Category Archives: marijuana

Dean Phillips isn’t Close to Being MN’s Strongest Presidential Candidate

Posted on by

U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips (DFL-Edina) seems to be relishing the national attention that comes with his months of hemming and hawing about a long-shot potential challenge of Joe Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination. To be clear, Phillips is far from the best Democrat in the nation to serve as an alternative to Joe Biden. In fact, Phillips is not even close to being the best presidential candidate in little old Minnesota.

Phillips is fine. The former CEO of Phillips Distributing, his step-father’s inherited business, is thoughtful and decent, if also sometimes dull and self-righteous, as centrist politicicans tend to be. His bipartisan instincts have made him a good fit to represent the purple-ish 3rd congressional district, which is anchored by Minnesota’s most affluent western suburbs.

However, it’s time for Phillips to come out of the TV studios and return to representing his district. As Rep. Annie Kuster (D-NH) said in today’s Star Tribune:


There’s no path. There’s no outcry. Personally, I think it’s a vanity project by Mr. Phillips, and I think it could do serious damage by emboldening the Trump Republicans.”

To be clear, the most talented politician in Minnesota isn’t Phillips. It’s DFL Senator Amy Klobuchar, and it’s not even close.  Reports about Klobuchar’s erratic behind-the-scenes behavior are concerning when it comes to the world’s most pressure-packed job. Still, no Minnesota politician is better than Klobuchar at doing what presidential candidates must do well – sell progressive ideas and positions in both wholesale and retail settings to a wide variety of audiences. Whether on big or small stages, Klobuchar consistently comes across as warm, sincere, tough, bright, thoughtful, prepared, nimble, and persuasive. As such, Minnesota’s senior senator would be a much more compelling presidential candidate than Phillips.

While Klobuchar is Minnesota’s most skilled politician, DFL Governor Tim Walz ranks second. At the same time, Walz has more marketable policy accomplishments than Kloubachar or any other Minnesota pol. 

In a purple state with a slim one-vote DFL advantage in the state Senate, Walz can boast on national stages that he signed many state laws that national Democrats want to see on a national level, such as legislation creating a family and medical leave system, securing abortion rights, legalizing marijuana, expanding child care access, creating new gun violence protections, making voting more accessible, providing free school lunches for all, investing much more in public education, building a public option for health insurance, and requiring disclosure for dark money donors. 

All the while, the Minnesota economy has outpaced a relatively strong national economy, with a lower rate of inflation and unemployment than the nation as a whole.

Walz’s long list of significant policy accomplishments would be popular among the national Democrats he would need to win over in a primary challenge against Biden. Importantly, it also would be popular among the swing voters a Democratic nominee will need to win over in a 2024 presidential general election.  Politically speaking, Walz is well poised to make a “we will do for America what we did for Minnesota” pitch to Democrats clutching their pearls about Biden’s electoral viability.

State Capitol insiders are quick to point out that Walz’s myriad policy wins had more to do with House Speaker Melissa Hortman, Senate Majority Leader Kari Dziedzic, and a number of very capable DFLers chairing key committees. But that kind of inside baseball would largely be ignored by national pundits and reporters if Walz ran for President. Walz vocally supported those progressive changes and signed them into law. Therefore, it would be fair for him to tout them in early Democratic primary states.

But Klobuchar and Walz aren’t going to be in those states, not as candidates anyway. They have enough political sense to understand that they’re never going to defeat an accomplished, albeit ancient, incumbent, and that trying to do so at this late hour would irreparably ruin their reputation with the leaders and activists they need in order to be effective.

Phillips, for all his strengths, appears incapable of understanding that part.

The Dumbest Part of Minnesota’s New Marijuana Law

Posted on by

This is an awkward time for Minnesota’s brand-new marijuana legalization law. Currently, it’s legal to use marijuana, grow marijuana plants at home, and keep up to two pounds of it.  At the same time, it’s illegal to buy or sell it.

However, it is still legal to buy and sell hemp-derived products, which, by the way, have the same intoxicating impact on a user as marijuana-derived products.

