Category Archives: Proposed legislation

Marijuana Legalization in Minnesota: What Should It Look like?

Has the time come for marijuana legalization in Minnesota?

Opposing legalization is now political suicide

Opposing marijuana legalization for responsible adult use is now political suicide.  That might surprise a few.  But much has changed.

Last month Gallup reported its polling on the issue“Sixty-six percent of Americans now support legalizing marijuana.”

Democracy?  Bipartisan Majorities

And support is bipartisan.  Though more Democrats support marijuana legalization than Republicans, “Gallup found last year that a slim majority of Republicans supported legal marijuana for the first time, and this year’s figure, 53%, suggests continued Republican support.”

Pew Research Center reports similar polling, pointing out that support for marijuana legalization is now double what it was in 2000.

History doesn’t repeat; it rhymes

Students of history draw lessons from the alcohol Prohibition life cycle.  Why did it take so long to end it, even after a majority of Americans opposed it?

The five percent tipping point
Marijuana legalization at the Capitol.  Minnesota NORML.

Marijuana legalization at the Capitol. Minnesota NORML.

One answer?  The tipping point was when about five percent of the voters made legalization a wedge issue.  In other words they would disregard political party, other issues, and vote for a political candidate solely on the issue of re-legalization.  The alcohol Prohibition repeal soon followed.

Elections matter

In the 2018 general election, two single-issue marijuana legalization parties achieved major party status in Minnesota.  Their candidates for statewide office received more than the five percent threshold to qualify as major political parties.

How many elections are won or lost by less than five percent of the vote in Minnesota?  Opposition to the majority will now has a severe price: losing.

The time has come for marijuana legalization.  But what should it look like in Minnesota?

What should marijuana legalization look like in Minnesota?

The issue is Liberty, not marijuana.  Ending marijuana Prohibition is consistent with conservative political values.  Less government means more freedom.  Prohibition is a government bloat program, that destroys lives, destroys our freedom.

We the People have at least equal rights to marijuana as we do to beer and wine.  The fact that marijuana is safer than beer and wine, undercuts the Prohibitionist lie that “marijuana is a dangerous drug.”  Death by overdose happens with alcohol, but cannot happen with marijuana.  Marijuana has no toxic dose level, unlike caffeine, aspirin and many other commonly used, legal drugs.

The three legal models for marijuana 

We’ve seen three models for our legal rights to marijuana, in chronological order:

  1. The Tomato Model
  2. The Prohibition Model
  3. The Beer and Wine Model

The Tomato Model

The Tomato Model of marijuana legalization

The Tomato Model of marijuana legalization

Under the Tomato Model of marijuana laws, the people have rights to marijuana equal to our rights to tomatoes.  The law lightly regulates tomatoes.  Tomatoes are not a crime to grow, possess, or sell.

The Tomato model means laws the repeal of laws criminalizing it.  People are free to do with marijuana what they can do with tomatoes.  We call it de-criminalization.

This was the state of the marijuana laws before the marijuana Prohibition era began.   Advocates of the tomato model say we should return to this.  Of the three legal models, the tomato model is the most conservative.  It protects the People’s Liberty most.

The Prohibition Model

The writing is on the wall: Vote Against Prohibition

The writing is on the wall: Vote Against Prohibition

Marijuana Prohibition never would have happened but for the alcohol Prohibition.  As the alcohol Prohibition was winding down in the 1930s, state by state, the government Prohibition bureaucracy ramped up its anti-marijuana propaganda; much of it with appeals to racism.  They succeeded.  They tricked the public into funding a massive anti-marijuana government bureaucracy.  It was a solution in search of a problem.  At the time, marijuana usage rate was infinitesimal.  Now almost every American has used marijuana at least once, thanks to Prohibition.

Though ten states have legalized marijuana for adult use, Minnesotans still live under the shadow of marijuana Prohibition.  The government still pays police officers to break down doors, toss people’s cars, searching for marijuana.  Then we pay prosecuting attorneys to charge people with marijuana with crimes, label us criminals, strip our civil rights and lock us up.

And enforcement disproportionately impacts African-Americans, despite equivalent usage rates with other ethnic groups.  Marijuana legalization ends these social evils.

The Beer and Wine model

Wine may not be for everyone, but a crime?

Wine may not be for everyone, but a crime?

