addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

MN NORML Message Board › Minnesotans can’t smoke medical marijuana, but could they grow it?

Minnesotans can’t smoke medical marijuana, but could they grow it?

This message board is read-only.

A former member
Post #: 1
A bipartisan bill introduced in the Minnesota House on Monday could give the state’s agricultural sector a boost in the form of a new cash crop: medical marijuana. Gov. Tim Pawlenty last year vetoed an effort to legalize medical cannibis, but this measure has a different aim — to give farmers the OK to grow pot for export to states where its medicinal use is legal.

The Medical Marijuana Production and Export Act is sponsored by DFL Reps. Phyllis Kahn, Tom Rukavina, Al Juhnke, Tom Huntley and Frank Hornstein, joined by Republican Rep. Jim Abeler.

Read the entire article here:
http://minnesotaindep...­

The bill they are trying to pass is here.
https://www.revisor.m...­

IMHO …

The intent of MN Bill 2997 is to provide legislation that controls the growing, selling and transport of MM. If this bill passes, and later, a Medical Marijuana bill passes, it puts all MM production in the hands of State licensed facilities, which will be highly scrutinized by LEO and other Government jerks. There would be no caregiver or patient grows … all patients would be at the mercy of MN State Government and MN licensed facilities, as well as Cargill, Betaseed, Bushel Boy, and other Bigpharma companies!

No doubt, MN State Government will say they are trying to stop the confusion in most (if not all) of the 14 States with Legal Medical Marijuana Laws on the books concerning grows, distribution, sale or compensation, etc.

If this MN bill passes, there will be a mass exodus of potential patients who need and deserve the freedoms to grow and use herbal medications. This is not good for the State, or potential qualified patients.

And yes, it would allow the distribution of 'State Grown MM' to States with MM Laws, but it would still be illegal under Federal Law. (That's the BS part of it all.) And, if this bill passes, I will be the first one to leave this f*ing State.

Don’t forget, a vote for Pawlenty (if he runs for election to Federal Government) is a vote for subjugation and suppression. MN passed a Medical Marijuana Bill in State Government last year, a highly watered-down version of a compassionate bill that only allowed the use of MM by the TERMINALLY ILL … and our Gov Pawlenty VETOED the Bill!

MN citizens say, ‘We’ve had Plenty of Pawlenty!’

Never give up HOPE.
Peace.

What can be done to stop this bill before it passes!

Kurtis W. H.
KurtisWHanna
Minneapolis, MN
Post #: 18
I guess that I don't see this bill as being as evil as you do. I highly doubt that the other states that already have medical marijuana laws which allow for personal cultivation are going to change their laws to make it so that patients can only get their medicine by getting marijuana that's been imported from Minnesota. Is that what you are saying? Do you have reasons why you think that?

-kurt
A former member
Post #: 3
Kurt ...
Thanks for the reply.

If you consider that most states with Medicinal Cannabis laws are struggling with dispensaries, caregivers, production ... cities and counties are rushing to put in ordinances to adapt to existing laws.
MN has no Med Cana law. If they can pass a law that regulates the growing, dispensing of Medicinal Cannabis BEFORE we even have such laws in MN, and make laws that regulate the production of Cannabis BEFORE it is legal to consume in MN, and before it is legal to 'distribute' to other states (Federal Law), the State of MN will have a law on the books that allows BIG PHARMA to grow, distribute ... in MN before we have a chance to put a law on the books that allows Qualified Patients, Compassionate Caregivers, NON PROFIT dispensaries to grow and distribute and use Medicinal Cannabis.

Come on. This is a 'FARM' bill tagged onto an Educational Bill (as I understand it.) Look what our State is trying to do with the production of CORN for ethanol.

Can we, as Minnesotans, put a Voter Initiative before the public in the next election ... a law at least as Compassionate as the MI law? BEFORE the State passes a law that would make such an initiative MUTE ... and of no effect?

It's harder to change a LAW on the books then it is to MAKE A NEW LAW, especially, if over 55% of MN Citizens would vote for Medical Marijuana here in MN!

This bill will be law before we can even get signatures to put a voter initiative before our citizens ...
that's my concern.

PEACE!
Dan V.
user 11326659
Saint Paul, MN
Post #: 2
Chaplain,

Minnesota is a non-initiative state.

We elect representatives to make our laws. If we're unhappy with the job they're doing, we must boot them on Election Day.

Dan
Kurtis W. H.
KurtisWHanna
Minneapolis, MN
Post #: 24
Dan is right. We can't do a voter initiative here in Minnesota. Here are three approaches that I think are worth pursuing...

