Minnesota Republicans don't read bill and accidentally legalize edibles

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
41,210
21,497
136
The Legislature stumbles into legalizing THC, for better or worse

https://minnesotareformer.com/2022/07/01/the-legislature-stumbles-into-legalizing-thc-for-better-or-worse-column/


In the final days of the legislative session in May, a bipartisan panel was negotiating the differences between health and human services bills passed by the DFL-led House and GOP-controlled Senate.

They had hundreds of pages to get through, and a bevy of amendments to approve, including one “exempting cannabinoids derived from hemp from Schedule 1 of the controlled substances schedule.”

Not in so many words: Legalizing weed.

After the amendment passed on a unanimous voice vote, here’s state Sen. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka: “That doesn’t legalize marijuana — we didn’t just do that.”

He chuckled.

His DFL co-chair, Rep. Tina Liebling of Rochester replied, “Oh, are you kidding? Of course you have. No, just kidding. We’ll do that next, OK?”

Well, actually, they did it.

As of Friday, July 1, 2022, products with THC — the chemical that gets you high — from “legally certified hemp” can now be manufactured, distributed and sold in Minnesota, in 5-mg increment edibles and drinks.
whoops

And, even more remarkable, Senate Republicans — for years the major hurdle to legalization — were apparently in the dark.

“I thought it was more of a technical fix to the delta-8 problem, and it had a broader effect than I expected,” Abeler told me.

Remember my fair northern brothers it takes a bit for it to hit.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,238
1,745
126
From reading the linked article the difference this time is that the TX GOP this time around has a specific plan-pass a state bill authorizing this referendum to be on the ballot in the 2023 election.

My modest counterproposal-each and every emergency aid we currently give to Texas (currently for free) in the future have strings attached that it be secured by adequate TX assets and be immediately due and payable upon any declaration of succession. Personally I'm sick to death of us subsidizing Texas for it's failure to make adequate efforts to do things like maintain it's electric grid, intentionally building in flood plains in hurricane prone areas, etc. while at the same time having to endure their endless crowing that TX is the land of fiscal responsibility and growth.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,108
3,852
136
From reading the linked article the difference this time is that the TX GOP this time around has a specific plan-pass a state bill authorizing this referendum to be on the ballot in the 2023 election.

My modest counterproposal-each and every emergency aid we currently give to Texas (currently for free) in the future have strings attached that it be secured by adequate TX assets and be immediately due and payable upon any declaration of succession. Personally I'm sick to death of us subsidizing Texas for it's failure to make adequate efforts to do things like maintain it's electric grid, intentionally building in flood plains in hurricane prone areas, etc. while at the same time having to endure their endless crowing that TX is the land of fiscal responsibility and growth.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Amol S.

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,089
550
136
About to become free’er

I am sorry to tell you this.... but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that a state does not have the right to seccede from the union. It is up to federal Congress to decide to allow a state to secede from the union.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) The states that formed the Confederate States of America during the Civil War never actually left the Union because a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
22,910
17,168
136
I am sorry to tell you this.... but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that a state does not have the right to seccede from the union. It is up to federal Congress to decide to allow a state to secede from the union.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) The states that formed the Confederate States of America during the Civil War never actually left the Union because a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States.
Dude have you being paying attention to how the current court treats precedent? They could care less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic and Captante

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
19,861
9,445
136
Plus, I think dems should get behind this… STAT.
You need rope to hang yourself? Well it just so happens Ive got a surplus… How many miles you need? 1000? 2000? Here take it all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic

linkgoron

Platinum Member
Mar 9, 2005
2,086
550
136
About to become free’er

IMO the union should let any state leave if it wants to, although it's impossible technically anyway (i.e. with the infrastructure/army/socially etc). Specifically, I don't really get why they would leave anyway. The GOP plan has finally reached its goal.

Other states might approve if they think they need the precedent.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
19,861
9,445
136
IMO the union should let any state leave if it wants to, although it's impossible technically anyway (i.e. with the infrastructure/army/socially etc). Specifically, I don't really get why they would leave anyway. The GOP plan has finally reached its goal.

Other states might approve if they think they need the precedent.
Cause the GOP has lost control of the GOP. The Trumpican subset of the party is not sustainable on its own, its just not, and now its biting the master that actually knows how to pour dog food into the bowl. Its grand.. All you have to do is not lose *everything*, as in democracy, along the way, keep the fire contained on that other side and let em burn.. burn burn burn.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,313
11,306
136
IMO the union should let any state leave if it wants to, although it's impossible technically anyway (i.e. with the infrastructure/army/socially etc). Specifically, I don't really get why they would leave anyway. The GOP plan has finally reached its goal.

Other states might approve if they think they need the precedent.
No. Per the Constitution and multiple SCOTUS rulings, entry into the Union is an irreversible act, and secesion is treason.

We are the United States, not the come-and-go-as-you-please states.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
61,990
6,937
126
I just really want to know what Texas actually expects to happen were they able to fall ass backwards into an actual succession. Like, you no longer get federal funds for...anything. All corporations based there are now foreign and it's a nightmare for them. That whole interstate travel and trade...dead.

I mean I'm all for them trying and don't let the door hit you on the way out. But still want to know what their actual plan for viability is for basic things like food, water, infrastructure, and defense. Let alone health care, schooling, and so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

ASK THE COMMUNITY