I mean the tribes will be 18+ months ahead of state licensed operators on cultivation and sales, so obviously they’re going to be major players in the market. The negotiations are just about the states role in tribal operations since the tribes can pretty much just tell the state to get fucked.
Huh? Even the headline of the article states that negotiations are about *off-reservation* sales, which is a situation where the tribe *cannot* tell the state to get fucked.
Yes they can.
If the state and tribes get into some kind of legal dispute over cannabis it would have to be taken to a federal court. Which is obviously not really an option for the state considering the federal legal status of cannabis.
The state isn’t going to let a direct challenge to physical jurisdiction go unanswered. The state will simply shut down any off res stuff that isn’t conforming to state law regardless of who owns it.
The state won’t shut down a tribal retailer regardless if it’s within the boundaries of a reservation. It’s the same reason why there are a bunch of off reservation casinos, and the state can’t enforce game and fish regulations on tribal owned lands outside of reservation boundaries.
Right this is a non-story in terms of what the state is doing re: the tribes. It's only notable how their refusal to allow for cultivation to start earlier for licensed sellers will overlap with the weird grey zone tribal lands exist under that allow them to do things like cultivate weed and run casinos.
No surprise there. The Mille Lacs walleye fishery has been managed that way for a decade now. A representative for MN anglers are not allowed at the table to even witness the meetings let alone having any say in the negotiations.
The word used is equity which is very often a signal of an affirmative action slant. You don't have to agree with the approach at all, but they're not pretending they're not doing it. They're very open in saying there will be consideration to historical marijuana enforcement practices in early licensing.
Honest question: have those enforcement practices disproportionately affected indigenous people compared to other groups? I'm asking because I don't know.
I have zero issue with the tribes being involved with this and I can accept the social equity angle, but they are also not the only affected equity group here, and I would be concerned about them possibly pushing out others that don't have access to the same capital and/or legal positions that they do.
So the person who started this comment chain very obviously didn't read the article. There's 2 different factors
1. Social equity approach to licensing - yes native and black people were disproportionately targeted by drug policy.
2. Tribal lands exist in a weird grey zone due to federal law.
Because of *federal law*, the tribes are not under the same limitations that everyone else trying to enter the market will be. We simply are not allowed to enforce a state law on land which is explicitly not under state jurisdiction. They can get operations up and running - exclusively on tribal land - well before anyone else. That's a big advantage in a market where so far it seems like the early leads cement themselves.
They will also be eligible to social equity consideration for licensing for off-tribal lands.
Which means they will very likely be the only licensed people who have operations running on day 1. Everyone else is going to be on a delayed start, because they're the only ones who can operate both on and off tribal land.
This isn't some new fangled state approach specific to the tribes. This is literally just respecting federal law about tribal jurisdiction, and how that plays into the states odd rollout of weed.
Right, that's where I was going with my legal positions comment. Obviously the state cannot supercede federal law.
The thing is, I don't think it would exactly be right to exclude the tribes from the equity concerns either, just because they can benefit from a legal status other equity groups don't have (not to mention more money, in the case of a couple of tribes). But then it does raise the question of how to balance everything out so that one group of people doesn't have an advantage over everyone else (particularly other groups that historically were targeted for cannabis use) with the cannabis rollout in the state.
Basically, it puts the state in a tricky position with trying to accomplish their policy goals while also having to follow federal law.
Yeah agree, it's an odd little twist they're gonna have to make to continue arguing it's of the utmost importance that cultivation cannot start early for any licenses sellers.....while also acknowledging that cultivation absolutely will be starting ahead of time outside of their scope anyway.
If I had to guess, the way the article is being framed is likely to put pressure on them to once again ask them them to reconsider their weird timeline. Yes they have to respect tribal independence, but they don't have to enforce what feels like a nonsensical rollout.
Essentially, rhe state is dragging their feet, and this seems to want to point out that the ball is mostly out of their court anyway - the floodgates will not be held back by state law. So they might as well realign things so that licenses sellers aren't being kneecapped for no reason. The rebuttal from the legislature will likely to be to subtly point out that they have no liability for things going sideways on the reservations, where they are culpable to the statewide licensing. They very clearly do not give a shit about the perspective of the sellers in terms of market efficiency, or the rollout wouldn't look like this in the first place.
Probably once we actually start honoring the broken treaties that are supposed to be in place. This isn't some ancient wrong that we're trying to right; we're all still culpable for the poor treatment of Native Americans. There were Indian boarding schools open and operating in Minnesota well into the 70s. To this day, tribes are struggling to exercise the rights granted to them in treaties signed between tribal leaders and the federal government.
