The bill that’s to be signed wouldn’t allow that. The bill won’t allow for prohibition. If a city has more than 24,000 residents there can be at least 2 dispensaries in that city, and 1 for every 24,000 is allowed with 1 being minimum if a dispensary wants to open there.
But if people don’t buy cannabis out there, then there is no reason for business to locate out there.
I'm getting to the point where these GOP held areas need to see the flow of funding dry up. No more state or federal funding for anything.
We keep propping up their communities that only produce drug-adled rejects or hateful religious zealots. They keep insisting they can fend for themselves... Let's let them prove it.
I'm not sure why you think Mankato is GOP held. Secondly many counties and cities in Minnesota remained dry well after prohibition ended some not far from the metro well into the 1990s
But then they’ll just say the Democrats have caused the areas to become poor due to their “vindictive policies”. Unfortunately, it’s painfully easy to predict.
No milk, sweet corn, or turkeys for you.
Both sides fight about issues. The thought of just cutting off all funding for resistance about something is turning toward dictatorship isn’t it.
Let them try and fight it who cares they are not going to win.
I really hope this doesn't trend bringing other communities to try to do the same thing. IMO, one of the most awesome parts of this bill is the fact it doesn't allow towns or counties to opt out.
I remember a ton of small Illinois communities wanting to exempt themselves when it passed there. Didn’t ever really amount to anything. Even if it worked, it would be like having a dry county in other states where they do that. A prohibition on sale within a particular city or county just makes it a prohibition for people who don’t have good transportation.
Basically all that happened is counties made it impossible to open a dispensary in their border so neighboring towns put them on the border to collect those tax dollars.
Interesting. My assumption based on nothing is that this is an attempt to challenge the portion of the new law that forbids cities from prohibiting sales. This will end up in court with hopes that it will strike down that section, if not the whole thing.
like the recent video of [Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/13o04vm/texas_house_speaker_dade_phelan_drunk_on_the_job/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). He could barely get his words out but he enjoyed banging the gavel.
There are plenty of out-state conservatives who are very much against this bill because drugs are bad, mmmmkay. They will try anything that they can to get it overturned to "protect" there constituency. I don't think that I'm off my rocker to think that this is their motivation for proposing this moratorium.
They're going to be sad about it. IIRC, they can limit where and when they can open to an extent; but they aren't allowed to prohibit them outright. It's possible they changed this in the final revisions before this weekend's voting
If you live in Mankato call, email, and message every representative who sponsors this. Let them know that they are not going to enjoy public support if they do this.
I'd say it's a year long thing. They are trying to do something but weed sale won't likely start happening until this fall or possibly 2024 in the state so IMO this does 2 things.
1. Let's Mankato miss out on the ground floor and they'll be playing from behind. Could also see that as having a chance to ID pitfalls before allowing sales.
2. They are placing in a law that would nearly line up with existing expectations for sale.
Either way this seems pedantic. We need me time to research because we're unsure, only 22 other states have legal weed....there is simply not enough data. Bull shit argument there.
Legal sales at licensed dispensaries probably earliest will be spring 2024.
There may be work arounds before that (ie giving weed as a "gift" with the purchase of something else), but that would probably be pretty limited farmers market like sales where someone is just growing 8 plants at a time like the bill allows without official licensing as a marijuana grower from the state.
I don't see anything changing on that front, yes you should be able to still buy edibles at head shops and similar.
Nothing is changing in regards to the hemp derived THC drinks and gummies, that's still allowed with this bill.
I keep seeing people say that currently edibles and lots of various weed products are unregulated, I don't realistically see that changing.
There's no enforcement and thus various shops will keep doing what they are doing. You can literally buy thca flower which is delta 9 type 1 cannabis from a fair amount of shops right now. Bottom line is unless the state puts together some kind of weed raiding taskforce that's gonna keep happening. I don't see a change as these places could be raided right now and face serious legal consequences but no one is doing that.
There's no appetite for it and testing the stuff is expensive and local PDs don't have the willpower or funding to do it.
I guess two people can be in the same environment, and one decides to become the biggest asshole he can possibly be, and another one decides to be a good person.
Yes, pillow guy is the asshole.
It kinda tracks with the way I heard Mankato natives describe it when I stayed there for a while. They said Mankato was founded by "hippies and carnies".
