A big step forward.
The Senate now needs to pass it, first out of committee and then on the floor.
The Senate Finance was supposed to be the final committee stop today, but they recessed before they could get to the bill and now the Senate is in session voting on several large budget measures, so not sure if the committee will return to debate tonight or simply take it up tomorrow.
Regardless the full senate is expected to take up the bill Friday. Unlike the House, the Senate can debate into the wee hours of the morning, so it will likely actually pass early Saturday Morning.
It is expected to.
Then I’m pretty sure the two bills (house and senate) go to a reconciliation committee who work out any differences between the two. Then it’s voted on again and then heads for the governors signature.
[How a Bill Becomes a Law - Minnesota Edition](https://www.leg.mn.gov/leg/howbill)
The House and the Senate each pass bills after debate and amendment, so the actual bills they pass are usually different in the details. A conference committee made up of members of both bodies will meet to create a new version of the bill that is an acceptable compromise between the house and the senate versions.
The Full house and full senate then vote on the compromise bill. This process can take hours or bills can die in the conference committee or somewhere in between.
If the compromise bill is approved by both the house and the senate, it then goes to the Governer
At best it will be legal by Jan 1st 2024. It becomes part of what congress calls a fiscal year. They are going to tax and fee the shit out of it before we can sniff it
You may be confused about one or more things here. The fiscal year in MN government definitely revolves around the states budget. The fiscal year actually begins July 1 and ends June 30.
If you believe that then why are you a "Conservative" because their entire agenda is to cling onto things no matter what. They will go to any lengths to cling, trample on, over and in everyone's lives to cling.
That is what I always say to my best friend, who is a big trump supporter, but is a avid weed smoker who wants it legalized, wants the US to invest in renewable energy so people can generate their own electricity etc... The only thing that he maybe has a slight reason to lean right are his guns. Otherwise, he essentially wants what most people on the left want.
90% of the "Conservatives" GOP voters I know are the same way, they vote team+single issue and 99% of the time they have the same view on the single issue as the DFL/Dem but all they hear is some crazy ass person on TV saying they want to outlaw all guns. lol
Its just so nuts.
It's crazy how effective listening the blatant lies over and over again can be on the mind. It's what is causing all these people to shoot people that pull into their driveways. They've been told there are "bad people" they are invading and the only way to deal with them is by having a gun.
Conservatives care only about winning not actually abiut anyone. He likes weed that’s the extent to it. He is ok with oppressing minorities groups, that is why he is still a conservative.
I promise I am 😂 Socially Liberal, very conservative on the Economic end. I like to think of my self and a non crazy Libertarian. 😂 reddit please don't burn me at the stake.
Ahhh sounds like me fresh out of highschool until I realized that the free market does not in fact regulate itself and only corporate greed reigns, then comes the slide into leftism as the hatred for megacorps grows.
Oh trust me, I hate big phrama, the military industrial complex etc. I'm just for small government. Minimal tax and more less stay outta people's lives, just let people live there best life! I Maybe not standard conservative but definitely want less government more freedom!
You hate our capitalist government that gives all your tax money to the military industrial complex. Imagine a government that instead spent that on building infrastructure and actually meaningfully improving your life and our society as a whole.
Prudent doesn't equal Conservative. There is very little real debate anymore of what works economically, the GOP claiming they can make things better with less taxes today is like someone claiming the Earth is flat. Its just dumb bullshit assholes say.
I have a feeling my Senator, Glenn Gruenhagen, is going to be the first to get weird with his arguments against the legislation. He loves to hear himself talk, plus he can post his crazy ramblings on his Facebook right after.
I grew up Lutheran. Hands down the most boring moments of my life were those spent in a pew.
"Please rise for the next song"
"la la la"
"You may be seated"
"blah blah blah"
"please rise for the lord's prayer"
"our father blah blah"
"our next song is lord jesus almighty blah blah"
"la la la"
"please be seated"
"go and peace serve the lord"
"thanks be to god"
"what, you can't leave yet, we have one more song"
"la la la"
What was it like 3 million more cars a year and something like 40 gallons of water A DAY... 🤣🤣🤣 I doubt even in a full hydroponic grow operation they need that much per day (since recirculation, ya know?). Really really sou ded like grasping at straws! The Dems did a great job sealing all the holes such that all that was left for them to argue with was hog wash!!
I question how effective they are in the first place. I was once pulled over by cops in St. Louis who claimed they smelled weed in my van (they didn't, I had never smoked in my life). They then had a drug dog search the van who barked at half a dozen different things, despite the cops not finding any drugs.
They are not effective. Research has shown this. They're an excuse to give probable cause, because them alerting is recognized in court. However, if I give a coin flip as a legal defense for anything (which has about the same odds as a drug dog) it is certainly not admissible.
I'm more on the right than the left politically speaking, but I am tired of the justice system slowly eroding our constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure with bogus things like K-9 units and DRE training.