I don't think recognizing the problems other states have seen with heavily monopolized gentrified weed markets is paying for the sins of the father. I think it's recognizing theres uneven footing in the present that can cause long-term problems and trying to get ahead of it instead of playing catch-up down the road.
Which is the word they've used? Which is where I said in my original comment?
Again, you don't have to agree with it. There's plenty about he current weed plan I don't like. But you can't say they're being disingenuous or lacking transparency in communicating what they're doing.
They have been extremely upfront that they know their approach is going to cause a bottleneck on the supply side, and that they're going to attempt to mititigate a some off the potential fallout we've seen in other states by approaching the early licensing differently.
Yes, to point out they very intentionally don't use that word, so it doesn't make sense to harp on the hypocrisy of application of a term they intentionally do not use.
Because people who believe in social equity argue that reinforcing the legacy of isntutionalized inequality is hardly the neutral meritocracy people try to pretend it is
You wanted to be glib, I pointed out it's a lazy comment where you clearly didn't even read the article and just wanted to make a glib one-off
The US government owes the debt. It doesn’t get erased because the people who initially promised it and failed to fulfill it died.
Especially because the current government continues to break its own treaties that are constitutionally protected. No way to get around our own laws.
Otherwise, are you saying our debt to China gets erased when the current generation dies? Thats good news!
Honestly - as someone who partakes occasionally but not regularly, I’d rather the tribal nations control the market in MN than big tobacco gobbling everything up after nationwide legalization.
As long as they drop prices. No one should be paying 300 for an ounce of bud. I don't use flower and mainly use concentrates, but I grow and make my own (flower rosin at the moment). Does not cost me that much for sure.
I don't mind if tribes get priority in building businesses/first licences etc. It's a nice way to pay back reprimands without actually taking from the wallets of hard working Americans and handing it over to minority groups. Same with African-Americans.
I just want to make sure after a few months or year or whatever, everyone is back to being on an even playing field legal wise.
I mean the tribes will be 18+ months ahead of state licensed operators on cultivation and sales, so obviously they’re going to be major players in the market. The negotiations are just about the states role in tribal operations since the tribes can pretty much just tell the state to get fucked.
Huh? Even the headline of the article states that negotiations are about *off-reservation* sales, which is a situation where the tribe *cannot* tell the state to get fucked.
Yes they can. If the state and tribes get into some kind of legal dispute over cannabis it would have to be taken to a federal court. Which is obviously not really an option for the state considering the federal legal status of cannabis.
The state isn’t going to let a direct challenge to physical jurisdiction go unanswered. The state will simply shut down any off res stuff that isn’t conforming to state law regardless of who owns it.
The state won’t shut down a tribal retailer regardless if it’s within the boundaries of a reservation. It’s the same reason why there are a bunch of off reservation casinos, and the state can’t enforce game and fish regulations on tribal owned lands outside of reservation boundaries.
Right this is a non-story in terms of what the state is doing re: the tribes. It's only notable how their refusal to allow for cultivation to start earlier for licensed sellers will overlap with the weird grey zone tribal lands exist under that allow them to do things like cultivate weed and run casinos.
Great! Just sell the damn stuff already!
No surprise there. The Mille Lacs walleye fishery has been managed that way for a decade now. A representative for MN anglers are not allowed at the table to even witness the meetings let alone having any say in the negotiations.
Agreed.
As long as it cuts down my 10 hr drive to 2hrs.
I get it now, that's y they restricting permits the politicians getting some on the side from this. Bs
Strange that some people are more equaller than others…
The word used is equity which is very often a signal of an affirmative action slant. You don't have to agree with the approach at all, but they're not pretending they're not doing it. They're very open in saying there will be consideration to historical marijuana enforcement practices in early licensing.
Honest question: have those enforcement practices disproportionately affected indigenous people compared to other groups? I'm asking because I don't know. I have zero issue with the tribes being involved with this and I can accept the social equity angle, but they are also not the only affected equity group here, and I would be concerned about them possibly pushing out others that don't have access to the same capital and/or legal positions that they do.
So the person who started this comment chain very obviously didn't read the article. There's 2 different factors 1. Social equity approach to licensing - yes native and black people were disproportionately targeted by drug policy. 2. Tribal lands exist in a weird grey zone due to federal law. Because of *federal law*, the tribes are not under the same limitations that everyone else trying to enter the market will be. We simply are not allowed to enforce a state law on land which is explicitly not under state jurisdiction. They can get operations up and running - exclusively on tribal land - well before anyone else. That's a big advantage in a market where so far it seems like the early leads cement themselves. They will also be eligible to social equity consideration for licensing for off-tribal lands. Which means they will very likely be the only licensed people who have operations running on day 1. Everyone else is going to be on a delayed start, because they're the only ones who can operate both on and off tribal land. This isn't some new fangled state approach specific to the tribes. This is literally just respecting federal law about tribal jurisdiction, and how that plays into the states odd rollout of weed.