It all makes perfect sense, right?

Actually, it does. Or at least it will. Minnesota is wisely taking time to get its regulatory framework built before it starts letting stores sell cannabis, but the new framework will eventually make good sense.

Mostly.

Most components of the law are logical. Beyond the fact that I worry state politicians may have taxed marijuana products at too high of a rate to allow legal products to put the black market out of business, Minnesota Public Radio recently revealed a particularly wacky provision in the weed law:

A pending update limits use of both hemp-derived THC products and marijuana to adults age 21 and older, but it says establishments can’t serve someone both alcohol and THC products during the same visit.

Under the new law, if the bar knows that a customer has had a marijuana-based beverage within five hours, they’re not allowed to sell them an alcoholic drink, and vice versa. To manage this legal mandate, some bars say they will have THC drink customers wear wristbands or get ink stamps.

To be clear, Minnesota’s bars can still sell you multiple shots of alcohol in a row. Or they can sell multiple THC drinks in a row. That kind of dangerous selling is legal.

However, bars can’t legally sell you one beer and one THC seltzer in a single sitting or they run afoul of the law.

This makes no sense. Total speculation here, but I can imagine this provision being inserted to win over the vote of a holdout state legislator who had an uninformed hunch that mixing alcohol and THC might be super-duper intoxicating as if the two drinks were the intoxicant equivalent of coke and Mentos. 

Obviously, the THC impact on bar customers will be somewhat different than the alcohol impact. After all, the impacts of different kinds of alcoholic drinks — beer, wine, straight shots, and mixed drinks — vary a bit in their intoxicating impact too. Therefore, mixing THC and alcoholic drinks will create a somewhat new sensation for people to learn to manage. 

But the impact of mixing drinks that are derived from different plants – grapes, hops, potatoes, grains, juniper, cannabis, sugar cane, agave — isn’t different enough to warrant strict segregation of usage. It puts a regulatory burden on bars and the state that delivers little to no public benefit. This ill-conceived provision should be eliminated the next time the Minnesota Legislature adjusts this law.

Surveys: DFLers Haven’t Overreached On Their Electoral Mandate

Posted on by

Governor Tim Walz and Minnesota DFL state legislators are getting glowing national attention for passing an array of progressive changes in recent months.  NBC News recently reported:

Nearly four months into the legislative session, Democrats in the state have already tackled protecting abortion rights, legalizing recreational marijuana and restricting gun access — and they have signaled their plans to take on issues like expanding paid family leave and providing legal refuge to trans youths whose access to gender-affirming and other medical care has been restricted elsewhere.

“When you’re looking at what’s possible with a trifecta, look at Minnesota,” said Daniel Squadron, the executive director of The States Project, a left-leaning group that works to build Democratic majorities in state legislatures.

In fact, the Legislature passed more bills in its first 11 weeks of the current session than in the same time frame of every session since 2010, according to an analysis by The States Project.

To me, the lesson is clear: When voters in gridlocked purple states elect Democrats, Democrats deliver on changes that are popular with a majority of voters. However, Republicans who have blocked these same politics for decades see it differently. They’re crying “overreach.” And crying. And crying. And crying.

What’s “overreach?” Republicans claim “overreach” every time something passes the Legislature that they and their ultra-conservative primary election base oppose.  A more reasonable definition is passing something that a majority of all Minnesotans oppose, If DFLers are doing that, it would reasonable to conclude that they have gone beyond the electoral mandate they were given in November 2022. 

By that definition, DFLers aren’t overreaching.  For instance, survey data show that 67% of Minnesotans oppose abortion bans, and therefore presumably support DFL efforts to keep abortion legal in Minnesota in the post-Dobbs decision era. Likewise, gun violence prevention reforms are extremely popular with Minnesotans – 64% back red flag laws and 76% want universal background checks. Sixty percent of Minnesotans support legalizing marijuana for adults. Sixty-two percent support making school lunches free. Fifty-nine percent say everyone should receive a ballot in the mail.