Under “the beer and wine model,” the people of Minnesota have equal rights to marijuana just the same as to beer and wine.

The metaphor works because people are familiar with beer and wine.  The law treats marijuana the same as beer and wine in every way.  It also works because marijuana is safer than beer or wine.  This undercuts opponents’ “public safety” argument.

Wherever the law now says “beer” or “wine,” we can add the word marijuana.  What could be more simple?

Step one – decriminalization
Prohibition Still Doesn't Work. NORML.

Prohibition Still Doesn’t Work. NORML.

Of course, we need to delete all criminal laws referencing “marijuana” and “THC.”  This includes deleting both from the Schedules in Minnesota’s version of the Controlled Substances Act, now in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 152.  We call this “de-scheduling.”

In addition, the criminal drug laws will be amended to delete all references to THC and marijuana.  Most of these are also in Chapter 152.

That is the decriminalization component.  For supporters of The Tomato Model, that is all we should do.

Step two – regulation

Under the beer and wine model, we not only completely decriminalize, we also enact a set of laws regulating marijuana production and sale.  Here the existing beer and wine laws guide us.

We have equal rights to marijuana as to beer and wine.  So the marijuana laws mirror those regulating beer and wine.

Conservatives and Liberty advocates may prefer The Tomato Model for marijuana laws, as we had before Prohibition.  But here history has another lesson for us.

The legal framework for alcohol was The Tomato Model before the alcohol Prohibition.  But after the repeal of alcohol Prohibition, the laws regulated alcoholic beverages.  We’ll skip the reasons for that.

Suffice it to say, strong public support now exists for re-legalizing marijuana for responsible adult use under The Beer and Wine Model.  The ten states that have legalized so far have substantially followed The Beer and Wine Model.  Marijuana legalization in the Untied States so far means decriminalized and regulated like beer and wine.

What’s the Big Idea?

The Beer and Wine Model is the big idea.  Liberty.  Equal rights.  Civil rights.  Racial justice.  These core American values support the beer and wine model of legalization, far better the evils of Prohibition.

What should marijuana legalization look like in Minnesota?  The People should have at least equal rights to marijuana as to beer and wine.  With that core principle, the rest takes care of itself.

Details Matter Too

We’ll take a deeper dive into the details of proposed legislation in the future.  But now let’s take a look a few of the important details of re-legalization in Minnesota.

Home Grow is Alright With Me

Even with regulated beer and wine, we have the right to produce beer and wine at home in small batches.  Under the beer and wine model for marijuana regulation, we can grow marijuana on our own property, in small batches.

A little Minnesota history

Minnesota laws contradict each other when it comes to forms of marijuana.

A rose is a rose.

A rose is a rose.

In the 1970s, the laws favored plant-form marijuana and disfavored “the resinous form,” which we now call “wax.”  Then they thought “the resinous form” more dangerous than plant-form.   The distinction remains in Minnesota Statutes definition of a “small amount of marijuana.” That definition makes an exception for a small amount of the resinous form of marijuana, which currently remains a crime.

Yet in the 2010s, the Minnesota legislature crafted a Medical Marijuana law which favored “the resinous form” (concentrates) and disfavored plant-form marijuana.  More recently they thought that the resinous form was safer than plant-form.  The legislature then approved only the resinous form, for legal use within Minnesota’s original medical marijuana program.

The public policy in these two sets of laws conflict.

A rose is a rose is a rose

The time has come to end the legal distinction between plant-form and the resinous form.  We should treat all forms of marijuana as marijuana.  It’s the same plant, the same substance.  The distinction between forms creates needless confusion.  If it made any sense, the legislature would not have contradicted itself.

Repair the Minnesota Medical Marijuana Program
The once and future medical cannabis

The once and future medical cannabis

The lack of plant-form and home grow in Minnesota’s medical marijuana program has undermined it.  Now, Minnesota’s medical marijuana program is super-expensive and out of reach for disabled, sick people.  And insurance does not cover it.

The “concentrates only” approach of Minnesota’s medical marijuana program adds unnecessary cost.  Plant-form is less costly to produce.

The lack of legal home grow for Minnesota medical marijuana patients denies access to medical care to low-income, disabled people.  They can grow their own, cheap.