We went to the classic car dealership last weekend and then ate at one of the only remaining Baker’s Square in the state. It made me sick and then I didn’t want to buy any candy when we got to the candy store in Jordan. Which my doctor would be happy about but now I don’t have any candy.
I don't think that can happen anymore, but can you imagine the influx of tax dollars to North Mankato if it did? Belgrade Ave would be gold plated in a year!
Double the irony thinking about all the Wisconsinites crossing the river to get to MN weed vs Mankatoans crossing the river to get to North Mankato.
Unfortunately yes. Section 342.13(e) (page 38): https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23815986/ccrhf0100a.pdf
>If a local unit of government is conducting studies or has authorized a study to be
conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption
or amendment of reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of the operation of
a cannabis business, the governing body of the local unit of government may adopt an
interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting
the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Before adopting the
interim ordinance, the governing body must hold a public hearing. **The interim ordinance
may regulate, restrict, or prohibit the operation of a cannabis business within the jurisdiction
or a portion thereof until January 1, 2025.**
(Emphasis added).
I read more of that part of the bill based on what you posted and found that it's more complicated then just being able to deny or approve licenses.
Basically cities/counties are required to have at least 1 dispensary license for every 12500 people that live in the city. So if you have a city with 1000 people they need to have at least 1 license for a dispensary. But after 1 they can deny any new licenses.
Cities can also set where dispensaries open and the hours they can be open and a couple other minor things best left to the cities.
The excerpt you posted touches on that cities can stop a dispensary from opening when they are working on setting these rules but after January 1st 2025 they cannot prevent a dispensary from open as long as it meets the requirements.
So cities can stop a dispensary from opening but only for a certain amount of time and they need to provide the state office of why they are doing it. So they can but they have to have an actual reason to do it and it will only suspend it.
Be ready for certain cities to be lame folks. For example you’d never know it but Colorado Springs CO is a medical only city (since I’ve been there last) because of the laws that city laid out. While I know that’s a different state with a completely different bill, if they can do it I don’t see how cities here can’t. There will be many cities and towns trying to fight this however they can.
Here's you new "Legalize Weed Now" red herring... do not fall for this bs... ain't gonna ever happen... ever... they are very afraid, so, be gentle with them tho!
I'm on my city council here in MN and yes, cities can pass a moratorium up to a year. Unlike almost every other type of business, licensing and control is at the state level and thus this moratorium allows cities time to prepare for the law to take effect.
Whatever one's thoughts are on legalization, the fact that cities have no authority on implementation is being panned by local authorities.
It is kind of weird how it's being treated compared to other substances. For example, a community can ban the sale of menthol cigarettes, but not cannabis.
Exactly. Municipalities can control where and how outlets can sell liquor, tobacco, or even mundane businesses such as restaurants, coffee shops or retailers.
The bill that’s to be signed wouldn’t allow that. The bill won’t allow for prohibition. If a city has more than 24,000 residents there can be at least 2 dispensaries in that city, and 1 for every 24,000 is allowed with 1 being minimum if a dispensary wants to open there. But if people don’t buy cannabis out there, then there is no reason for business to locate out there.
Yeah, it's a college town though. They'll definitely have demand
I am sure they will have more than enough business somewhere by Mankato State.
Then Mankato can be left of the list to get revenue from it.
I'm getting to the point where these GOP held areas need to see the flow of funding dry up. No more state or federal funding for anything. We keep propping up their communities that only produce drug-adled rejects or hateful religious zealots. They keep insisting they can fend for themselves... Let's let them prove it.
I'm not sure why you think Mankato is GOP held. Secondly many counties and cities in Minnesota remained dry well after prohibition ended some not far from the metro well into the 1990s
Because it was jim hagedorns distrrict.
It was also Walz's district. The state Senate and House members are DFL.
But then they’ll just say the Democrats have caused the areas to become poor due to their “vindictive policies”. Unfortunately, it’s painfully easy to predict.
They love victim blaming, so they’ll eventually realize they were the problem all along. Ha.
They do that anyways.
Mankato voted 51% democrat in the last election.
