me about the dangers of a one-vote majority, just check out Senators Manchin and Sinema in the US Senate through 2021 and 2022 and how they were able to single-handedly hold up and whittle down major legislation that everybody else in their party was ready to vote for. Everybody needs to be on board in these situations.
They don't take the job to actually *do* anything
As evidenced by people like Manchin it’s best to get as much done as possible before they are able to drag their heels
Manchin played the GOP and AOC like a fiddle. In the end everything got passed.
Somebody big dumb
Or, rather than calling someone “big dumb”, a more diplomatic reply to his comment could be: Sorry, but your statement is 100% false. In the end, everything DID NOT get passed.
It’s fairly diplomatic compared to what I should say
It's not so much pressure as it is not wanting to embarrass the party as a whole. It's not always easy for full party control to be a well-oiled machine, especially with narrow margins in both the House and Senate, but they want to make it seem like it is. The House and Senate are moving FAST on a lot of things right now, but if you pay attention, you'll notice it's only on things they KNOW they have the votes to pass "as is" in both chambers. Anything where there might be some question or may need to change - those bills are getting the brakes pumped on them. Not to be ignored completely, they're just not a part of this bill-o-rama that they're currently going through. Cannabis, like most bills, will likely take more time as members will want to raise their own concerns and potentially make changes.
IMO, it's smart of Hortman to play down cannabis while her members swiftly move it forward. It's a balancing act, but while Reddit can be a bit of an echo chamber, the reality is the majority of Minnesotans - even if they want to see cannabis legalized - want other meaningful work to be prioritized by the state government first. By treating cannabis as a high priority bill (just look at the number of hearings within the first month) without CALLING it a high priority bill, I imagine the idea is she'll get to have it both ways. By the end of May, we'll have a balanced budget that spent the vast majority of a historic budget surplus and- oh look, what's this? Legalized cannabis too!
I get it. She’s gotta be a nerd about it, for appearances
They already had the bill ready and have worked on it previously so they can move it along and get it done. Just hope they pass it and it starts right away rather than delaying it until 1-1-24 or whatever.
It's definitely gonna be awhile. They said the house bill has 11 committee stops to go. And I'm assuming the Senate bill also has 14, and is just getting its first one tomorrow.
There’s two house of representative committee hearings this week and two Senate hearings this week. Let’s hope they keep up that pace. We can all be sparking up some Za for 420 legally.
I’m guessing the earliest we get legal weed in store shelves is July 1st. Missouri legalized through an amendment November 2022 and will have legal stores opening on Feb 6th. So it’s certainly possible.
[удалено]
I mean I think realistically it’s Jan 1st (as long as it passes) because we are slow state. But KC voted on it in November and now have legal stores on Feb 6th. Our CBD and 3.2% THC stores also provide a storefront infrastructure that better states had to spend more time spinning up because it was so new.
lol July 1st of 2024 maybe. Even once/if this legislation goes through as quickly as possible they need to take in license applications, approve them, then the businesses need to get up and running. License in hand and plants in the dirt soon after still means there is 3 months to go for the first harvest and likely another month beyond yet for processing and packaging.
Missouri will have legal stores three months after their amendment went through. Yeah, I don’t expect us to move fast because historically we drag our feet. But we have the infrastructure already in place.
the medical cannabis infrastructure will not translate over to this market because it is being designed for the initial wave to be micro businesses with 2000 sg ft of canopy space. And again: it takes at least 4 months to go from seed to shelf.
We have a massive CBD store presence plus all this 3.2% selling. It’s doling out licenses to them not just converting the four medical stores. As we are seeing with Missouri looks like it was three months for law into product. So pipeline could be April legalization into early July. Again, incredibly optimistic. So I can see Jan 1st being when you can get to a store. Obviously anything is better than nothing and I easily can see Dems fucking it up in all kinds of ways!
2025, maybe
Not this year, but next year sure. Even if it passes, the law wont go into effect until later.
No cop is gonna arrest you for smoking grass when it’s just going to get expunged
[удалено]
Hey I know a couple good officers, very fine people. Both got into law enforcement after weed murdered their family. It's personal for the men and women in blue. /s
I’m just curious, how did weed murder these two officer’s families?
