Mr. Bernstein, The words "to the extent permitted by state and federal law" were specifically included to set up a regulatory structure which would go into effect upon a change in state and federal law. We are not asking the city to license an activity that those laws forbid. We are asking the city to create a framework that prepares for a change in those laws.
At the last legislative hearings on medical marijuana in 2000, an argument repeatedly used against it was that allowing medical marijuana would provide a loophole for the illegal market and benefit criminals. The point of our effort is to establish a mandate for Minneapolis to ensure that that is not the case. Our amendment stipulates that medical marijuana must be taken off of the streets when it is allowed. Again, it absolutely does not force the city into a conflict with the current laws. As I am not a lawyer, I cannot address the constitutional issues. But what I do know is that we designed our amendment to be constitutional and not in conflict with current laws, and that our lawyers have a strong case for its legitimacy. We disagree with the district court judge's decision, and it will be appealed. As for the Charter Commission's lack of authority to disapprove charter amendment language submitted for approval by petition, I agree with your sentiment expressed in the Commission's letter to the City Council that they lobby to amend state law to allow the Commission that authority. All potential conflicts should be dealt with up front, and if there is a legal challenge to them it should be taken care of before the work is done. Fairness demands a more clean cut process! In the meantime, charter amendment petitions which meet the current standards and garner the required number of signatures should be honored and placed on the ballot. I strongly doubt that 5% of Minneapolis voters would sign a petition to require that all city owned buildings be painted with sky blue and taupe stripes. But if that petition clears the approval process, and enough voters express their will to vote on it, then who are you (or anybody) to say that you're wrong and they're right? 12,500 Minneapolis residents signed our petition supporting a referendum on a medical marijuana provision in our city charter. Changing the standards for that referendum to qualify after the people have spoken is simply undemocratic. Jason Samuels Administrative Coordinator, Citizens Organized for Harm Reduction Whittier -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bernstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 1:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Mpls] Duluth City Council places measure on ballot JASON - I admire your tenacity but the inclusion of the words "to the extant permitted by law" does not change the fact that the thing that is being required (licensing the distribution of marijuana)is still a violation of state and federal law. The City of Minneapolis cannot lawfully license activities which are expressly forbidden by state and federal law! Regrettably, the Minneapolis Charter Commission does not have the authority to reject a proposed charter amendment submitted for approval by petition! COHR was advised when the language was "approved" that the distribution and sale of marijuana was illegal in Minnesota and that a charter amendment does not supersede state or federal law. If you had walked in with charter petition to require that all city owned buildings be painted with sky blue and taupe stripes we would have had to "approve" that language! The difference between the "stadium provision" and the medicinal marijuana provision is that there is no state or federal law barring the building of stadiums or using public funds to do so. The use of the Charter to require voter approval for a specific expenditure was a terrible precedent in my opinion but it did not violate state or federal law nor was it unconstitutional. The City Council exercised its authority to reject the COHR petition on the grounds that it authorized by charter an activity currently forbidden by state and federal law. A district court judge agreed that the Council has that authority and exercised it properly in this case. Jim Bernstein Fulton Minneapolis Charter Commission -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Samuels Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 4:26 PM To: 'Jim Bernstein'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Mpls] Duluth City Council places measure on ballot Mr. Bernstein, Once again, the charter amendment we put forth is NOT contrary to state law. Its plain language states that the city would be required to authorize, license and regulate medical marijuana distribution centers TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED by state and federal law. There is nothing illegal about requiring the city to enter a regulatory role for medical marijuana if the law is changed, just as there was nothing illegal in 1997 about requiring that the voters approve any expenditure over $10 million on a new sports stadium if the city is asked to spend that money. Furthermore, it is very undemocratic to refuse placement on the ballot of a charter amendment question which has met all of the requirements. The Charter Commission fulfilled its statutory obligation of approving our amendment's form and placement in the charter last October. That of course is why the Charter Commission was obligated to transmit the completed petition to the City Council, at which time you requested that they refuse to place the question on the ballot. My point is that any issues preventing its placement on the ballot should have been dealt with in the approval stage, and if there were no legal grounds to stop it then, there should be no legal grounds to stop it now. Jason Samuels Administrative Coordinator, Citizens Organized for Harm Reduction Whittier -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bernstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Mpls] Duluth City Council places measure on ballot JASON - As you are well aware, this issue was never about the number of signatures! The city of Duluth has the authority to regulate smoking within its city limits. The Minneapolis City Council has the authority (and responsibility in my opinion) to reject charter petitions that are contrary to state law. Best wishes! Jim Bernstein Fulton (Minneapolis Charter Commission) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Samuels Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 3:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] Duluth City Council places measure on ballot DULUTH: The City Council approves a ballot initiative to ban smoking in all indoor workplaces. http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9688658.htm I find it ironic that the Duluth City Council just placed a measure on their ballot after the qualifying petition lacked the required signatures at the deadline, while the Minneapolis City Council voted to keep a measure off our ballot which met the requirements. On Tuesday, Judge Richard Scherer of the Fourth Judicial District Court upheld the Council's 8-4 decision to keep a medical marijuana charter amendment off the ballot. An appeal is pending. Jason Samuels Administrative Coordinator, Citizens Organized for Harm Reduction Whittier REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