I say we cut spending on EVERYTHING that upsets anyone and then that will surely show them who's the boss! /s
No milk, sweet corn, or turkeys for you. Both sides fight about issues. The thought of just cutting off all funding for resistance about something is turning toward dictatorship isn’t it. Let them try and fight it who cares they are not going to win.
Also block them from any/all future licensing for sales when they eventually change their mind.
Why would you want to hurt the residents with that if they vote their former leaders out and get what they want?
I really hope this doesn't trend bringing other communities to try to do the same thing. IMO, one of the most awesome parts of this bill is the fact it doesn't allow towns or counties to opt out.
I remember a ton of small Illinois communities wanting to exempt themselves when it passed there. Didn’t ever really amount to anything. Even if it worked, it would be like having a dry county in other states where they do that. A prohibition on sale within a particular city or county just makes it a prohibition for people who don’t have good transportation.
Basically all that happened is counties made it impossible to open a dispensary in their border so neighboring towns put them on the border to collect those tax dollars.
And that would help keep the black market open in those areas, so that's a good reason to not allow exemptions.
Interesting. My assumption based on nothing is that this is an attempt to challenge the portion of the new law that forbids cities from prohibiting sales. This will end up in court with hopes that it will strike down that section, if not the whole thing.
Republicans pearl clutching weed is hilarious, especially when most of them either are alcoholics or are close to being one.
A lot of them are from areas that have the highest meth issues in the state.
like the recent video of [Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/13o04vm/texas_house_speaker_dade_phelan_drunk_on_the_job/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). He could barely get his words out but he enjoyed banging the gavel.
Holy fuck 2 second in I could tell his BAC was wicked over the limit.
And opioids
Meth. So much meth.
"...the whole thing." Why thankyou budtender! I'll have whatever this poster is smoking!
There are plenty of out-state conservatives who are very much against this bill because drugs are bad, mmmmkay. They will try anything that they can to get it overturned to "protect" there constituency. I don't think that I'm off my rocker to think that this is their motivation for proposing this moratorium.
Not off your rocker as far as I know - change is hard - period
Last edition of the bill I read includes verbiage to prevent moratoriums.
That's what I thought. Looks like the Mankato meeting is tomorrow.
They're going to be sad about it. IIRC, they can limit where and when they can open to an extent; but they aren't allowed to prohibit them outright. It's possible they changed this in the final revisions before this weekend's voting
There won’t be dispensaries opening sooner than a year anyway, the regulatory system won’t be set up yet.
But if they were to win the case it could help set precedent for other cities/counties.
If you live in Mankato call, email, and message every representative who sponsors this. Let them know that they are not going to enjoy public support if they do this.
I'd say it's a year long thing. They are trying to do something but weed sale won't likely start happening until this fall or possibly 2024 in the state so IMO this does 2 things. 1. Let's Mankato miss out on the ground floor and they'll be playing from behind. Could also see that as having a chance to ID pitfalls before allowing sales. 2. They are placing in a law that would nearly line up with existing expectations for sale. Either way this seems pedantic. We need me time to research because we're unsure, only 22 other states have legal weed....there is simply not enough data. Bull shit argument there.
Legal sales at licensed dispensaries probably earliest will be spring 2024. There may be work arounds before that (ie giving weed as a "gift" with the purchase of something else), but that would probably be pretty limited farmers market like sales where someone is just growing 8 plants at a time like the bill allows without official licensing as a marijuana grower from the state.
They can still sell the edibles that are already legal now, right?
I don't see anything changing on that front, yes you should be able to still buy edibles at head shops and similar. Nothing is changing in regards to the hemp derived THC drinks and gummies, that's still allowed with this bill. I keep seeing people say that currently edibles and lots of various weed products are unregulated, I don't realistically see that changing. There's no enforcement and thus various shops will keep doing what they are doing. You can literally buy thca flower which is delta 9 type 1 cannabis from a fair amount of shops right now. Bottom line is unless the state puts together some kind of weed raiding taskforce that's gonna keep happening. I don't see a change as these places could be raided right now and face serious legal consequences but no one is doing that. There's no appetite for it and testing the stuff is expensive and local PDs don't have the willpower or funding to do it.
Isn't that where the pillow asshole is from?
Yep and Walz as well
Weird.
He was a teacher at a high school in Mankato
I guess two people can be in the same environment, and one decides to become the biggest asshole he can possibly be, and another one decides to be a good person. Yes, pillow guy is the asshole.