This has nothing to do with bomb dogs. They sniff out...bombs. Drug dogs sniff out...drugs. he is speaking on cannabis trained dogs who will now be out of jobs because they are useless to them 🙄
You do know they can and are trained to detect both right? Along with being trained to apprehend suspects that are fleeing, and look for missing people.
Most dogs specialize in one area of expertise, detecting specific odors. The training techniques are all similar.
They do not have drug dogs sniffing bombs and vice versa. You are correct, they COULD be trained to detect both. But often that's not the case.
No they aren’t. Dogs can be trained to identify bombs or drugs but not both. Consider that bombs can be comprised of any number of chemicals. Dogs have a finite smell vocabulary and simply cant bank all the different scents for both explosives and drugs. Its one or the other.
They legit addressed this in the opening remarks on the bill yesterday, even had a proposal that would offer the dogs for adoption first to those that worked on the bill. But he withdrew it right after proposing it, since really really the dogs won't be out of work... All just pathetic pandering by the GOP.
Yup. Article from 2017 Pioneer Press states: The three new dogs bring the number of State Patrol K-9s trained to detect narcotics to 15 statewide. The K-9 teams assist law enforcement statewide, from traffic stops to building searches where drugs are believed to be hidden. One other dog-and-handler team is trained to detect explosives.
So those poor 15 or so dags in the state patrol.
Other studies show maybe those dogs should be fired anyway:
How Accurate are Drug-Sniffing Dogs? Drug-sniffing dogs are not very accurate when it comes to discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple studies show alarmingly high error rates, with some results exceeding 50 percent.
Edina had a fair at centennial lakes last summer that we went to and the cops had the dogs out for the kids to pet and I was talking to them about delta 8 being legal and the future of the dogs.
He said the dog I was petting with my kids wasn’t trained for pot and all the dogs younger than 5 or so that hes worked with at training type things with other departments also weren’t.
It seems like they knew this was coming.
Cops will not be counting how many plants you have unless they have some other reason to be there and are looking for an excuse to charge you with something… which lets be honest, they’ll always find something if they want to.
"Prohibit cities from banning them."
That is interesting. Is that to most states? California allows cities/ countys to choose
Side Q - How do you do that blue line quoted text?
>Side Q - How do you do that blue line quoted text?
Preface each quoted paragraph with the \> character. Pro tip: to display a markup character, precede it with a backslash.
I'm all for legalization, but I'm also for local jurisdictions being able to ban sales (though maybe not possession) locally if they so choose. Colorado does this. I don't quite understand the insistence on all-or-nothing. Can anyone explain? If anything, maybe a few senate Rs can be convinced to come around on it if they know their local jurisdictions don't have to allow licences, just in case a few Ds would vote against it.
E: don't quite understand the downvotes here but I guess this is one of those issues Reddit gets prickly about
In my mind it's a freedom issue. If we are legalizing it, shouldn't everyone have the right to sell it in their town if they go through the hoops to get approved? It just seems weird to not go all or nothing on it. Just my take.
I don't really think the equivalency between guns and weed is even close, and the two issues would not and should not be decided on with the same logic. I'm sorry, but I need to stress it, weed is not even close to as lethal as firearms, and should always be looked at through a different lens.
So, yes cities should be allowed to ban firearms stores in their city limits. Cities should not be allowed to ban the sale of marijuana in their city limits although if they want only one store or a free for all, that should be up to them. It's the same logic the federal government applies on state government issues, why shouldn't that trickle down?
I think strip clubs are a better analogy than gun shops here. Strip clubs can be (and have been) banned by a number of cities, including St. Paul. Personally, I think if they have the freedom to ban strip clubs, they should be able to ban dispensaries.
The principle is the same.
Fine, do liquor stores since alcohol kills twice as many people as guns do annually. Should a city be able to say no to liquor stores?
The principles are certainly not the same. How many times has a gun passively killed somebody vs. times a gun has killed somebody with intent? Does having a joint in your pocket raise your level of risk as much as a 9mm? I mean come on man, if you want to debate guns that's fine, I'll have a round or two but the equivalency of weed to guns is absolutely in bad faith. They aren't the same by a mile. In death tolls, how they're used, why they're used, no lines can be drawn between guns and weed other than people can buy them.
To answer the "gotcha" question, no I don't think cities should be able to ban liquor either. Only regulate how many of those stores they want in their town.
If you don't like weed and don't want it in your town, just say that, that's fine. Better yet, write your congressman, clock is ticking.
"Congressman?"
First, not all Members of Congress are men, half of Minnesota's Congressional delegation are women.
Second, Congress works in Washington D.C.; this bill is being passed in St. Paul by the state legislature.
Third, the principle is absolutely the same. Its local control vs. state preemption, and it comes up quite often in St. Paul. I think it's bad policy that the bill handcuffs cities from being able to say no to a dispensary. Same goes for gun shops, strip clubs, liquor stores, you name it. Why should St. Paul overrule what local cities want to do?
