Conference committee points awarded
Posted at 12:10 PM on May 1, 2007 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
The first CC -- conference committee -- points of the MFL were awarded today. SF420 has emerged from conference, that's points for Sens. Saxhaug; Dibble; Sieben; Olson, G.; Rummel. 30 points each.
Update Senate passed SF345 this afternoon - the medical marijuana bill. Lots of cross-over voting on this one. See Votetracker.
Update 1:59pm SF817 and HF966 -- bills to restrict mandatory overtime for nurses -- went head-to-head in conference committee and the House bill is the one that emerged (at least by number). That means CC (and probably GOV) points will go to Reps. Howes; Davnie; Murphy, E.; Ruud; Fritz; Peterson, S.; Moe; Slocum; Abeler; Tillberry and Sens. Anderson; Higgins; Erickson Ropes; Dille; Koering get shut out the rest of the way.
Update 4:13p - Sen. Murphy says he'll try to protect the marijuana bill from a gubernatorial veto by rolling it into the health and human services omnibus bill; another reason to hate omnibus bills.
That a boy, Saxhaug! I knew you were an excellent choice.
I think I am going to write a saucy story on the Medicinal marijuana bill for class but I have a Q for anyone who may know.
Doesn't it go against federal law? I thought the Gonzolas v. Raich case at the Supreme Court a few years back got shot down so it was illegal. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Posted by Jen Linn | May 1, 2007 7:32 PM
That was, among the 'gateway drug' stance, the theme of the opponents on the floor yesterday -- it violates federal law.
Posted by Bob Collins | May 2, 2007 7:32 AM
Your in luck in Minnesota is one of the nations leaders of the Marijuana Policy Project - mpp.org - their web site contains useful information. If you email me I can get you information on the MN folks.
Here is, information on Gonzales v. Raich, from the MPP.org web site FAQ's section:
Don't state-level medical marijuana laws put states in violation of federal law?
There is no federal law that mandates that states must enforce federal laws against marijuana possession or cultivation. States are free to determine their own penalties — or lack thereof — for drug offenses. State governments cannot directly violate federal law by giving marijuana to patients, but states can refuse to arrest patients who grow or acquire their own medicine.
Further, on October 14, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Conant v. Walters, letting stand an appellate court ruling that barred the federal government from punishing physicians who recommend medical marijuana to patients. By refusing to hear this case, the Supreme Court eliminated any doubt that states have the right to protect medical marijuana patients and their physicians under state law. Some people mistakenly believe that the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich invalidated state medical marijuana laws, but that is not the case. The decision simply maintained the status quo as it has existed since California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996: States may protect medical marijuana patients from arrest under state law, but those laws don't give patients immunity from federal prosecution. Shortly after the Raich decision, Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath told the Helena Independent Record, "We still have a valid law." Officials from every medical marijuana state have made similar determinations.
Thank you both!
Brian, I would like to e-mail you but your name leads me to a site for campaign software. Could you e-mail me so I have your address? Thanks! I am email@example.com.
Posted by Jen Linn | May 6, 2007 10:22 PM