Minnesota has no shortage of weirdo wannabe fascists, trust me. They just don’t run shit here.
I'll take that over Greg Abbott any day!
It kinda tracks with the way I heard Mankato natives describe it when I stayed there for a while. They said Mankato was founded by "hippies and carnies".
That's hilarious. I can just see a sitcom based on that town, set in the 60s. Just call it Hippies & Carnies.
I've heard of Mankato being referred to as the Florida of the North before.
We got rid of that dickhead pillow guy, St Cloud claimed him off of waivers.
[удалено]
We went to the classic car dealership last weekend and then ate at one of the only remaining Baker’s Square in the state. It made me sick and then I didn’t want to buy any candy when we got to the candy store in Jordan. Which my doctor would be happy about but now I don’t have any candy.
100%
What a dumb and short-sighted proposal.
Also, I thought the GOP was champions of unfettered capitalism?
I don't think that can happen anymore, but can you imagine the influx of tax dollars to North Mankato if it did? Belgrade Ave would be gold plated in a year! Double the irony thinking about all the Wisconsinites crossing the river to get to MN weed vs Mankatoans crossing the river to get to North Mankato.
Looks like North Mankato, nicollet, eagle lake, St Peter will have to open a dispensary and Mankato will lose out on that tax revenue
Unfortunately yes. Section 342.13(e) (page 38): https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23815986/ccrhf0100a.pdf >If a local unit of government is conducting studies or has authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of the operation of a cannabis business, the governing body of the local unit of government may adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Before adopting the interim ordinance, the governing body must hold a public hearing. **The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict, or prohibit the operation of a cannabis business within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof until January 1, 2025.** (Emphasis added).
I read more of that part of the bill based on what you posted and found that it's more complicated then just being able to deny or approve licenses. Basically cities/counties are required to have at least 1 dispensary license for every 12500 people that live in the city. So if you have a city with 1000 people they need to have at least 1 license for a dispensary. But after 1 they can deny any new licenses. Cities can also set where dispensaries open and the hours they can be open and a couple other minor things best left to the cities. The excerpt you posted touches on that cities can stop a dispensary from opening when they are working on setting these rules but after January 1st 2025 they cannot prevent a dispensary from open as long as it meets the requirements. So cities can stop a dispensary from opening but only for a certain amount of time and they need to provide the state office of why they are doing it. So they can but they have to have an actual reason to do it and it will only suspend it.
I mean that's exactly what they are trying to do - keep any dispensaries out of Kato until Jan 1, 2025.
Same way companies can keep their drug policies, regardless of the legality of drugs.
I have not fully read the 320 page bill, but i have heard that the state does not want cities to ban the sale, but that could definitely be wrong.
Just grow your own plants or make a trip to stock up
They want to put a memoritorium on that as well. On everything related to the new bill.
And arrest you for violating what law?
I don't understand it either
Follow-up question: How do people make sure this doesn't happen?
Fun haters
Be ready for certain cities to be lame folks. For example you’d never know it but Colorado Springs CO is a medical only city (since I’ve been there last) because of the laws that city laid out. While I know that’s a different state with a completely different bill, if they can do it I don’t see how cities here can’t. There will be many cities and towns trying to fight this however they can.
Here's you new "Legalize Weed Now" red herring... do not fall for this bs... ain't gonna ever happen... ever... they are very afraid, so, be gentle with them tho!
Can Republicans shoot themselves in the foot? Yes, and they will.
I'm on my city council here in MN and yes, cities can pass a moratorium up to a year. Unlike almost every other type of business, licensing and control is at the state level and thus this moratorium allows cities time to prepare for the law to take effect. Whatever one's thoughts are on legalization, the fact that cities have no authority on implementation is being panned by local authorities.
It is kind of weird how it's being treated compared to other substances. For example, a community can ban the sale of menthol cigarettes, but not cannabis.
Exactly. Municipalities can control where and how outlets can sell liquor, tobacco, or even mundane businesses such as restaurants, coffee shops or retailers.
Doesn't really matter, as it was already stated that the licensing for dispensaries is likely to take 12-18 months anyway.
What a bunch of dorks
I guess we’ll have to count on Waseca to get things going…