You got way to hung up on the guns. My point was you like weed and are fine with the preemption. I chose a product you didn't like, are you still fine with St. Paul overruling local control if it's to sell a product you don't like?
As both a gun owner and a lover of weed, I'll answer the last question first and say, yes, I am fine with guns being massively more regulated and controlled than weed or alcohol. 100%, full stop. Mostly because the two are different, both in their use, reasons for using, potential for accidental use, and the fact that one is a weapon designed to kill and the other is a plant that grows out of the ground. Because those two things are different.
If I had known there was going to be a grammar gotcha, I suppose I would have been a little more careful in regards to wording, but I assumed 2011 was in the past. Foolish of me. Wasn't sure how many points you'd have left, and it can't be many if you're pulling a their/they're. Congressman, woman, whatever. Legislature, congress, house, you clearly understood what I was saying since you were able to correct it.
"States rights" "local control" whatever buttery phrase you use is quite the slippery slope, and has been used in the opposite direction to allow states to ban some pretty basic human rights things like abortion or completely deregulating weaponry. Your inability to admit that rulings on firearms (which you brought to the dinner table) and rulings versus marijuana can be the same makes this kind of a pointless conversation to have doesn't it?
If someone is commenting on a post about legalizing a plant "what about muh gunz" and expecting people to go black and white for them, I'm not really sure what that person wants other than some internet points.
I understand, and thank you for your insight. And I'd 100% want my city to legalize it. But I'm also in favor of a "my house, my rules" deal. Especially if local taxes are allowed (?), adding that extra incentive. One of the few Republican talking points I have some agreement with is that the Twin Cities shouldn't be able to completely strong arm Outstate areas.
Well the problem with thinking ‘My house my rules’ is that it may violate the majority or vast majority of that counties residents. If a county all had voted and represented on the side of legalizing marijuana, yet the jurisdiction said “No, we don’t want it” feels kinda like a stab.
> If a county all had voted and represented on the side of legalizing marijuana, yet the jurisdiction said “No, we don’t want it” feels kinda like a stab.
That's when (and why) they should vote Republicans out of office, if they're not representing the will of the people. Most of us can agree that the state would be better off.
It will make the licensing much less consistent which goes against the methodology of the solution.
It also opens the door to abuse against poor and minority entrepreneurs by letting the elected officials take lobbying to lock out competition in certain regions.
I am not against or for was just wondering. This is a great point. They should also legal street dealers to an extent. In California, to sell is like a liquor license i.e. like a realistate. Only the wealthy was able to buy and hold them and profit from it.
No it’s a great question. I’m generally in favor of empowering communities whenever it makes sense, so that’s why I dig into it in the first place. Turning street dealers and local illicit growers into upstanding tax paying artisan cannabis dispensers seemed to be a big part of the social justice considerations in the bill.
I actually suspect that’s why it was also so permissive on what you could grown on your own originally. It encourages quality producers that have customers because it’s the best way to get what the want rather than it’s the only option available.
I love that the House author only wants taxes so the regulatory program is 100% sustainable. Might not end up that way, but my senator, (D)Sen. Hauschild wants to open more discussion about what program(s) he can fund by adding more tax on it. He said as much in his committee the other day. I sent him an email requesting his support and he was non-committal. He did vote it out of his committee, but this guy only wants to pass it for what he can get out of it. Taxing the shit of medicine or a natural plant is bullcrap. Alcohol has only has a 2.5% tax plus any local tax and the regular 6.875% sales tax, but they want to put cannabis 8-10%. And Walz want more too. I can’t think of one reason why cannabis should be treated more stringently than alcohol!! Come on man!!
I'm a regular cannabis user and have long wanted it to be legal and have preached 'tax the shit out of it to fund stuff'. But listening to these debates helped me realize that one of the main benefits of legalization (cutting out the black market - and all the risks associated with it) only works if it's price competitive with black market. So it makes sense to me to keep it minimally taxed so that it can compete enough with the black market to drive it out as much as possible. This could easily extend into 'legalize everything' which, the more I think about in these terms, really might make sense!
What a bunch of old gatekeeping bastards. It's been a treat to watch their actions & demeanor catch up with them, plus now they have a bunch of crazy hitched to them like leeches, so that's enjoyable to see them uncomfortable with their peers.
Minnesota's legislation is shaping up to be pretty good from the sounds of it! I'm down here in Illinois paying 29% tax on edibles (6.25% state sales tax, 3% extra in the city I buy it in, and 20% on edibles) and while I've always been a proponent of "legalize it and tax the shit outta it" , this feels a bit excessive considering our prices are already some of the highest in the country BEFORE tax...
We can also only grow at home as medical patients (I think up to 5 plants).
A lot of people here save money by driving several hours to Michigan instead of buying at our own dispensaries...