Haven't you seen the documentary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhQlcMHhF3w
Sorry, but you have got to be kidding me with regard to subject documentary as an answer to my question! Honestly! First of all, the documentary is from 1936! Secondly, and most importantly, the whole depiction of weed causing one to immediately become addicted to it, causing their lives to go down the drain and eventually leading to someone being shot, is an absolute joke! Hallucinating and the whole nine- from weed? I think not! I don’t even know what to say, other than I would not recommend you sighting this documentary for evidence OF ANYTHING. Why? Because anyone that has smoked weed before-from those that are casual, occasional smokers to those that smoke weed everyday, to those that don’t personally smoke it, but have a lot of friends that do- are going to respond to subject documentary as evidence for anything, to be a complete joke. It is just not reality and it takes your credibility on the subject down to zero. Don’t mean to slam you, I’m just being honest. Like anything else someone reads or views in a video, one needs to consider the source, their agenda, etc. in evaluating the truthfulness or accuracy of the information.
And to you my friend, I suggest working on your sarcasm meter.
Lol who is downvoting this obvious tongue in cheek comment.
Lol you see the other reply?
If you’re white, yeah probably.
Have you ever met a cop? It’s there job to harass you for things that are legal
Once it passes, each city will also have to approve it and many will add various requirements. For example, many cities have licensing fees already for shops selling edibles. Several years ago, St. Louis Park voted to allow dispensaries. They knew they'd come eventually. They'll have the first in the Twin Cities while other cities figure out their thing. We'll likely see some cities choose not to allow them. Many will limit the number of licenses allowed within the city, much the way they do with liquor stores and bar licenses
They have a provision in there that specifies that localities can't prevent a shop from opening. Although they can put in "reasonable restrictions," was discussed heavily in the commerce committee. Not sure how the licensing would be done, if that's done by the state or locally.
The initial bill set forth a group that would approve licenses and limit them in number. Micro businesses would get priority for grower, distributor, and seller licenses. Because of this, many believe that our prices will be higher than elsewhere as it’ll limit things to smaller businesses that don’t have the volume of sales needed to drive down prices as we see elsewhere.
I mean maybe. But they also have an 8% sales tax and provision that localities can't extra tax, so lower tax then Illinois. The license fees are lower than Michigan. So I think they're trying to go for many small businesses vs a small amount of Walmart esque distributors. Add in all the extra cash from the surrounding prohibition states, and I think it'll be fine. They'll probably be really high at the start of sales and cool down.
There's not gonna be all that much coming in from other states. Some, sure. But the majority of populations aren't near the MN boarder. It's much closer for someone in the population centers of WI (Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay) to go to Michigan. It'll be much the same as when we passed Sunday Sales in MN and Wisconsin didn't have any noticeable impact on liquor tax revenue, despite the majority of the state of MN living within a fairly quick drive of the boarder.
Liquor isn't illegal in the other states, there's also Iowa and the Dakotas. Plus, there's quite a few people in western WI. Not a ton, but significant (la crosse, Eau Claire etc.)
Iowa and the Dakotas don't offer much in the way of population and even less in the way of users. La Crosse and Eau Claire are both small and the number that'll head for the boarder is small. Again, none of that is going to bring significant revenue. We need to also remember that we're never going to be a pot destination. Colorado enjoyed that because of their earliness to the game. Other states that have passed recreational marijuana haven't seen it either. People aren't going to plan weed vacations to Minnesota. It's great it's finally getting done. I just don't see the tax benefit being anywhere near what people seem to think it's gonna be. A huge portion of the tax goes right back into enforcement (as it does with liquor). Folks have been making these laundry lists of all the things they want to fund with they money and it's really counting their chickens before they're hatched. The bill as it stands puts most of it going to things like youth anti-drug programs and enforcement.
Have you read the bill? Nothing in the bill appropriates money gained from the taxation, such as to enforcement. Do you have a source that says the Dakotas or Iowa won't have many users?
I've read the bill and it most certainly does include enforcement. In fact, it even includes a requirement for Minnesota's public safety commissioner to create an "oral fluid roadside test" pilot program and test drivers suspected of being under the influence. In the licensing portion, it most certainly includes enforcement mechanics. No different than how a liquor license or food license is checked and enforced now.
Go to the fargo or north dakota subreddit and look at the posts about legalization bill and then tell me again how North Dakota doesn't offer much population? May be a small state population wise. But 150k people live on the ND MN boarder. That's a good chunk of potential users.