Suppliers and distribution

The law of supply and demand is stronger than criminal law

The law of supply and demand is stronger than criminal law

The “bad model” at this point is Colorado, the first state to legalize.  Why?  Because it  has a super-expensive seed to retail sale surveillance regimen then meant to reassure and deter diversion.  Now that ten states have legalized for adult use, this is an unneeded expense.

If retail cost is too high, the underground economy will continue.  We need to destroy the underground economy using the laws of economics, not failed criminal laws.

Suppliers and distribution.  The existing two medical suppliers and existing legal hemp growers are places to look for beginning suppliers.

Over-taxation

In some other states, over-taxation is a problem.  If retail cost is too high, the underground economy will continue.

Equal rights, and justice:  The “beer and wine model” comes to the rescue again.   We should not tax marijuana more than the beer and wine.  The “sin tax” on beer and wine is already sky-high.

Transitional issues

What are transitional issues?  These are issues that are big problems as we transition from a Prohibition Model, to a Beer and Wine Model of marijuana regulation.   But we expect that ten years after legalization many of these issues will subside.

There are many transitional issues.  Let’s mention a few.

Automatic record voiding of convictions and expungement

Minnesota’s legalization law should include automatic vacating of convictions and public records expungement.

Today, most people who qualify for criminal record expungement never file a Petition for Expungement in court due to cost barriers.  The law should require the government to automatically vacate every criminal conviction related to marijuana or THC, and expunge those public records.  We should remove the burden from the victims of Prohibition and put it on the government.

Many do not know that a typical Minnesota court expungement Order will not fully restore civil rights under federal law.  The conviction itself must be undone, vacated and dismissed, as if never happened.  We must do that, in order to fully restore all civil rights in a way the federal laws will recognize.  A simple sealing of public records will not fully restore civil rights.

Amnesty for Drug War P.O.W.s

We should immediately release all people locked up for any marijuana or THC crime, from jail or prison.

Force the Minnesota Department of Corrections to follow the law

When a court sentences a person to prison, it strips them of their civil rights and are commits them to the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC).  The Minnesota DOC revokes supervised release for legal medical marijuana users.  We must stop this Minnesota DOC policy and practice.   We need a statute to reign in this Minnesota DOC violation of existing Minnesota law.

What do you think?

Drop your comment below.

About the author

Thomas C. Gallagher, Minnesota NORML

Thomas C. Gallagher, Minnesota NORML Member

Written by Thomas C. Gallagher.  Gallagher has worked on re-legalization issues for over 30 years.

He is a former Chair of Minnesota NORML and is founding Board Member, since 2011.

Gallagher is also a criminal defense lawyer in Minneapolis with a heavy portion of marijuana defense cases.

Remove Marijuana from Schedule 1 in Minnesota? Amend SF 1219 & HF1376

Has the time come to remove marijuana from Minnesota’s Schedule 1 of the Minnesota Controlled Substances Act?  Yes, the time has come.  Here is an explanation of why; and how you can help make it happen before more lives are destroyed by this irrational and unjust law. we-the-people-norml

The Minnesota Controlled Substances Act (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 152) is similar to the Federal Controlled Substances Act (21 United States Code Sections 801 et seq) in that it creates lists, or “schedules” of drugs, numbered one through five.

Drugs listed in Schedule 1 are supposed to be a drug or other substance that has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or lacks accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.  Examples of Schedule 1 drugs include the opiates, such as heroin, morphine, etc.

A “Schedule 2” drug is meant to include drugs with a high potential for abuse, a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions, and, abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.  Examples of Schedule 2 drugs include cocaine, methamphetamine, and phenobarbital.

Schedules 3 and 4 are thought to include drugs less harmful or prone to abuse than those the government has listed in Schedule 1 and 2. Schedule 5 includes drug or concentrations of drugs the government thinks are less dangerous or prone to abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV, has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Where has the government seen fit to categorize marijuana within this scheme?  Currently, they still list marijuana as a “Schedule 1” category drug, right in there with heroin.  Apparently the government views marijuana as more dangerous than methamphetamine, which is only a Schedule 2 drug.

What difference does it make?  Lots.  But here are two big ways it makes a difference where the government categorizes marijuana within its laws: harming people and public safety with criminalization, and harming people and public health by creating a legal barrier to legal medical marijuana treatment.