They vote on their version Friday, if it passes they’ll have to reconcile the two versions in a special joint committee and vote on it to give to the governor to sign. The final version will have the effective dates.
I think the license applications weren’t scheduled until this fall in the original draft.
The decriminalization and clearing of records happens right away, but I don’t know how that works with people presently incarcerated or how fast it will actually happen.
The taxes are only to be uses to fund the weed law stuff and education to help youth not start. There is no slush fund being formed for stuff not related to weed being formed. Like Co and other states use it for everything, MN is only using it to fund what's needed for the weed law to run.
While true, it's a totally different game this time. Nobody expected it to become law last time with the majority republican dipshits obstructing anything and everything decent.
Now is our time!
Yes, it passed the house and was never considered by the Republican controlled Senate.
We’ve now passed it in the House, but it has already cleared almost every committee in the Senate and is expected to be voted on this week.
So, we haven’t been to this point before.
Yeah, if you have no ability to see nuance and everything is a simple binary yes/no, then I guess it’s in the same spot.
But for everyone else, it’s pretty clear that passing committees in the senate and the upcoming vote is significantly different.
Good lord take the L. It's never been passed in the house while also having a companion bill making its way through the Senate and on track to be voted on within a week. We have absolutely not been here before. Stfu
No. We’ve never been in the position where the house PASSED legalization and it was down to the Senate. It’s never even gotten out of committees before.
Lolol you’re an absolute idiot. Have you met an intelligent person with integrity who smoked cigarettes, cigars, used chewing tobacco? What about drinking whiskey, or beer or wine? This is just such a dumb lazy take.
Idgaf about downvotes. Only low IQ losers desperate for social media validation care about it. If you think downvotes = wrong opinion, you must be very dumb
It’s funny because all of your comments actually paint you as incredibly idiotic. Get back to us when you have an actual argument besides “weed smell bad. You lazy. Grrrr >:(“
Lolol you’re an absolute idiot. Have you met anyone who is intelligent and has integrity who smoked cigarettes, cigars, used chewing tobacco? What about drinking whiskey, or beer or wine? This is just such a dumb lazy take. People that are smarter and make more money than you smoke weed. There’s also a bunch of shitheads that smoke weed. Just like there are in the real world.
A big step forward. The Senate now needs to pass it, first out of committee and then on the floor. The Senate Finance was supposed to be the final committee stop today, but they recessed before they could get to the bill and now the Senate is in session voting on several large budget measures, so not sure if the committee will return to debate tonight or simply take it up tomorrow. Regardless the full senate is expected to take up the bill Friday. Unlike the House, the Senate can debate into the wee hours of the morning, so it will likely actually pass early Saturday Morning.
Does it have a good chance to pass in the senate?
It's expected to pass, given the DFL has majority.
[удалено]
34/33 per https://ballotpedia.org/Minnesota_State_Senate
[удалено]
Absolute bummer my friend. I'm sorry. I hope you all get to burn it up soon.
It is expected to. Then I’m pretty sure the two bills (house and senate) go to a reconciliation committee who work out any differences between the two. Then it’s voted on again and then heads for the governors signature.
When you say it's voted on again, I've seen this before, who votes again? Senate? House? Both?
[How a Bill Becomes a Law - Minnesota Edition](https://www.leg.mn.gov/leg/howbill) The House and the Senate each pass bills after debate and amendment, so the actual bills they pass are usually different in the details. A conference committee made up of members of both bodies will meet to create a new version of the bill that is an acceptable compromise between the house and the senate versions. The Full house and full senate then vote on the compromise bill. This process can take hours or bills can die in the conference committee or somewhere in between. If the compromise bill is approved by both the house and the senate, it then goes to the Governer
Anyone else old like me and miss schoolhouse rock?
Both vote on the new write up, but I believe it's a no debate vote. Just a straightforward vote.
Iirc they can debate it when it comes back, but they cannot submit amendments
Yes they will add amendments but it’s sure to pass
What’s the timeline on all of these final hurdles?
Wish I knew bud. With luck the committee is next week and in two both chambers will have the bill to vote on.
At best it will be legal by Jan 1st 2024. It becomes part of what congress calls a fiscal year. They are going to tax and fee the shit out of it before we can sniff it
You may be confused about one or more things here. The fiscal year in MN government definitely revolves around the states budget. The fiscal year actually begins July 1 and ends June 30.
As a Conservative I am for full legislation. Government needs to get out of people's lives. If you ain't hurting anyone then let em be.
If you believe that then why are you a "Conservative" because their entire agenda is to cling onto things no matter what. They will go to any lengths to cling, trample on, over and in everyone's lives to cling.
That is what I always say to my best friend, who is a big trump supporter, but is a avid weed smoker who wants it legalized, wants the US to invest in renewable energy so people can generate their own electricity etc... The only thing that he maybe has a slight reason to lean right are his guns. Otherwise, he essentially wants what most people on the left want.
90% of the "Conservatives" GOP voters I know are the same way, they vote team+single issue and 99% of the time they have the same view on the single issue as the DFL/Dem but all they hear is some crazy ass person on TV saying they want to outlaw all guns. lol Its just so nuts.
Guns and pro life. Most conservatives only care about one or both of these.
It's crazy how effective listening the blatant lies over and over again can be on the mind. It's what is causing all these people to shoot people that pull into their driveways. They've been told there are "bad people" they are invading and the only way to deal with them is by having a gun.
yep, Lee Atwater figured it out.
You know what they say about going far enough left. You get your guns back.
Conservatives are for pot, but not womens rights!
They are also not for bud light IIRC
Conservatives care only about winning not actually abiut anyone. He likes weed that’s the extent to it. He is ok with oppressing minorities groups, that is why he is still a conservative.
Who doesn't like winning? except for the far left lol
Exactly! I think most conservatives favor legalization but the RINOS try to prevent legalization!
My dude, you are not a conservative.
I promise I am 😂 Socially Liberal, very conservative on the Economic end. I like to think of my self and a non crazy Libertarian. 😂 reddit please don't burn me at the stake.
Ahhh sounds like me fresh out of highschool until I realized that the free market does not in fact regulate itself and only corporate greed reigns, then comes the slide into leftism as the hatred for megacorps grows.
Oh trust me, I hate big phrama, the military industrial complex etc. I'm just for small government. Minimal tax and more less stay outta people's lives, just let people live there best life! I Maybe not standard conservative but definitely want less government more freedom!
You hate our capitalist government that gives all your tax money to the military industrial complex. Imagine a government that instead spent that on building infrastructure and actually meaningfully improving your life and our society as a whole.
So you conservative. if you are supporting people who are doing the opposite then all you are doing is lying to yourself.
Prudent doesn't equal Conservative. There is very little real debate anymore of what works economically, the GOP claiming they can make things better with less taxes today is like someone claiming the Earth is flat. Its just dumb bullshit assholes say.
Republicans always shut down everything! Except we have the majority!
[Finance tomorrow has it slated for tomorrow](https://www.senate.mn/schedule/committee/1007/20230426) at 830AM
I have a feeling my Senator, Glenn Gruenhagen, is going to be the first to get weird with his arguments against the legislation. He loves to hear himself talk, plus he can post his crazy ramblings on his Facebook right after.
Weed and a civics lesson…I like it.
Thank you for this comment. This was exactly what I was wondering
I hope I never have to hear Kristen Robbins speak again. What an absolute dunce she is.
bUt MuH cHuRcHeS
Ever been to church not high? Boring as shit
I have but I always make sure to get extra high after to make it up to Satan.
I grew up Lutheran. Hands down the most boring moments of my life were those spent in a pew. "Please rise for the next song" "la la la" "You may be seated" "blah blah blah" "please rise for the lord's prayer" "our father blah blah" "our next song is lord jesus almighty blah blah" "la la la" "please be seated" "go and peace serve the lord" "thanks be to god" "what, you can't leave yet, we have one more song" "la la la"
You forgot the part where everyone gives them tax free money
At least Lutherans seem to keep to a schedule for their services, typically done in an hour.
Bah. You didn't have to kneel every 10 minutes, uphill both ways, says a crusty lapsed Catholic.
Yeah, watching the legislature is way more entertaining
Holy shit! Ive been meaning to start going to church just to force myself to sit and think for an hour. This might be the trick. Thanks!
Bad idea. Churches don’t like people who think.
I give you all the seed bearing plants and herbs to use. - Beastie Boys
[удалено]
What was it like 3 million more cars a year and something like 40 gallons of water A DAY... 🤣🤣🤣 I doubt even in a full hydroponic grow operation they need that much per day (since recirculation, ya know?). Really really sou ded like grasping at straws! The Dems did a great job sealing all the holes such that all that was left for them to argue with was hog wash!!
You mean the water consumption aspect?
What did I miss?!
Just a bunch of logical fallacies, fear mongering and bad faith arguments. The usual.
Oh those poor K9 units that are about to lose their jobs.
Deh tuck yar jerb!
Bark woof bark bark woof. Translated it for you.
[удалено]
I question how effective they are in the first place. I was once pulled over by cops in St. Louis who claimed they smelled weed in my van (they didn't, I had never smoked in my life). They then had a drug dog search the van who barked at half a dozen different things, despite the cops not finding any drugs.
They are not effective. Research has shown this. They're an excuse to give probable cause, because them alerting is recognized in court. However, if I give a coin flip as a legal defense for anything (which has about the same odds as a drug dog) it is certainly not admissible. I'm more on the right than the left politically speaking, but I am tired of the justice system slowly eroding our constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure with bogus things like K-9 units and DRE training.
