Recreational Marijuana Bill
Last night, instead of taking up budget bills or tax relief for PPP/UI, we debated the bill to legalize marijuana. This bill has zero chance of passing this year as it is not being taken up by the Senate, but the House Majority still wanted to show the public this is one of their top priorities.
I have heard from several constituents who support legalization and I truly respect your views. I think a case can be made for decriminalization of marijuana and I also believe we need to make changes to the medical marijuana program, but I do not support legalization or establishment of recreational “pot shops” throughout the state.
Several have asked me if I have done research on this topic and I assure you, I have done extensive research, reading dozens of peer-reviewed studies in academic literature as well as reading about the real-life experience of legalization in other states.
HF 600, the bill which we considered last night has numerous problems, which I hope will be considered by those who support legalization. A few of the key problems I highlighted in my speech are:
- There are no limits on the toxicity of THC, which has increased tremendously since the 1960s and 1970s.
- There is no ban on combining alcohol and nicotine with THC (as has been done in VT)
- The Cannabis Management Board’s design gives 9 people inordinate power to regulate and investigate and assess penalties with little oversight from the Legislature or the Executive Branch. All 9 are appointed by the Governor with no input from the Legislature.
- The bill anticipates 2700 licenses in MN by July 1, 2025. For context, CO has 1440, WA has 448, and OR has 1344. We would have nearly double the amount of licenses as the next closest state. For context, MN has a combined total of 600 Starbucks and McDonalds statewide.
- The bill also takes away local control. Local governments are not allowed to prohibit the “establishment or operation” of cannabis businesses – they can only regulate hours of operations and location (to a degree). MANY communities do not want these businesses and should have the option to opt-out (as they do in CO, CA, MI, OR and other states).
My main concern, however, is that this bill explicitly gives priority to low-income and minority neighborhoods for these licenses. Specifically, it has a point system for prioritizing licenses that give 20% of available points to “social equity applicants” – people who live in census tracks or neighborhoods where the poverty rate was 20% or where the median income does not exceed 80% of the state median.
We have lived through this before. There is ample research that shows that in the 1960s low-income and African-American neighborhoods were targeted by the tobacco industry and then in the 1980s and 1990s, these same neighborhoods were targeted by the alcohol industry for off-sale liquor stores. The prevalence of these stores in neighborhoods are empirically linked to increased crime, increased destabilization and health disparities.
Under this bill, the state, in the name of “economic development” would now “prioritize” these same neighborhoods for recreational marijuana shops. It is unconscionable.
Although many state-wide studies don’t show a link between the presence of marijuana dispensaries and increased crime or other social disorder, I cited several neighborhood-level studies which demonstrate a strong. Because most dispensaries are concentrated in a few counties or cities, the statewide studies do not capture the actual effects at the neighborhood or census-track level. When you look at the effects on individual communities, the negative effects are statistically significant.
I am glad this bill will not pass in this form and I encourage my colleagues who support legalization to fix the problems in this bill before they bring it up again next year.
|