Criminalization

As the Minnesota Controlled Substances Act (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 152) is currently written, removing marijuana from all “schedules” listed (sometimes called “descheduling”) would have limited impact since most controlled substance crimes specifically list marijuana by name.  Moving it from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 would appear to make no difference at all, as far as criminalization is concerned.

Medical Treatment with Marijuana

How can  there be a legal medical marijuana program under Minnesota law, and yet still have marijuana listed as a “Schedule 1 drug,” which is defined as having no currently accepted medical use in treatment?  Is Schedule 1 marijuana really more dangerous than Schedule 2’s methamphetamine?  After all, at least 23 of the 50 states now have legal medical marijuana programs and nearly half the U.S. population lives in states where medical marijuana is legal today.  “No currently accepted medical use in treatment?”  Really?  To the contrary, marijuana is currently accepted medical treatment, across the United States.

Allowing inertia to continue marijuana in Schedule 1 has harmful implications for public health of the people of Minnesota.  It creates innumerable difficulties for sick people who are just trying to treat their illness, including insurance issues.  This in turn creates unfairness for the ill and disabled who have a low-income, or could be driven into the underground market for medicine.

We ought to take our laws seriously and change them to reflect reality and truth, as best we can.  We need to amend Minnesota law to remove marijuana from Schedule 1, either into Schedule 2 or complete descheduling (remove from all Minnesota Controlled Substances Act schedules).

A bipartisan Bill recently introduced into the United States Senate would move marijuana from the federal Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 (titled the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion and Respect States or “CARERS” Act.)  We should get this done in Minnesota at our state legislature, first. The Minnesota State Senate now has a Bill pending to amend the Minnesota Controlled Substances Act to add various drugs and substances to the various Schedules.

This is a perfect opportunity for us to urge the Minnesota Senate and Minnesota House to amend that Bill to either deschedule marijuana, or at least move it down to Schedule 2. In 2011, the Minnesota law was changed so that the Minnesota Pharmacy Board no longer has authority to move drugs or other substances out of Schedule 1.  Only the Minnesota legislature can do it now.

So pick up the phone, send a letter, or otherwise contact your Minnesota State Senator and House Representative and ask them to support an amendment to SF 1219 and HF1376 to deschedule marijuana or reschedule it to Schedule 2.

Thomas C. Gallagher is a Minneapolis Defense Attorney representing people accused of marijuana crimes, and serves on the Board of Minnesota NORML.

Marijuana Medical Necessity: Why Minnesota Needs a New Law Affirming Your Right to Present a Medical Necessity Defense to a Marijuana Charge

Minnesota needs to adopt a new statute affirming your right to present the defense of medical necessity to a marijuana criminal-charge.  Why?

Marijuana, or cannabis, has been used by humans as medicine for thousands of years successfully for relief and treatment of disease.  Modern medical research, as well as clinical practice, has proven its efficacy in relieving symptoms as well as curing diseases — from the bothersome all the way to cancer.

Marijuana had never been a crime.  But beginning in the 1930s in the United States, as the alcohol Prohibition regime was disintegrating, a new experiment in Prohibition was being developed to replace it — the marijuana Prohibition.  Marijuana was widely used as medicine at the time, and its medicinal use persisted for decades but was eventually driven underground after increased criminalization policies in the United States, and in Minnesota.  Its use, including medical use, continued but was made criminal.

Necessity has been a recognized legal defense to what otherwise would be a crime, since ancient times.  In The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law: The Right to Choose the Lesser Evil some of this history is summarized:

The English courts stated the principle of necessity in 1551 in Reninger v. Fagossa (1 Plowd. 1, 75 Eng. Rep. 1): “A man may break the words of the law, and yet not break the law itself … where the words of them are broken to avoid greater inconvenience, or through necessity, or by compulsion.” The case cites the New Testament example of eating sacred bread through necessity of hunger or taking another’s corn. Mathew 12:3-4. Older English cases contain many examples which recognize the general principle of necessity. It was a defense to breaking a law that the person committed the act to save a life or put out a fire. Jurors could depart without the permission of the judge in case of emergency. Prisoners might escape from a burning jail without committing a crime. A person did not commit the misdemeanor of exposing an infected person in public if the person was being carried through the streets to a doctor.