I can’t find Minnesota-specific survey data on all of the other changes DFLers are making, but national polls give us a pretty good clue about where probably Minnesotans stand.  Given how overwhelming the size of the majorities found in the following national surveys, there’s no reason to believe that Minnesotans are on the opposite side of these issues: More school funding (69% of Americans support), a public option for health insurance (68% of Americans support), disclosing dark money donors to political campaigns (75% of Americans support), child care assistance for families (80% of Americans support), and paid family and medical leave (80% of Americans support). 

Granted, Minnesotans may be a few points different than national respondents on those issues. But it’s just not credible to believe that there isn’t majority support among Minnesotans on those issues.

The only issue where there might be a wee bit of overreach is on the restoration of the vote for felons.  While national polls find 69% support for restoring the vote for felons who have completed all of their full sentence requirements, including parole, that support might be a little weaker for restoring the vote before parole is completed, which is what DFLers passed. A survey of Minnesotans conducted by the South Carolina-based Meeting Streets Insights for the conservative Minnesota-based group Center for the American Experiment found only 36% support on this question:

“Currently in Minnesota, convicted felons lose their right to vote until their entire sentence is complete, including prison time and probation. Would you support or oppose restoring the right to vote for convicted felons before they serve their full sentence?”

I don’t suspect that restoration of the vote for felons is a top priority issue for the swing voters who decide close elections. Moreover, the strong 69% support found in surveys for restoring the vote after parole indicates that if DFLers are perceived to be “overreaching,” it likely will be viewed by swing voters as a relatively minor one.  Republicans probably will try to characterize this as “a power grab to stuff ballot boxes with votes of convicted criminals” in the 2024 general election campaigns. But they won’t have much luck with that issue, beyond the voters who were already supporting them based on other issues.

I understand that the loyal opposition has to say something as DFLers hold giddy bill-signing celebration after celebration on popular issues. But survey data indicate that Republicans’ “overreach” mantra is, well, overreach.



DeSantis “Anti-Woke” Agenda Falling Flat With Voters

Posted on by

In 1910, writer Jack Johnson nicknamed white boxer James Jeffries the “Great white hope” as Jeffries prepared to fight the black fighter Jack Johnson.  Apparently, Mr. Jeffries represented something that many fans found discomforting about Mr. Johnson. 

Similarly in 2023, Republican elites are desperately searching for a Great Non-Trump Hope, sometimes quietly referred to as “Trump with a brain, “Trump without the crazy,” or “Trump without the chaos.”  Most Republicans have settled on the charismatically challenged Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, fresh off his landslide reelection win over Democrat Charlie Crist.

At this point, a lot of Republican voters outside of Florida don’t know much about DeSantis. They know he’s not as undisciplined as Trump, and that he has handily won recent elections at a time when Trump has been regularly rejected by general election voters. 

But beyond presenting himself as a stable winner, DeSantis is pushing a set of extremist policies that appeal to anti-“woke” Republicans.  That may make sense as a primary election strategy, but how about as a general election strategy?  How popular will DeSantis’s Republican-friendly platform be with the all-important swing voters in battleground states?

Here DeSantis faces stiff headwinds, according to a recent University of North Florida survey. Remember, these toxic findings are from DeSantis’s home state, where he just won reelection by 19 points.

These numbers are jaw-dropping. If DeSantis wants to run ads promoting his stands on these issues, Democrats should offer to pay for them.

An overwhelmingly unpopular policy agenda isn’t even DeSantis’s biggest challenge. His more limiting political leg iron is that he can’t begin to match the Trump bombast and charisma that seems to be the primary driver of Trump’s enduring popularity with Republicans. That will become much more apparent as the primary campaign season heats up, once DeSantis and Trump start appearing on the same stage together. The man the former President belittles as “Tiny D” will shrink in that setting.

In other words, the problem with the pursuit of “Trump without the crazy” is that a majority of Republican primary voters adore “the crazy.”

DeSantis’s other problem is that even if he somehow finds a way to defeat Trump in the primary, and I don’t think he can, Trump’s brutal and relentless attacks will drive DeSantis’s unfavorability ratings sky-high, including on issues important to general election swing voters, such as DeSantis’s past efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare.  Also, the possibility of a Trump third-party candidacy looms large.

DeSantis won’t look nearly as attractive facing general election voters in the spring of 2024 as he looked to Republican primary voters in the winter of 2023. And if Trump somehow loses the Republican endorsement, he will continue attacking DeSantis long after the primaries are over.  All the while, DeSantis’s “anti-woke” policy agenda will further sully him with general election swing voters, particularly suburban women, people of color, and young people.

All of which is to say, it ain’t easy being DeSanctimonius.

Dueling Visions for Minnesota: Scandinavia or South Dakota?

Posted on by

Elections in a purple state can give you whiplash. 

After red wave elections, we’re led by Republicans like Tim Pawlenty who push for low taxes, poor services, and culture wars.

After blue wave elections, we’re led by DFLers like Tim Walz who push for higher taxes, better services, and cultural tolerance. 

After elections with more mixed results, legislative stalemates cause us to keep the prevailing status quo frozen in place.

That makes every election cycle extremely consequential.

The South Dakota Vision for Minnesota

In 2022, a decidedly purple Minnesota – at the time, it was the only state in the nation with one chamber of the state Legislature controlled by Democrats and the other controlled by Republicans – held a particularly high-stakes election. 

If Minnesota voters had elected ultra-conservative former physician gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen and a Republican Legislature dominated by far-right Trumpers, Minnesota would have become a conservative promised land, much like its neighbor to the west, South Dakota. 

During the campaign, Jensen and other Republicans proposed a race-to-the-bottom on taxes, including eliminating the state income tax, which would have led to dramatically worse services.  Republican spinmeisters prefer to say “smaller government,” but the reality is that it would have meant much worse services. The anti-vaxxer Doc Jensen also pledged a South Dakota-like war on public health and culture war initiatives to force conservatives’ thinking on gays, guns, God, and gynecology on all Minnesotans. 

In other words, think Kristi Noem, with a stethoscope prop.

The Scandinavia Vision for Minnesota

Fortunately, 192,408 more Minnesotans voted for incumbent Governor Tim Walz than Jensen. More surprisingly, since it was predicted to be a historically horrible year for Democrats, Minnesotans also elected narrow DFL majorities in the state House and Senate.  The all-important Senate majority is especially razor-thin at 34-33.

Walz and the DFL-controlled Legislatures are armed with a $17.5 billion budget surplus and are offering a vision that is more like a social democratic-led Scandinavian country in the 1970s than South Dakota in the 2020s:

  • Paid family and medical leave;
  • An enormous funding increase for public schools;
  • A targeted child tax credit to dramatically reduce childhood poverty;
  • Free school lunches for all students;
  • An opportunity for people without employer-based health insurance to buy into public health insurance (MinnesotaCare/Medicaid), instead of only being able to choose private insurance;
  • Down payment assistance for first-time home buyers, homelessness prevention, affordable housing, and rent vouchers;
  • A huge package to save the beleaguered childcare sector and make child care free for poor families and more affordable for middle-class families;
  • Large subsidies for weatherization, electric vehicle infrastructure, and solar energy expansion to combat climate change;
  • A range of gun violence prevention reforms, such as universal background checks, red flag laws to prevent people who could be perceived as a threat to themselves or others from getting guns, raising the legal age for obtaining military-style rifles to 21, and banning high-capacity magazines;
  • Legalized marijuana and expunged records for past offenders;
  • Driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants;
  • Automatic voter registration;
  • Enfranchising felons who have served their time; and
  • A capital gains tax hike for the wealthiest Minnesotans.

The list goes on. Overall, think Bernie Sanders, with a Fargo accent.

This is the most dramatic swing of state policy in my lifetime, and perhaps in the history of the state. And if somebody you may have never heard of, Judy Seeberger (DFL-Afton), had received just 322 fewer votes in her state Senate race, most of those changes would never have been possible. Without Seeberger’s handful of votes in the eastern suburbs of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Minnesota would still be stuck in limbo between the South Dakota vision and the Scandinavia vision. 322 votes.