1) Get a Local Unit of Government (a city or a county in MN) to petition the MN Board of Pharmacy and ask them to remove marijuana from Schedule I because it no longer fits the definition as a Schedule I substance. Schedule I substances have "no medical use in the United States". The 14 states that have medical marijuana laws are "in the United States." So, the Board of Pharmacy should update the books. If you read the Hanson cases that I just sent the group, you will see that if marijuana weren't in Schedule I, then a medical necessity defense could be used in court. An average citizen can petition the Board as well. I already wrote up a petition that you can look at in the archived emails for this group. Getting a local unit of government to send the petition instead would allow an "expedited rule making process" to go into effect. This would possibly topple marijuana prohibition in this state within 90 days. Does anyone know a compassionate city or members of a city council that would go to bat for us? Carl Olsen used a similar method in Iowa with the ACLU and got these results... http://iowamedicalmar...­ If we show that our neighbors to the south are already hot on this trail, it may be easier to convince at least one city in Minnesota that they should start asking our Board of Pharmacy some questions. We can convince them that they should be keeping up with the Joneses. Carl left a trail of breadcrumbs for us. http://iowamedicalmar...­

2) Gather our religious users together and request that the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy give us equal protection as they give religious users of peyote. Peyote is a Schedule I drug. The Native American Church is allowed to consume it in our state for religious ceremonies as a religious sacrament. The State Constitution affords Minnesota citizens with more religious liberty than the United States Constitution. If the Board of Pharmacy refuses to give us equal protection, then we should lawyer up and the Minnesota Judicial System's ability to interpret the Minnesota Constitution correctly.

The following is from State v. Pedersen....
http://scholar.google...­

"Article I, section 16, provides "[t]he right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed ... nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted." Minn. Const., art. I, § 16. "To excuse an imposition on religious freedom under the Minnesota Constitution, the government's interest must be one of peace or safety or an interest against an act of licentiousness." Murphy v. Murphy, 574 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Minn.App.1998). "Only religious practices that are licentious or inconsistent with peace or safety are denied an exemption." Id. (citing State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 9 (Minn.1990)).

In Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court held that a law of general application, which does not intend to regulate religious beliefs or conduct, is not invalid notwithstanding the incidental impact it has on an individual's religious beliefs. 494 U.S. 872, 876-82, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 1599-1602, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). The court observed: "[c]onscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs...." Id. at 879, 110 S.Ct. at 1600 (quoting Minersville Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-95, 60 S.Ct. 1010, 1012-13, 84 L.Ed. 1375 (1940)). Thus, the court in Smith rejected the compelling-state-interest test adopted in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972), and held, unequivocally, that neutral laws of general applicability are not subject to free-exercise challenges. Smith, 494 U.S. at 884-90, 110 S.Ct. at 1603-06.

But the Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted the Freedom of Conscience Clause to afford greater protection than the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution. See State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 397-98 (Minn.1990). Thus, in Hershberger, the court explained that the language in the Minnesota Constitution "is of a distinctively stronger character than the federal counterpart." Id. at 397. Accordingly, the court instructed that in order to determine whether an individual's rights under the Freedom of Conscience Clause are violated, the compelling-state-interest test articulates the standard to apply. Id. at 398. Therefore, "once a claimant has demonstrated a sincere religious belief intended to be protected by section 16, the state should be required to demonstrate that public safety cannot be achieved by proposed alternative means." Id.[3]"

3) Take a page from the grass roots party and get some candidates on the ballot. This helps us get cheap advertisement rates and a platform to get a marijuana debate going. We have a number of people in our rank that know a lot more about this process than me because they lived it. We should stand on the shoulders of these giants.

If anyone else knows of any other good spears that we can throw at the Prohibition Beast, please speak up. This is a good time to be on our side. Technique defeats power. That's what one learns from watching Mixed Martial Arts. I think it applies to activism as well. We need to find the right game plan to defeat this Goliath.

These are all things that can be done within the next few months. MPP's plan is to make sure that we get a compassionate Governor elected so that they can get a medical marijuana bill passed next year. This is a very promising plan as well and I think we should support them in this effort.

-kurt
Kurtis W. H.
KurtisWHanna
Minneapolis, MN
Post #: 25
Also, it's not expected that this bill will pass. I believe the deadline for all bills is Friday for them to be heard in committee. I don't think we have much to worry about since this bill will probably not even get to a committee in time to keep going this session.

-kurt
A former member
Post #: 4
Kurt,
Thank you for your succinct reply! I appreciate your response, and it was very informative.

I hope to meet you soon.

Regards,
Kelly
Kurtis W. H.
KurtisWHanna
Minneapolis, MN
Post #: 30
Yeah, no problem dude. Feel free to ask any more questions that you may have.

-kurt
A former member
Post #: 5
Dan is right. We can't do a voter initiative here in Minnesota. Here are three approaches that I think are worth pursuing...

1) Get a Local Unit of Government (a city or a county in MN) to petition
2) Gather our religious users together and request that the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy give us
3) Take a page from the grass roots party and get some candidates
-kurt

I have a fourth option, if you want to talk.
Peace.

I hope I didn't post this twice.
Kurtis W. H.
KurtisWHanna
Minneapolis, MN
Post #: 31
Of course I'd like to talk. Days work best for me if you are implying that you'd like to talk in person. Otherwise, feel free to post the fourth option on this thread or start a new one. Cheers.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy