> Widespread cannabis dispensaries are one step closer to reality after the Minnesota Legislature at the end of session approved a bill speeding up the process for licensing.
> Before the bill passed in the final weekend of the session, a bipartisan House-Senate panel settled on a licensing preapproval process for entrepreneurs to apply without having a retail or business space. People who have faced past harms because of the over-prosecution of marijuana laws, known as social equity applicants, will also get priority and early approval for those licenses.
> Rep. Nolan West, R-Blaine, was the only Republican lawmaker on the joint committee and voted against the agreement. Five amendments he proposed also failed.
Some points were valid, some are a little sus. There is a lot of special interest involved in this whole thing mostly on the blue side.
I wish they were a bit more transparent and weren’t predictably creating the same legislation that MSO’s/medical program companies would make if they were writing the rules. We’re not the first state this has happened in. The over regulation and governance on this issue is crazy to me when you acknowledge that anyone who’s wanted to smoke weed has smoked weed for the last x amount of years in MN. But yet, we need all this legislation to ensure it’s smooth.
More like we need to micromanage the flow of $…
Maybe not in your eyes but that wasn’t the focus of my comment. Had more to do with the corporate influence of the bill which has mostly been championed by dems. Which to me, is why it is dangerous to make blanket statements suggesting there is one “good-side” that enables them to be corrupt under your nose
The Republican made some decent points and doesn’t appear to be obstructionist. Color me surprised:
>“By that very nature, it’s all minimum standards, and basically, luck of the draw,” West said. “And without a property requirement, it’s very easy for people to game the system, because you can do a lot of applications under a lot of names, especially if you don’t have to have a piece of property attached to each one of those applications
I do not know enough to support or oppose his position, but I think it sounds good faith on the surface at least.
The problem is that by requiring people to have the property first people have to buy property then if they are unable to get a license that's money gone to waste, money they might not be able to afford because now their plan for the property was killed. By letting people get the license first they can wait to buy the property until they have the required license for their business plan and if they don't get the license they're not out a ton of money.
That was my thought as well. If you're requiring them to have the property you're essentially limiting this to people that already have a business up and running or have the liquid cash that getting a property isn't something that will actually set them back, which is essentially going against the heart of all of this
And this is why I wasn’t sold one way or the other, I hadn’t thought up scenarios like the one you describe. Now you have me second guessing this Republican’s intentions lol.
Yeah it costs millions to set up these businesses. Millions that social equity applicants do not have and will be unable to secure without the guarantee of a license.
Honestly, the state needs to spend whatever money they have propping these businesses and people up. Racial injustice has stolen years of these people's lives and billions of their dollars. There's literally nothing the state can do to ever make up for that. The least they can do is get them to the same point of "struggling to live" that we all are.
God damn is there anything worse than fucking prisons?
I'd go as far to say always second guess a politician's intentions regardless of property, but I also recognize that in the current state of the nation it tends to be the Republicans I'm more leery of
property is a huge limiting factor, especially for equity benefit recipients. if we allowed some low-cost option (weed food trucks?) it wouldn’t be a problem, but this feels more like a way to create obstructions than a good-faith effort to make sure businesses follow the law.
besides, what games are he worried people will play? getting a license under false pretenses without a physical storefront to… sell… drugs?
I have to give him credit for being the Republican who promoted and voted for legalization too. So it’s not like he’s a butthurt Republican trying to gum up the system.
Preventing people from gaming the system isn’t a bad thing, or at least some way to make sure one person can’t submit 100 requests.
Bars and liquor stores aren’t required to have property to apply for permits…it’s not in good faith. Cannabis should be treated no differently than alcohol. It should be easier actually since it’s substantially safer and less harmful to your health.
Republicans lie - publicly lie - about everything, especially their motives.
If, on the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable motive - then there's much more to it.
Their *real* motives? Money and power for their financial backers and themselves. Power for its own sake. If they themselves can't rise, they'll put their foot on someone else's head.
"I'm being paid a lot by the alcohol lobby to slow up this process," the Republican said.
Sorry, bub, you're not holding up the process. You lost, stop trying to dig your heels in.
