OT: Legal Weed in MN - Coming Soon?

Totally agree. Its ridiculous that it isn't legal everywhere. 

p.s. Question for those around Minneapolis: did I hear correctly that they are considering broadcasting over loudspeakers downtown the Muslim prayer like they do in other Muslim cities in the Middle East? I saw a political cartoon on it in the Strib online, but have no idea if its a real possibility or not?

It will probably pass with a Dem trifecta in the state right now; House/Senate/Governor.

It will first get voted on in the House and then maybe later this week in the state senate. 

IF it passes both, they'll need to reconcile the differences across what the two houses passed and then on to the Gov who said he'd sign it. 

Last year the MN House passed legalization, but it died in the Senate where the Republicans used to have a majority. Team red blew that majority in the mid-terms. 

I just hope whatever they pass takes the learning from states like Michigan and Colorado on how to do it right vs doing it badly. 

It doesn't really matter to me if it passes or not, I've been able to get my weed any way I want to since I was a teen- except at a dispensary. 

@"StickyBun" said: Totally agree. Its ridiculous that it isn't legal everywhere. 

p.s. Question for those around Minneapolis: did I hear correctly that they are considering broadcasting over loudspeakers downtown the Muslim prayer like they do in other Muslim cities in the Middle East? I saw a political cartoon on it in the Strib online, but have no idea if its a real possibility or not?

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"StickyBun" said: Totally agree. Its ridiculous that it isn't legal everywhere. 

p.s. Question for those around Minneapolis: did I hear correctly that they are considering broadcasting over loudspeakers downtown the Muslim prayer like they do in other Muslim cities in the Middle East? I saw a political cartoon on it in the Strib online, but have no idea if its a real possibility or not?

There were limits on the # of times you can call to prayer a day and that limit was removed. 

@"TBro" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"StickyBun" said: Totally agree. Its ridiculous that it isn't legal everywhere. 

p.s. Question for those around Minneapolis: did I hear correctly that they are considering broadcasting over loudspeakers downtown the Muslim prayer like they do in other Muslim cities in the Middle East? I saw a political cartoon on it in the Strib online, but have no idea if its a real possibility or not?

There were limits on the # of times you can call to prayer a day and that limit was removed. 

Correct. They can broadcast it 24/7 now. This is a direct violation of Church and State via the Establishment Clause, but the City Council has at least 2 Muslims, and the rest of them are in Full Support and do not care about the Constitution. Hopefully it get's legally challenged. Freedom of Religion shouldn't mean you get to subject everyone else to it. 

Just get used to the idea that the stores will always be out of Funyuns. 

@"MaroonBells" said: Just get used to the idea that the stores will always be out of Funyuns. 

@"StickyBun" said: Totally agree. Its ridiculous that it isn't legal everywhere. 

p.s. Question for those around Minneapolis: did I hear correctly that they are considering broadcasting over loudspeakers downtown the Muslim prayer like they do in other Muslim cities in the Middle East? I saw a political cartoon on it in the Strib online, but have no idea if its a real possibility or not?

They are opening a Muslim Charter school in Faribault (where I'm from).  So they're using public funds to open a religious school. 

1.  Did I miss other religions getting in on this?2.  How is this not segregation?

I also read the call to prayer thing.  I'd like to see it actually happen on a video or hear first hand from someone that lives there.

@"AGRforever" said:

@"StickyBun" said: Totally agree. Its ridiculous that it isn't legal everywhere. 

p.s. Question for those around Minneapolis: did I hear correctly that they are considering broadcasting over loudspeakers downtown the Muslim prayer like they do in other Muslim cities in the Middle East? I saw a political cartoon on it in the Strib online, but have no idea if its a real possibility or not?

They are opening a Muslim Charter school in Faribault (where I'm from).  So they're using public funds to open a religious school. 

1.  Did I miss other religions getting in on this?2.  How is this not segregation?

I also read the call to prayer thing.  I'd like to see it actually happen on a video or hear first hand from someone that lives there.

Good. It shouldn't be an issue, there are more pressing issues that need to be addressed 

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"AGRforever" said:

@"StickyBun" said: Totally agree. Its ridiculous that it isn't legal everywhere. 

p.s. Question for those around Minneapolis: did I hear correctly that they are considering broadcasting over loudspeakers downtown the Muslim prayer like they do in other Muslim cities in the Middle East? I saw a political cartoon on it in the Strib online, but have no idea if its a real possibility or not?