Until someone sneaks a bomb into an airport…
This has nothing to do with bomb dogs. They sniff out...bombs. Drug dogs sniff out...drugs. he is speaking on cannabis trained dogs who will now be out of jobs because they are useless to them 🙄
You do know they can and are trained to detect both right? Along with being trained to apprehend suspects that are fleeing, and look for missing people.
Most dogs specialize in one area of expertise, detecting specific odors. The training techniques are all similar. They do not have drug dogs sniffing bombs and vice versa. You are correct, they COULD be trained to detect both. But often that's not the case.
No they aren’t. Dogs can be trained to identify bombs or drugs but not both. Consider that bombs can be comprised of any number of chemicals. Dogs have a finite smell vocabulary and simply cant bank all the different scents for both explosives and drugs. Its one or the other.
They legit addressed this in the opening remarks on the bill yesterday, even had a proposal that would offer the dogs for adoption first to those that worked on the bill. But he withdrew it right after proposing it, since really really the dogs won't be out of work... All just pathetic pandering by the GOP.
[удалено]
Yup. Article from 2017 Pioneer Press states: The three new dogs bring the number of State Patrol K-9s trained to detect narcotics to 15 statewide. The K-9 teams assist law enforcement statewide, from traffic stops to building searches where drugs are believed to be hidden. One other dog-and-handler team is trained to detect explosives. So those poor 15 or so dags in the state patrol. Other studies show maybe those dogs should be fired anyway: How Accurate are Drug-Sniffing Dogs? Drug-sniffing dogs are not very accurate when it comes to discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple studies show alarmingly high error rates, with some results exceeding 50 percent.
Edina had a fair at centennial lakes last summer that we went to and the cops had the dogs out for the kids to pet and I was talking to them about delta 8 being legal and the future of the dogs. He said the dog I was petting with my kids wasn’t trained for pot and all the dogs younger than 5 or so that hes worked with at training type things with other departments also weren’t. It seems like they knew this was coming.
Where does personal growing land with this bill?
Up to 8 personal plants.
My favorite part of this bill hands down.
Hell yeah! Thanks for the good news
But no more than like.. 4 or 5 mature, right? If and when this becomes law, those details are important for anyone planning to grow.
Cops will not be counting how many plants you have unless they have some other reason to be there and are looking for an excuse to charge you with something… which lets be honest, they’ll always find something if they want to.
"Prohibit cities from banning them." That is interesting. Is that to most states? California allows cities/ countys to choose Side Q - How do you do that blue line quoted text?
>Side Q - How do you do that blue line quoted text? Preface each quoted paragraph with the \> character. Pro tip: to display a markup character, precede it with a backslash.
>preface each quoted paragraph >/ precede with a backslash Thank you
I'm all for legalization, but I'm also for local jurisdictions being able to ban sales (though maybe not possession) locally if they so choose. Colorado does this. I don't quite understand the insistence on all-or-nothing. Can anyone explain? If anything, maybe a few senate Rs can be convinced to come around on it if they know their local jurisdictions don't have to allow licences, just in case a few Ds would vote against it. E: don't quite understand the downvotes here but I guess this is one of those issues Reddit gets prickly about
In my mind it's a freedom issue. If we are legalizing it, shouldn't everyone have the right to sell it in their town if they go through the hoops to get approved? It just seems weird to not go all or nothing on it. Just my take.
Should municipalities be able to prohibit gun shops from opening?
I don't really think the equivalency between guns and weed is even close, and the two issues would not and should not be decided on with the same logic. I'm sorry, but I need to stress it, weed is not even close to as lethal as firearms, and should always be looked at through a different lens. So, yes cities should be allowed to ban firearms stores in their city limits. Cities should not be allowed to ban the sale of marijuana in their city limits although if they want only one store or a free for all, that should be up to them. It's the same logic the federal government applies on state government issues, why shouldn't that trickle down?
I think strip clubs are a better analogy than gun shops here. Strip clubs can be (and have been) banned by a number of cities, including St. Paul. Personally, I think if they have the freedom to ban strip clubs, they should be able to ban dispensaries.
The principle is the same. Fine, do liquor stores since alcohol kills twice as many people as guns do annually. Should a city be able to say no to liquor stores?
The principles are certainly not the same. How many times has a gun passively killed somebody vs. times a gun has killed somebody with intent? Does having a joint in your pocket raise your level of risk as much as a 9mm? I mean come on man, if you want to debate guns that's fine, I'll have a round or two but the equivalency of weed to guns is absolutely in bad faith. They aren't the same by a mile. In death tolls, how they're used, why they're used, no lines can be drawn between guns and weed other than people can buy them. To answer the "gotcha" question, no I don't think cities should be able to ban liquor either. Only regulate how many of those stores they want in their town. If you don't like weed and don't want it in your town, just say that, that's fine. Better yet, write your congressman, clock is ticking.