Minnesota Legislature, What Are You Chewing?

Posted on by

For years, Minnesota legislators from both political parties with puritanical and law-and-order instincts have fought hard to preserve the prohibition of marijuana, a plant that is much less addictive and lethal than already legalized alcohol. 

But marijuana prohibition in Minnesota is now effectively over, kinda sorta. The Star Tribune explains one of the most surprising and senseless moves the Minnesota Legislature has made in my lifetime:


“A new state law took effect July 1 that allows Minnesotans 21 and older to buy certain edibles and beverages containing small amounts of THC, the ingredient in marijuana that produces the high associated with the drug.

The new law allows the sale and purchase of edibles — such as gummies, hard candy or chocolates — and beverages that contain up to 5 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per serving and 50 milligrams per package, and no more than 0.3% THC by weight. Products containing THC, as well as those containing cannabidiol (CBD), must be clearly labeled and can only be sold to those 21 and older. Edibles must be in child-proof and tamper-evident packages and carry the label “Keep this product out of reach of children.” Serving sizes must also be clearly defined.

THC products sold in Minnesota must be derived from legally-certified hemp containing no more than 0.3% THC by weight, according to the law. Marijuana flower and all THC-containing products derived from it remain illegal in Minnesota for recreational use.

The law places no limit on how many CBD and THC products can be purchased and does not regulate who can sell them.”

This shocking development is at the same time encouraging and frustrating.  Legislators have lots of high-minded (sorry, couldn’t resist) explanations about how they were merely trying to keep Minnesotans safe from low-THC hemp with new regulations. But regardless of actual intent, the Legislature has legalized intoxicating THC products. That’s great for those who partake and don’t want to go to jail, but bad for those who care about sensible public policy.

The Legislature, wanting to show their constituents that they’re being prudent with “low and slow” dosing, essentially created the THC equivalent of 3.2 beer, or beer with no more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight.  Anyone who came of age in the 3.2 era knows that past generations of Americans did street research and discovered a clever workaround for that law:  Consume more weak product, and get as wasted as your heart desires.

Similarly, there is a fighting chance that today’s Minnesotans will make a similar discovery about the Legislature’s new half-baked model. Obviously, Minnesota’s relatively low-THC gummies can get you every bit as high as the higher-THC gummies available in states where marijuana is fully legalized. More bites begets more buzz.

Equally stupid, the Minnesota Legislature is also requiring that companies produce the THC-containing gummies in the least efficient, most expensive way possible.  In Minnesota, companies are required to make THC-containing gummies out of relatively low-THC hemp plants, instead of high-THC marijuana/cannabis plants.  

This is like requiring that companies produce sugar from tomatoes rather than sugar beets.  It’s feasible, because tomatoes have a relatively small amount of sugar in them, but why do it that way? The massive inefficiency of this hemp requirement ultimately causes huge additional growing and processing costs to be passed on to inflation-weary Minnesota consumers, for no good reason.

But that’s not all. Because legislative hemp regulators quietly snuck into the back door of THC edible legalization without wanting to wake sleeping prohibitionists, they didn’t include any taxation provisions in the new law. As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars in THC product taxes will not be collected to fund badly needed public services, such as education, early learning, or environmental protections.  That’s a huge missed opportunity.

Worst of all, the Legislature didn’t expunge the criminal records of Minnesotans whose lives are being needlessly harmed because of past marijuana-related convictions.  As of July 1, 2022, Minnesotans can now legally get high as the IDS Tower at the same time their fellow Minnesotans — disproportionately people of color, because of shameful racial bias in Minnesota’s law enforcement and judicial systems — continue to be harshly punished for having consumed the very same chemical.  That’s layering an outrageous new injustice on top of the outrageous old injustice.

To summarize, Minnesota’s THC edible legalization framework offers a good buzz, but no consumer cost-containment, public improvements, tax relief, or justice. We can now “get stupid,” but we will never get as stupid as this regulatory framework.