They are opening a Muslim Charter school in Faribault (where I'm from).  So they're using public funds to open a religious school. 

1.  Did I miss other religions getting in on this?2.  How is this not segregation?

I also read the call to prayer thing.  I'd like to see it actually happen on a video or hear first hand from someone that lives there.

Hey! I didnt know you were one of us? 

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minnesota-house-on-verge-of-passing-recreational-marijuana-bill/
ST. PAUL, Minn. – Minnesota is inching closer to
joining a growing list of states to legalize marijuana, as the state
House considers a 300-page bill that would allow recreational use for
adults and shift a black market into a state regulated industry.  
"Today
is a big day because we are now at the five-yard line in terms of
getting to legal cannabis in the state of Minnesota," the bill's author
Rep. Zack Stephenson, DFL-Coon Rapids, said during a press conference
ahead of the vote.  
After debating the bill late into Monday
night, lawmakers tabled it just after 12 a.m. Tuesday and the House
adjourned. The House has a standing rule that they don't meet past
midnight, which is intended to keep legislators safe. House Majority
Leader Jamie Long told the gallery they'd resume discussion first thing
on Tuesday and subsequently vote on the bill.
The bill would allow
people 21 and older to buy, sell – if approved for state business
licenses – and use marijuana. The proposal would create a new state
Office of Cannabis Management, tasked with oversight. Minnesotans looking to cash in would apply for business licenses for the green light to grow, manufacture or sell marijuana at dispensaries. 
MORE: The business of marijuana - What would it look like if Minnesota passes a law legalizing it?

BREAKING: The Minnesota House overwhelmingly passes sweeping measure to legalize recreational marijuana in Minnesota, 71-59. pic.twitter.com/a1xMyWmqrq — Patrick Kessler (@PatKessler) April 25, 2023

@"HappyViking" said:

BREAKING: The Minnesota House overwhelmingly passes sweeping measure to legalize recreational marijuana in Minnesota, 71-59. pic.twitter.com/a1xMyWmqrq — Patrick Kessler (@PatKessler) April 25, 2023

The fact that they are voting on this Friday is a big leap forward (or back depending on your pov)

Now if they pass it as expected? That is a big deal - but they still have a 5/22 deadline to get something done and over the finish line. 

I don't drink or smoke, so I don't have a lot of knowledge of either, but the question I have with it is how you do you police those who are diving under the influence? With alcohol you can test, but to my knowledge there is no way to test for it if you were to pull someone over with suspicion.  Even though legal in CA, the law is still like the open container law with alcohol, but we have people who think they are free to smoke it while driving.  

Way to go Minnesota - this is going to happen ! 

https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-senate-to-vote-on-legalizing-marijuana/600270909/
The
Minnesota Senate cast its first-ever vote to legalize recreational
marijuana on Friday, pushing the proposal closer to becoming law than
ever before.

Both chambers of the Minnesota legislature have appointed bipartisan House and Senate conferees to negotiate a final deal on a marijuana legalization bill that can be sent to the governor to be signed into law.A total of 10 bicameral negotiators were selected to resolve differences between their companion legalization measures that cleared their respective chambers last week. The members will hold meetings to agree on the provisions of a reconciled bill, then send it to the House and Senate for final floor votes before the legislation can be sent to to Gov. Tim Walz (D).
While both versions would end prohibition and set up a regulated system of marijuana sales in the state, they were amended in different ways throughout an extensive committee process in recent months. One of the key differences that will need to be addressed concerns the tax rate for cannabis sales.
With the legislative session set to end later this month, the plan is to work out those areas of disagreement in short order, and the conferee appointments are the first step to that end.
On the House side, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Zack Stephenson (D), was selected as one of the chamber’s five negotiators on Monday. He is joined by Reps. Athena Hollins (D), Jess Hanson (D), Alicia Kozlowski (D) and Nolan West (R).