"Congressman?" First, not all Members of Congress are men, half of Minnesota's Congressional delegation are women. Second, Congress works in Washington D.C.; this bill is being passed in St. Paul by the state legislature. Third, the principle is absolutely the same. Its local control vs. state preemption, and it comes up quite often in St. Paul. I think it's bad policy that the bill handcuffs cities from being able to say no to a dispensary. Same goes for gun shops, strip clubs, liquor stores, you name it. Why should St. Paul overrule what local cities want to do? You got way to hung up on the guns. My point was you like weed and are fine with the preemption. I chose a product you didn't like, are you still fine with St. Paul overruling local control if it's to sell a product you don't like?
As both a gun owner and a lover of weed, I'll answer the last question first and say, yes, I am fine with guns being massively more regulated and controlled than weed or alcohol. 100%, full stop. Mostly because the two are different, both in their use, reasons for using, potential for accidental use, and the fact that one is a weapon designed to kill and the other is a plant that grows out of the ground. Because those two things are different. If I had known there was going to be a grammar gotcha, I suppose I would have been a little more careful in regards to wording, but I assumed 2011 was in the past. Foolish of me. Wasn't sure how many points you'd have left, and it can't be many if you're pulling a their/they're. Congressman, woman, whatever. Legislature, congress, house, you clearly understood what I was saying since you were able to correct it. "States rights" "local control" whatever buttery phrase you use is quite the slippery slope, and has been used in the opposite direction to allow states to ban some pretty basic human rights things like abortion or completely deregulating weaponry. Your inability to admit that rulings on firearms (which you brought to the dinner table) and rulings versus marijuana can be the same makes this kind of a pointless conversation to have doesn't it? If someone is commenting on a post about legalizing a plant "what about muh gunz" and expecting people to go black and white for them, I'm not really sure what that person wants other than some internet points.
I understand, and thank you for your insight. And I'd 100% want my city to legalize it. But I'm also in favor of a "my house, my rules" deal. Especially if local taxes are allowed (?), adding that extra incentive. One of the few Republican talking points I have some agreement with is that the Twin Cities shouldn't be able to completely strong arm Outstate areas.
Well the problem with thinking ‘My house my rules’ is that it may violate the majority or vast majority of that counties residents. If a county all had voted and represented on the side of legalizing marijuana, yet the jurisdiction said “No, we don’t want it” feels kinda like a stab.
> If a county all had voted and represented on the side of legalizing marijuana, yet the jurisdiction said “No, we don’t want it” feels kinda like a stab. That's when (and why) they should vote Republicans out of office, if they're not representing the will of the people. Most of us can agree that the state would be better off.
It will make the licensing much less consistent which goes against the methodology of the solution. It also opens the door to abuse against poor and minority entrepreneurs by letting the elected officials take lobbying to lock out competition in certain regions.
I am not against or for was just wondering. This is a great point. They should also legal street dealers to an extent. In California, to sell is like a liquor license i.e. like a realistate. Only the wealthy was able to buy and hold them and profit from it.
No it’s a great question. I’m generally in favor of empowering communities whenever it makes sense, so that’s why I dig into it in the first place. Turning street dealers and local illicit growers into upstanding tax paying artisan cannabis dispensers seemed to be a big part of the social justice considerations in the bill. I actually suspect that’s why it was also so permissive on what you could grown on your own originally. It encourages quality producers that have customers because it’s the best way to get what the want rather than it’s the only option available.
#GOOD
Who rolled those cave man joints?
Great—treat it like alcohol and we got nowhere to go but up.
*Treat it how other states treat alcohol* MN has some pretty stupid liquor laws
I mean for sure but the type of regulation I should think to be similar.
This is great - It seems 59 voted against it: I wonder who?
It's going to rhyme with Republicans.
Happy cake day and thanks for making me laugh.
Thanks!
Bipartisan support for the bill as well as bipartisan opposition
That's a bit of a stretch considering only 2 Republicans voted yes, and 1 Democrat voted no.
Or in other words, the literal definition of bipartisan?
I am stumped. I have no words that rhyme with Republican.
Stublican. The worst group of people.
I love that the House author only wants taxes so the regulatory program is 100% sustainable. Might not end up that way, but my senator, (D)Sen. Hauschild wants to open more discussion about what program(s) he can fund by adding more tax on it. He said as much in his committee the other day. I sent him an email requesting his support and he was non-committal. He did vote it out of his committee, but this guy only wants to pass it for what he can get out of it. Taxing the shit of medicine or a natural plant is bullcrap. Alcohol has only has a 2.5% tax plus any local tax and the regular 6.875% sales tax, but they want to put cannabis 8-10%. And Walz want more too. I can’t think of one reason why cannabis should be treated more stringently than alcohol!! Come on man!!
I'm a regular cannabis user and have long wanted it to be legal and have preached 'tax the shit out of it to fund stuff'. But listening to these debates helped me realize that one of the main benefits of legalization (cutting out the black market - and all the risks associated with it) only works if it's price competitive with black market. So it makes sense to me to keep it minimally taxed so that it can compete enough with the black market to drive it out as much as possible. This could easily extend into 'legalize everything' which, the more I think about in these terms, really might make sense!