Despite all of those flaws, THC edibles are now finally being enjoyed by Minnesotans of all political stripes.  Because of that, this product will quickly get more normalized in Minnesota society. As a result, bringing back prohibition, as some Republicans propose, will be more unpopular than ever.

Ultimately, that normalization should pave the way for the future passage of a more thoughtful, comprehensive legalization framework, presuming a wave of extreme marijuana prohibitionists aren’t swept into office in the 2022 midterm elections. That could happen because of voter frustration over crime and inflation, but it won’t be because of this issue. Minnesotans support marijuana legalization by a 14-point margin.

The Minnesota Legislature will probably eventually get to a sane legalization framework that produces lower consumer prices, better funded government services, and justice for thousands. Winston Churchill famously said that “The United States can always be relied upon to do the right thing — having first exhausted all possible alternatives.”  Unfortunately, marijuanaphobic Minnesota is currently in the process of exhausting a particularly ludicrous alternative on its path to the right thing.

On Minnesota Police Reform, Show Me The Money

Posted on by

In the wake of the George Floyd murder, I’m appreciative that the Minnesota Legislature finally is about to pass some police reforms. But I’m also pretty underwhelmed.  

Based on reports I’ve heard, it seems heavy on mandates and light on investments in changing the face of law enforcement. The compromise package that will soon pass includes things such as requiring officers to intervene in cases of abuse, banning choke holds and “warrior training,” and having a better statewide database on abuse cases. 

That’s all good stuff, as far as it goes.  The problem is, it doesn’t go very far.  The New York Times summarizes the debate and the unfinished business:

“Ultimately, legislators could not reach a deal that reconciled the Democrats’ calls for far-reaching changes to police oversight with Republican leaders who supported a shorter list of “common-sense police reforms” that included banning chokeholds in most situations and requiring officers to stop their colleagues from using unreasonable force.

Democrats said the plan passed by the Republican-led Senate consisted of tepid half-steps that were already in place in most law-enforcement agencies and did not rise to the moment’s calls for dramatic action. Republicans balked at the proposals passed by the Democrat-controlled House to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of felons and put the state’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, in charge of prosecuting police killings.

Republican leaders later said they had agreed to alter arbitration proceedings when officers are accused of misconduct, but Democrats said it was not enough.

All week, state legislators held emotional hearings on proposals to increase oversight of how the police use force and are disciplined; change the process for firing officers; and explore alternatives to policing, such as sending social workers to respond when people in mental distress need help.”

What About Ending Marijuana Prohibition?

I was disappointed that putting the marijuana prohibition question on the ballot wasn’t part of this session focused on preventing future police abuses. After all, the ACLU has documented that marijuana prohibition is a root cause of much racial profiling and police abuse:

A Black person in Minnesota is 5.4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person. Minnesota ranks 8th for largest racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests.  In 2018, marijuana possession arrests accounted for 35% of all drug arrests here. 

Although the overwhelming majority of Minnesota counties have racial disparities, Goodhue, Olmstead, St. Louis, Ramsey and Carver Counties have the worst records, ranging from Black people being 7.07 times more likely to face arrest than whites in Carver County to 11.19 times more likely in Goodhue County.  

Arrest rates decreased in states that legalized marijuana, but racial disparities remained. 

It’s clear what we need to do. Let’s take marijuana enforcement off of police officer’s plates, because marijuana is much less dangerous and addictive than legal alcohol, and it’s leading to much police abuse.

I understand this would have been a very tough sell with Senate Republican leadership, but this topic should have at least been part of the discussion. Legislators should have seized this educable moment to further build already strong public support for legalizing marijuana. (KSTP 2018 survey: 61% support marijuana legalization, including 54% of Republicans)

Reforms That Require Substantial Investment

Also missing from the list of reforms are any proposals to professionalize policing that costs more than a nominal amount of money. Spending money is something that both sides avoid, because neither side wants to take the political hit for proposing offsetting spending cuts and/or tax increases.