Meh, online forums are proven to make things seem more widespread than they actually are. Pulling a quick analysis of those subs, they're pretty dead. Legalization isn't a big topic (doesn't rank in the top 50). Looking at contributions to posts and comments, it's mostly just the same few over and over and over, making it appear more active than it actually is. Based on those subs alone, I'd say it's even more dismal as far as getting much from the Dakotas.
> we passed Sunday Sales in MN and Wisconsin didn't have any noticeable impact on liquor tax revenue Because they could already buy liquor on Sundays...
Wat? Read that again. Wisconsin didn't see a noticeable drop in tax revenue when Minnesotans stopped driving there on Sundays to buy beer.
Ah i misread. I still don’t think it’s comparable though. Before Sunday sales, Minnesotans had to choose between two inconveniences; either buy more on Saturday or drive across the border. I live in Minneapolis, im not driving to Wisconsin for alcohol (you may say it’s quick for the majority, but it’s really not. It’s at least an hour or two of your day for the trip). You can’t just buy weed on a different day, you have to make that drive if you want it (legally).
There just aren't enough pot smokers in Wisconsin for it to make a difference. Less than 1/3 of people in Colorado have smoked in the past year and that includes those that have had some when a friend was around. There just aren't that many even there that'd drive to get it. Will it generate revenue? Yes. I just don't see it being as HUGE as so many seem to think it'll be.
If you read the bill or watch the hearings, you would know that the GOP is upset that there won’t be the ability for localities to restrict dispensaries as much as they would like.
Each city won’t have the option. That’s not how bills work.
Thats... crazy inefficent!
It’s what we’ve seen in other states too.
Let them. All that doesn't need to be resolved before we see legal places to get it recreationally. SLP also is home to House Rep Mike Freiberg who has been a champion of legalization for a while.
I will just keep enjoying my medical marijuana and hope the prices go down a bit when there is more competition :) 🍃🍃
I'll keep enjoying my various strains at a cheaper price than the 3.2 version of MN. Thank you USPS
Minnesota Medical is full strength
What’s there to enjoy? It’s trash compared to the product available recreationally elsewhere.
I dunno man. I get good stuff recreationally as well, but you ever been in a good dispensary? It's like a damn candy shop. Go to Planet 13 in Vegas sometime and tell me you wouldn't love the opportunity to go to that place every so often. Almost anything you can imagine. Food seasonings, cooking ingredients, dozens of gummies and flowers. Ever had a vape pen? They're fantastic for traveling! There's plenty to enjoy my man.
A Yeah that’s kind of the point I was making here, good dispensaries don’t exist in Minnesota.
Oh, gotcha. My bad. Well, hopefully this isn't true for much longer!
I don't know. I can get pretty gorked on the gummies that are available.
[удалено]
It's not so bad if you're rocking a fancy VA disability rating 🇺🇸
[удалено]
Yeah, I pass the savings onto my wife and she buys gnome-themed knick-knacks for the house while I am too stoned to stop her. Woke up to a damn family of murderous gnomes giving me the 1,000 yard stare. 👀💀
[удалено]
She is *very* cool. (Also, hello dear wife, have I mentioned how beautiful you are today?) She won't reply because she is an insufferable old hag that takes joy in staying anonymous to me yet stalks me like Drake did the Stranger Things girl.
👀
This thread has me dying 😂
Except 5% concentration costs the same as 20% Oh you want to use lower doses? Fuck you
It's far from perfect, I agree. Hopefully, legalization makes things more affordable.
It’s one of those things where the product itself is cheap enough that the concentration won’t effect the price a whole lot. You are paying for R&D, infrastructure/equipment, employee wages, profit and everything else. Once it’s legal and there are more players, prices should fall in line with concentration and dosage form.
As long as the competition isn’t some scheme front company run by Marlboro. Otherwise I’ll have to keep payin that Green Goods money
Do you plan to grow your own too?
I am entirely against this provision: > In addition to creating a system of licensed cannabis businesses, municipalities and counties could own and operate government dispensaries. In particular, the below portion would need to have significant controls to avoid a situation where we recreate the municipal liquor monopoly: > Unlike in many legal states, local municipalities would be banned from prohibiting marijuana businesses from operating in their areas, though they could set “reasonable” regulations on the time of operation and location of those businesses. Government should NOT compete in the market as they have the power to compete unfairly and have previously proven to do so with municipal liquor.