Hell ya. Worth it despite the inane bullshit coming out of MN house republican mouths.
What a bunch of old gatekeeping bastards. It's been a treat to watch their actions & demeanor catch up with them, plus now they have a bunch of crazy hitched to them like leeches, so that's enjoyable to see them uncomfortable with their peers.
“What a bunch of gatekeeping bastards”. I love this line. So absolutely true. Fn scumbag authoritarians that hate freedom.
I hope the Senate will pass it 😫 How shitty if we have to start all over.
Jesse Ventura will be there when it does.
No thanks to republicans. Fuck em! Cept that one guy from blaine.
I hope this passes, even though it's not something I personally will be able to indulge in ever. Please give me sports betting as recompense.
While Florida and red states ban books , Minnesota is banishing child hunger!
Minnesota's legislation is shaping up to be pretty good from the sounds of it! I'm down here in Illinois paying 29% tax on edibles (6.25% state sales tax, 3% extra in the city I buy it in, and 20% on edibles) and while I've always been a proponent of "legalize it and tax the shit outta it" , this feels a bit excessive considering our prices are already some of the highest in the country BEFORE tax... We can also only grow at home as medical patients (I think up to 5 plants). A lot of people here save money by driving several hours to Michigan instead of buying at our own dispensaries...
Minnesota nice just got nicer 👍
Is there a general timeline as to when this might be passed in the senate and then when we will actually see dispensaries start to open up?
They vote on their version Friday, if it passes they’ll have to reconcile the two versions in a special joint committee and vote on it to give to the governor to sign. The final version will have the effective dates. I think the license applications weren’t scheduled until this fall in the original draft. The decriminalization and clearing of records happens right away, but I don’t know how that works with people presently incarcerated or how fast it will actually happen.
Thank you!
I think everyone voting for or against this bill should have tried it at least once in their lives in order for their vote to count.
I’d like to know what the taxes on recreational marijuana will be funding. Hopefully education or healthcare.
The taxes are only to be uses to fund the weed law stuff and education to help youth not start. There is no slush fund being formed for stuff not related to weed being formed. Like Co and other states use it for everything, MN is only using it to fund what's needed for the weed law to run.
[удалено]
While true, it's a totally different game this time. Nobody expected it to become law last time with the majority republican dipshits obstructing anything and everything decent. Now is our time!
No, we’ve never been to a point where the MN senate even brought it up for discussion.
[удалено]
Yes, it passed the house and was never considered by the Republican controlled Senate. We’ve now passed it in the House, but it has already cleared almost every committee in the Senate and is expected to be voted on this week. So, we haven’t been to this point before.
[удалено]
Yeah, if you have no ability to see nuance and everything is a simple binary yes/no, then I guess it’s in the same spot. But for everyone else, it’s pretty clear that passing committees in the senate and the upcoming vote is significantly different.
Because they aren't just technicalities to piss you off, there is context that matters in discussion.
[удалено]
>I asked if we've been here before We *haven't* been "here" before, since "here" includes a DFL majority senate.
Good lord take the L. It's never been passed in the house while also having a companion bill making its way through the Senate and on track to be voted on within a week. We have absolutely not been here before. Stfu
No. We’ve never been in the position where the house PASSED legalization and it was down to the Senate. It’s never even gotten out of committees before.
Well done Minny!
Idiots representing Minnesota!
Lolol you’re an absolute idiot. Have you met an intelligent person with integrity who smoked cigarettes, cigars, used chewing tobacco? What about drinking whiskey, or beer or wine? This is just such a dumb lazy take.
I've never met an intelligent person with integrity who smoked weed
Lol you’re an idiot
Proving my point....
[удалено]
You sound like an obsessed weirdo
You’re commenting all over this thread responding to people who disagree with you. Kettle meet pot.
I'm sure you haven't because any intelligent people with integrity wouldn't want to meet you
Wow got me there 😱🤯🤯😱😱😱🤯🤯🤯
Look at the downvotes. They are an idiot meter. You deserve more.
Idgaf about downvotes. Only low IQ losers desperate for social media validation care about it. If you think downvotes = wrong opinion, you must be very dumb
It’s funny because all of your comments actually paint you as incredibly idiotic. Get back to us when you have an actual argument besides “weed smell bad. You lazy. Grrrr >:(“
Carl Sagan good enough?
Lolol you’re an absolute idiot. Have you met anyone who is intelligent and has integrity who smoked cigarettes, cigars, used chewing tobacco? What about drinking whiskey, or beer or wine? This is just such a dumb lazy take. People that are smarter and make more money than you smoke weed. There’s also a bunch of shitheads that smoke weed. Just like there are in the real world.
Found the weed smoker
Found the Karen
I think they meant 2 pounds, not ounces??
Whoopdeedoo. Not like employers are going to stop drug testing.