The necessity defense is sometimes called the lesser-of-two-evils defense.  It is often a justification type defense.  If the defense is accepted by the jury, it does not mean the defendant did not intentionally do the prohibited act, but rather that he or she reasonably did so to avoid a greater evil, out of necessity.  It is a common law defense — old and widely accepted.  Like many other common law defenses, it has often been codified in statutes over the past several decades, in many jurisdictions.

med-mj-mn-signThe term “medical necessity defense” is a special application of the more general, necessity defense.  If you are sick with glaucoma or cancer and marijuana provides you with relief or cure, even though marijuana may be a crime to possess or grow in some states, you may decide that preserving your health (or your child’s life) is a greater necessity than complying with the criminal Prohibition.  The majority of people in the United States today, according to poll after poll, agree that medical use of marijuana should not be a crime.  As a result it is likely that many if not most jurors may share that majority view, that medical marijuana is not a real crime.  But in Minnesota jurors are not currently empowered to decide cases with all of the evidence.

Since you are constitutionally guaranteed the right to a jury trial, and the right to present a complete defense — to present the jury with your true defense, for the jury to do with it as it will —  how could it be that the Minnesota appellate courts have so far held that you have no right to present a medical necessity defense in a marijuana case?

To find out, you can read the Minnesota Court of Appeals case from 1991, State v. Hanson.  Though every court case is fact specific to a great extent, the court’s main rationales in the State v. Hanson case are captured in this excerpt:

“The statutory classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance implies a determination that marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use in the United States.” Minn.Stat. § 152.02, subd. 7(1) (1990). The legislature has enacted a single exception, in the THC Therapeutic Research Act (TRA), exempting from criminal sanctions possession or use of marijuana for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy who are receiving the drug under the strict controls of an approved medical research program. Minn. Stat. § 152.21, subds. 1, 3, 6 (1990). These statutory provisions demonstrate that the legislature has specifically addressed and determined the possible medical uses of marijuana.”

The first point, that marijuana has been classified by Minnesota as “a Schedule I substance” meaning they claim that it has “no currently accepted medical use in the United States,” if it has ever been true, is certainly not true today.  Though marijuana is still arbitrarily classified by Minnesota as “Schedule I,” the majority of the United States population now lives in states with legal medical marijuana programs, and marijuana is now currently accepted as having medical use — including by the United States Surgeon General.

The second argument advanced in Hanson, was that since the Minnesota legislature had enacted THC Therapeutic Research Act (which created a “research” program so restrictive that nothing ever came of it); that therefore the legislature must have intended to preclude any other consideration of any other exception or defense for medical use of marijuana (though it never said so).  Not particularly persuasive here, the argument is of the classic rhetorical form — expressio unius est exclusio alterius, a Latin phase meaning “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.”

The Hanson case was from 1991.  Much has changed since then, politically, legally, and in the medical research community, has it not?  So would a modern Minnesota appellate court right this 1991 wrong?  In 2014, it didn’t. In a 2014 decision the Minnesota Supreme Court, in State v. Thiel left intact the Schedule I classification despite a constitutional challenge by a defendant convicted of marijuana possession who had not been allowed to let the jury know the truth about his medical  condition, his medical recommendation for marijuana as medicine, or his California medical marijuana card.

It seems reasonable to conclude then, that the Minnesota courts are unlikely to remedy this injustice and restore our right to a fair jury trial, and our right to present a complete defense in Minnesota — at least not in the near term.

That is why we need the Minnesota legislature to restore some measure of Liberty and Justice in Minnesota, by passing a Bill for a new statute guaranteeing your right to let the jury hear the truth, that medical marijuana is a lesser evil (if it is an evil at all) than violating the criminal law prohibiting marijuana.

The Bill currently in the Minnesota legislature would restore the necessity defense to medical marijuana patients charged with a marijuana crime in Minnesota.  It would guarantee that the accused could use this as an affirmative defense — meaning the defendant would have the burden of showing prima facie evidence of medical necessity, and if successful, the ultimate burden of proving criminal guilt would then shift to the prosecution.  This would help restore the right to a jury trial to an extent as well.  The jurors have the right to hear the truth before condemning a person.

Contact your Minnesota House of Representatives member, your Minnesota State Senator, and the Governor to urge support of the medical necessity Bill, HF 542.

Thomas Gallagher is a Minnesota Marijuana Lawyer with a criminal defense practice based in Minneapolis.