For instance, how about paying for a rigorous De-escalation and Racial Justice Re-Training Academy, to give every Minnesota law enforcement officer in the state extensive training about how to do their job more respectfully, lawfully, safely, and effectively.  How about requiring all officers to subsequently pass a training proficiency test to prove they did more than doze and wise-crack their way through the training? 

To keep this re-training top-of-mind and up-to-date, how about also funding biennial supplemental training courses, such as we require for other professions with life-and-death powers (e.g. Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits for medical professionals)? 

How about a Police Professionalization Fund to establish financial incentives for local governments that hire college-educated officers and/or officers from under-represented communities?

How about a Hometown Officer Fund to pay for moving expenses for officers who move their home into the neighborhoods they are serving?

(Note, a couple of these good ideas came from Wry World Messrs. Lambert and Austin.)

Think about it. More officers who are college educated people of color whose family lives in the community they serve and have extensive and regular training about how to be a different kind of public servant.  All of that coupled with the changes in the current bill would go a long ways toward changing the toxic culture in many law enforcement departments. 

But all of those things cost money. The State should be funding them because many unenlightened and/or financially strapped local governments are unlikely to do these things on their own without financial help. 

But apparently legislators from both parties still aren’t willing to put their money where their mouths are. So unfortunately there’s much more police reform work to do in the 2021 session.

Another Reason To End Marijuana Prohibition: Public Health

Posted on by

Minnesota public health authorities are close to concluding that the leading culprit in the rash of serious cannabis vaping injuries is an additive called vitamin E acetate, which apparently is used by elicit street producers to thicken and dilute the THC in illegally produced vaping cartridges.  The Star Tribune reports:

“The state’s findings were circulated nationally on Tuesday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has monitored the outbreak nationally and has reported 2,290 cases of vaping-associated lung injuries this year and 47 related deaths.

‘We now have evidence of vitamin E acetate in the lungs of Minnesotans and in illicit THC products from Minnesota during the outbreak,’ said Jan Malcolm, state health commissioner. ‘We have more work ahead, but every bit of evidence gets us closer to a resolution.'”

Assuming that Vitamin E is in fact the culprit, the obvious solution is to regulate the product to ensure that additive is no longer used.  Easy, right?

Not so fast. The problem with that obvious solution is that cannabis prohibition makes it impossible to regulate the safety of these illicit street products.

If we want to regulate marijuana-based products to keep consumers safe from dangerous additives like Vitamin E acetate, pesticides, molds, and fungus, we need those products to be legal so that they can be controlled by public regulators, just as we control other legal consumer products.

A while back, Republican Senate leader Paul Gazelka looked at this dangerous situation and somehow came to the opposite conclusion.

“Opponents of legalizing marijuana in Minnesota are seizing on the recent outbreak of vaping-related illnesses and teen nicotine addiction to urge caution on the cannabis front — even as advocates of legalization ramp up their campaign ahead of next year’s legislative session.

‘I hope this slows down the rush by [Gov. Tim Walz] and House Democrats on recreational marijuana,’ said state Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Nisswa, the majority leader. ‘If they see the correlation, that might at least slow down the process.'”

Sen. Gazelka seems like a sincere, decent guy, but that logic makes no sense.  After all, if Sen. Gazelka learned that we have dangerous types of vehicles, insulation, ethanol, or stents harming consumers, would he back prohibition of vehicles, insulation, ethanol, and stents?  Of course not.  Instead, the sensible response would be to keep those products legal, but have public regulators monitor the products and require them to be safer.  Likewise, we need to make marijuana legal, so marijuana-based products can be regulated, tested, and required to be safer. 

So in addition to the social justice, fiscal, and logical reasons to end marijuana prohibition, we need to add another to the list.  Public health.

Disclosure:  In my public relations business, I have done work for one of two companies licensed in Minnesota to treat patients with cannabis-based medicines.  However, I’m not currently doing work for that company, and that company’s legal, regulated medicines aren’t a subject of these stories. I have never helped any clients advocating the end to marijuana prohibition.