West was among several Republican members to offer amendments during committee consideration and on the floor, including adopted proposals to lower possession limits and increase funding for law enforcement drug recognition expert training.
He ultimately voted in favor of the overall bill, so his participation in the conference could strengthen the bipartisan appeal of the final product.
Over in the Senate on Tuesday, another five conferees were appointed, including the sponsor Sen. Lindsey Port (D). The other negotiators from the chamber are: Sens. Clare Oumou Verbeten (D), Erin Murphy (D), Susan Pha (D) and Jordan Rasmusson (R).

Rasmusson is another example of a GOP member who filed amendments throughout the process—at one point securing bipartisan agreement on a proposal to require specific warning label language on cannabis products. That said, unlike Nolan in the House, Rasmusson did not ultimately vote in favor of the bill.

The session ends this month, on May 22, giving lawmakers just a few weeks to reach consensus, hold final votes and get the bill to the governor’s desk.
With majorities in both the House and Senate and control over the governorship this session, Democratic-Farmer-Labor party officials have been expressing confidence that legalization will be enacted this year.
Here are the main components of the revised marijuana legalization bills, HF 100 and SF 73:

Adults 21 and older could purchase and possess in public up to two ounces of cannabis and they would be allowed to cultivate up to eight plants at home, four of which could be mature.
The House bill would allow people to possess up to 1.5 pounds in a private dwelling, while the Senate bill would let people have up to five pounds of self-cultivated cannabis at home and up to two pounds derived from any other source.
Gifting up to two ounces of marijuana without remuneration between adults would be permitted.
Prior marijuana records would also be automatically expunged. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension would be responsible for identifying people who are eligible for relief and process the expungements.
In addition to creating a system of licensed cannabis businesses, municipalities and counties could own and operate government dispensaries.
On-site consumption permits could be approved for events, and cannabis delivery services would be permitted under the bill.
Local governments 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. The Senate bill contains a provision that would allow local governments to limit the number of cannabis business licenses based on population size.
Under the House bill, cannabis sales would be taxed at eight percent—and thereafter, the commissioner of management and budget would adjust the rate every two years so that revenues equal, or do not significantly exceed, the costs of implementing legalization incurred by various agencies. The Senate bill calls for a 10 percent tax rate on marijuana sales that would not change over time.
Part of the tax revenue would fund substance misuse treatment programs, as well as grants to support farmers.
A new Office of Cannabis Management would be established, and it would be responsible for regulating the market and issuing cannabis business licenses. There would be a designated Division of Social Equity.
The legislation would promote social equity, in part by ensuring diverse licensing by scoring equity applicants higher. People living in low-income neighborhoods and military veterans who lost honorable status due to a cannabis-related offense would be considered social equity applicants eligible for priority licensing, and the House bill says that people convicted of cannabis offenses, or who have an immediate family member with such a conviction, would also qualify.

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/bipartisan-minnesota-lawmakers-appointed-to-finalize-marijuana-legalization-bill-in-bicameral-conference/

@"JR44" said: I don't drink or smoke, so I don't have a lot of knowledge of either, but the question I have with it is how you do you police those who are diving under the influence? With alcohol you can test, but to my knowledge there is no way to test for it if you were to pull someone over with suspicion.  Even though legal in CA, the law is still like the open container law with alcohol, but we have people who think they are free to smoke it while driving.  

Law enforcement needs to be trained well on this.

Nobody should be toking-up and getting behind the wheel, any more so than partying at the bar with some cocktails and then driving.

Impaired driving is impaired driving regardless of the drug of choice. 

@"JR44" said: I don't drink or smoke, so I don't have a lot of knowledge of either, but the question I have with it is how you do you police those who are diving under the influence? With alcohol you can test, but to my knowledge there is no way to test for it if you were to pull someone over with suspicion.  Even though legal in CA, the law is still like the open container law with alcohol, but we have people who think they are free to smoke it while driving.  

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"JR44" said: I don't drink or smoke, so I don't have a lot of knowledge of either, but the question I have with it is how you do you police those who are diving under the influence? With alcohol you can test, but to my knowledge there is no way to test for it if you were to pull someone over with suspicion.  Even though legal in CA, the law is still like the open container law with alcohol, but we have people who think they are free to smoke it while driving.  

Legit concern!

Law enforcement needs to be trained well on this.

Nobody should be toking-up and getting behind the wheel, any more so than partying at the bar with some cocktails and then driving.

Impaired driving is impaired driving regardless of the drug of choice.