Minnesota’s Incomplete Marijuana Decriminalization – the Hashish Technicality

In 1976, Minnesota decriminalized possession of a “small amount” of marijuana. Or did it?  Minnesota has only partially decriminalized a small amount of marijuana.  Here is how.

Hashish is marijuana (or cannabis). It is a compressed preparation of marijuana, that people around the world have safely used for thousands of years for recreational, medicinal and religious purposes. It’s made of cannabis-plant trichomes, flower and leaf fragments.  makehashMechanical methods remove the trichomes from the plant, screening by hand or with motorized tumblers. The resulting powder is heated and compressed into hashish.  Does hashish fit the definition of “the resinous form” of marijuana in Minnesota Statutes?  Probably not, since it is still plant-form, not chemically processed .

Chemical separation methods use a solvent like ethanol, butane or hexane to dissolve resin, which is filtered.  Then the solvent is boiled off leaving behind the resins – called honey oil, “hash oil,” wax, dabs, shatter – the “resinous form.”  The “resinous form of marijuana” is commonly an ingredient in medical marijuana edibles.

The problem:

Minnesota Statutes contain technical definitions that don’t always make common sense, and are sometimes inconsistent with a dictionary definition or common understanding of a word.  In this case, Minnesota Statutes Section 152.01, subdivision 16, defines a “small amount” of marijuana as 42.5 grams or less, but says “this provision [defining a “small amount”] shall not apply to the resinous form of marijuana.”

Increasingly in Minnesota, people found by police to be in possession of a small amount of marijuana wax or similar “resinous form of marijuana” are being charged with felony crimes.  Under current Minnesota law, any amount – even a small amount – of marijuana oil, cannabis wax, or a similar “resinous form of marijuana” can be charged as a felony crime.  This includes people who are lawful  medical marijuana users in other states, found with a small amount of the resinous form of marijuana in Minnesota.

In contrast, 42.5 grams (slightly less than 1.5 ounces) of plant-form marijuana is decriminalized in Minnesota.  It’s a petty misdemeanor; not a crime; cannot legally be the basis of an arrest; with the only penalty being a fine.  See, Minnesota Statutes Section 152.027, subdivision 4.

Why the exclusion of “resinous form of marijuana” makes no sense:

It’s marijuana:  There is no question that the “resinous form of marijuana” (honey oil, cannabis wax, etc.) is marijuana.  It’s simply a form of marijuana.  Another provision of Minnesota law explicitly recognizes this.  The definition of “Marijuana” in Minnesota Statutes Section 152.01, subdivision 9, defines it as “all parts of the plant of any species of the genus Cannabis, including all agronomical varieties, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin…”

Minnesota Public Policy favors the resinous form over the plant-form:  In 2014 the Minnesota legislature and Governor adopted into law a medical marijuana program which specifically found that resinous form of marijuana was safer and preferable to the plant-form of marijuana.  Minnesota law now contains a preference for the resinous form of marijuana, over the plant-form, as a matter of legislatively declared public policy.  Minnesota medical marijuana program participants will be able to lawfully possess and use the resinous form of marijuana obtained through the program, but will be deemed criminal if they use or possess the plant-form of marijuana.

If someone does possess “a small amount” why should it make any difference whether it’s plant-form or the resinous form of marijuana?  A small amount is a small amount.  One should not be a felony crime while the other is decriminalized.

Has the time come to update Minnesota’s 1970s era decriminalization law, to treat small amounts of all forms of marijuana equally?  More importantly, should Minnesota law continue to make felons out of people in Minnesota who possess a small amount of the “resinous form of marijuana”?  The technical distinction between marijuana in plant form versus resinous form is lost on most people, who typically believe they are in compliance with the state’s decrim law – only to discover their error after it is too late.

The law should be consistent.  It should treat people fairly.  It should not create felons based upon arbitrary distinctions and technical legal definitions that don’t make sense.

The simple remedy?

The Minnesota legislature can fix this.  How?  Pass a Bill that amends Minnesota Statutes Section 152.01, subdivision 16, defining a “small amount” of marijuana, to delete the language “this provision shall not apply to the resinous form of marijuana.”  That should solve the problem, and bring more common sense and equity into the law.

Thomas Gallagher is a Marijuana Lawyer in Minneapolis, and serves on the Board of Directors of Minnesota NORML.