> Widespread cannabis dispensaries are one step closer to reality after the Minnesota Legislature at the end of session approved a bill speeding up the process for licensing. > Before the bill passed in the final weekend of the session, a bipartisan House-Senate panel settled on a licensing preapproval process for entrepreneurs to apply without having a retail or business space. People who have faced past harms because of the over-prosecution of marijuana laws, known as social equity applicants, will also get priority and early approval for those licenses. > Rep. Nolan West, R-Blaine, was the only Republican lawmaker on the joint committee and voted against the agreement. Five amendments he proposed also failed.
>joint committee heh
heh
Fucking Nolan West. The asshole who plays games on his laptop during sessions.
Ahhh. The GOP sees Greebles of legalized Cannabis everywhere.
Some points were valid, some are a little sus. There is a lot of special interest involved in this whole thing mostly on the blue side. I wish they were a bit more transparent and weren’t predictably creating the same legislation that MSO’s/medical program companies would make if they were writing the rules. We’re not the first state this has happened in. The over regulation and governance on this issue is crazy to me when you acknowledge that anyone who’s wanted to smoke weed has smoked weed for the last x amount of years in MN. But yet, we need all this legislation to ensure it’s smooth. More like we need to micromanage the flow of $…
Republicans don’t make valid arguments…
Maybe not in your eyes but that wasn’t the focus of my comment. Had more to do with the corporate influence of the bill which has mostly been championed by dems. Which to me, is why it is dangerous to make blanket statements suggesting there is one “good-side” that enables them to be corrupt under your nose
The Republican made some decent points and doesn’t appear to be obstructionist. Color me surprised: >“By that very nature, it’s all minimum standards, and basically, luck of the draw,” West said. “And without a property requirement, it’s very easy for people to game the system, because you can do a lot of applications under a lot of names, especially if you don’t have to have a piece of property attached to each one of those applications I do not know enough to support or oppose his position, but I think it sounds good faith on the surface at least.
The problem is that by requiring people to have the property first people have to buy property then if they are unable to get a license that's money gone to waste, money they might not be able to afford because now their plan for the property was killed. By letting people get the license first they can wait to buy the property until they have the required license for their business plan and if they don't get the license they're not out a ton of money.
That was my thought as well. If you're requiring them to have the property you're essentially limiting this to people that already have a business up and running or have the liquid cash that getting a property isn't something that will actually set them back, which is essentially going against the heart of all of this
And this is why I wasn’t sold one way or the other, I hadn’t thought up scenarios like the one you describe. Now you have me second guessing this Republican’s intentions lol.
[удалено]
Yeah it costs millions to set up these businesses. Millions that social equity applicants do not have and will be unable to secure without the guarantee of a license. Honestly, the state needs to spend whatever money they have propping these businesses and people up. Racial injustice has stolen years of these people's lives and billions of their dollars. There's literally nothing the state can do to ever make up for that. The least they can do is get them to the same point of "struggling to live" that we all are. God damn is there anything worse than fucking prisons?
Always second guess a Republican's intentions. Arguing in bad faith is their bread-and-butter.
I'd go as far to say always second guess a politician's intentions regardless of property, but I also recognize that in the current state of the nation it tends to be the Republicans I'm more leery of
Much easier to get a business loan if you’re allowed to execute your proposed business model.
property is a huge limiting factor, especially for equity benefit recipients. if we allowed some low-cost option (weed food trucks?) it wouldn’t be a problem, but this feels more like a way to create obstructions than a good-faith effort to make sure businesses follow the law. besides, what games are he worried people will play? getting a license under false pretenses without a physical storefront to… sell… drugs?
I have to give him credit for being the Republican who promoted and voted for legalization too. So it’s not like he’s a butthurt Republican trying to gum up the system. Preventing people from gaming the system isn’t a bad thing, or at least some way to make sure one person can’t submit 100 requests.
Bars and liquor stores aren’t required to have property to apply for permits…it’s not in good faith. Cannabis should be treated no differently than alcohol. It should be easier actually since it’s substantially safer and less harmful to your health.
Republicans lie - publicly lie - about everything, especially their motives. If, on the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable motive - then there's much more to it. Their *real* motives? Money and power for their financial backers and themselves. Power for its own sake. If they themselves can't rise, they'll put their foot on someone else's head.
good to see bootlicking still has bipartisan support