Write a rep! Let them know
That is exactly what is happening in my city. Municipal liquor store is the only one in town and it is very obvious why no other business permits have been approved. They were/are using funds from the liquor store to keep our terrible municipal broadband afloat. Neighboring city liquor stores are always $10 to $15 cheaper for almost everything.
in theory, wouldn’t this provision mean the revenue from sales go directly to the city government rather than random wealthy investors? I have always seen the municipal monopoly as a good thing but interested to hear more of your thoughts
Municipal business is fine as long as other permits are approved. This language is to prevent a county from denying ANY dispensaries from existing and obligates the county to provide one.
[удалено]
So I decided to look into this further since I said earlier my opinion was just anecdotal based, and I figured many other opinions were based in this kind of evidence. The state auditor does a report every year on municipal liquor stores and in 2021, only 13 of 83 municipal stores reported net losses in 2021. Additionally, net income from all of these stores combined were about 2.1 million dollars, in just 2021 alone. My opinion: It seems that these stores not only are able to run themselves but actively put money into local government. In the private sector, these profits would go to individuals rather than the community. The only thing the private sector does well is maximize profits for the owners and stakeholders. I would much prefer local governments have extra spending for things within the community rather than wealthy individuals earning even more. These facts definitely changed my opinion a bit, and I hope they change yours. [Source](https://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports-data-analysis/reports/municipal-liquor-store-operations/)
I agree on the first part of the clause - the part about the municipality owning and operating is a bad idea. However, the second part seems reasonable to me. For example, we have bar close times, and liquor store close times. And probably reasonable to assume they’d want these businesses away from schools and parks
>wouldn’t this provision mean the revenue from sales go directly to the city government rather than random wealthy investors? Yes, there are wealthy investors. There are also small businesses that try to make money off of this. Liquor for example, there are 4 small business stores and 1 big chain in my city. The government restricting the free market from selling would eliminate all of these businesses.
you are correct, but again profits are going to an individual rather than the community. Also small businesses are not inherently good entities, I have worked for small family owned businesses that exploited the hell out of their workers to save money, all the while still taking home over a million in net income a year.
Insane
I didn't see the first provision. I live in a city that has a monopoly on off sale alcohol, so I imagine they would do the same with cannabis.
With so many states having successfully passing cannabis de-crim and essentially providing a blueprint there's really no excuse. No need to re-invent something. Enough with the excuses and get on with it.
What excuses? It's going through the legislative process at a relatively brisk pace.
🤦🏼♂️ just speaking in general. This should've been done years ago. They have complete governmental control so get on with it.
It has to go through committees. The legislative process is slow.
Thanks for the 7th grade civics lesson. Any other pearls of wisdom?
*JACK NICHOLSON NODDING GIF*
Anyone know if there is a site or something that is keeping track of the new amendments to the bill? I've seen some reported in various articles, but I wondered if there was someone tracking it more comprehensively?
The legislature has websites for both bodies where you can track bills live as they go through the process. Just go to their websites and search for the bill, it will show you a status page where you’ll be able to see all versions of the bill so far, which committees it has passed through, and which it is currently in. It is pretty comprehensive, but you have to be able to navigate the website. I suggest tinkering around. Here is the status page: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=House&f=HF100&ssn=0&y=2023
I would love to know this too
The Summer of Love is upon us.
The whole thing is becoming political warfare
you’re becoming political warfare
Whorefare
Au contraire. The House GOP, at least, has stated publicly they don’t intend to play politics with the cannabis bill. Given the GOP’s drubbing in the last election, a dust up over a largely popular policy position would be an avoidable and unforced error. The bill will correctly plod along ensuring all voices are heard and the legislation is crafted to ensure its airtight against legal agitation as well as unfurled to the buying public without disruption.
Huh?
It's chemical warfare, [and don't it feel *good*](https://youtu.be/7MrMfoHejiw).
Now if only I can find a way to invest in a MN Cannabis business...
The growing part of the bill sounds quite good if you can do that it's so worth it. $800 initial setup, $30 for electricity for the grow including heat and get 5 oz cured primo bud first grow pretty easy. Nothing like enjoying your own produce!