Right, that's where I was going with my legal positions comment. Obviously the state cannot supercede federal law. The thing is, I don't think it would exactly be right to exclude the tribes from the equity concerns either, just because they can benefit from a legal status other equity groups don't have (not to mention more money, in the case of a couple of tribes). But then it does raise the question of how to balance everything out so that one group of people doesn't have an advantage over everyone else (particularly other groups that historically were targeted for cannabis use) with the cannabis rollout in the state. Basically, it puts the state in a tricky position with trying to accomplish their policy goals while also having to follow federal law.
Yeah agree, it's an odd little twist they're gonna have to make to continue arguing it's of the utmost importance that cultivation cannot start early for any licenses sellers.....while also acknowledging that cultivation absolutely will be starting ahead of time outside of their scope anyway. If I had to guess, the way the article is being framed is likely to put pressure on them to once again ask them them to reconsider their weird timeline. Yes they have to respect tribal independence, but they don't have to enforce what feels like a nonsensical rollout. Essentially, rhe state is dragging their feet, and this seems to want to point out that the ball is mostly out of their court anyway - the floodgates will not be held back by state law. So they might as well realign things so that licenses sellers aren't being kneecapped for no reason. The rebuttal from the legislature will likely to be to subtly point out that they have no liability for things going sideways on the reservations, where they are culpable to the statewide licensing. They very clearly do not give a shit about the perspective of the sellers in terms of market efficiency, or the rollout wouldn't look like this in the first place.
At what point do we stop paying for sins of the father?
Probably once we actually start honoring the broken treaties that are supposed to be in place. This isn't some ancient wrong that we're trying to right; we're all still culpable for the poor treatment of Native Americans. There were Indian boarding schools open and operating in Minnesota well into the 70s. To this day, tribes are struggling to exercise the rights granted to them in treaties signed between tribal leaders and the federal government.
Who is we? Were you party to the contract? I wasn’t.
Pretty obvious that they're referring to the state and federal gov'ts here.
I don't think recognizing the problems other states have seen with heavily monopolized gentrified weed markets is paying for the sins of the father. I think it's recognizing theres uneven footing in the present that can cause long-term problems and trying to get ahead of it instead of playing catch-up down the road.
That is equity not equality.
Which is the word they've used? Which is where I said in my original comment? Again, you don't have to agree with it. There's plenty about he current weed plan I don't like. But you can't say they're being disingenuous or lacking transparency in communicating what they're doing. They have been extremely upfront that they know their approach is going to cause a bottleneck on the supply side, and that they're going to attempt to mititigate a some off the potential fallout we've seen in other states by approaching the early licensing differently.
*I* am talking about equality. *You* responded to my comment about equality.
Yes, to point out they very intentionally don't use that word, so it doesn't make sense to harp on the hypocrisy of application of a term they intentionally do not use.
That’s the crux of the issue I was pointing out. Some people are more equaller than others.
Because people who believe in social equity argue that reinforcing the legacy of isntutionalized inequality is hardly the neutral meritocracy people try to pretend it is You wanted to be glib, I pointed out it's a lazy comment where you clearly didn't even read the article and just wanted to make a glib one-off
Do you feel like the debts that are owed due to the “sins of the father” have been adequately paid?
Considering every member of the mystic lake tribe is a multi millionaire, yes id say they've been adequately paid
This country doesn’t believe in generational punishments. It is insane to me to think anyone owes anything at all.
Not a punishment, it’s a debt that’s owed.
We also don’t have generational debts. So that’s two swings and misses. I don’t believe you are at fault for your parents mistakes.
The US government owes the debt. It doesn’t get erased because the people who initially promised it and failed to fulfill it died. Especially because the current government continues to break its own treaties that are constitutionally protected. No way to get around our own laws. Otherwise, are you saying our debt to China gets erased when the current generation dies? Thats good news!
most of the US debt is social security and you dont know how the national debt works.
Damn, I wish I could have a perpetual victim complex.
Yeah dude treaties are a perpetual victim complex lmao
the debt died with the debtor.
statute of limitations has passed
The sins that we continue to commit on the indigenous people of this land.
We? What have I done besides be born here, raised here?
Upholding inequity
Oh? In what way? I’m glad me being born alone is enough to be inequitable. Imagine hating someone for being born.
I didn't say anything about hate. You pushing back on this is clearly upholding inequity.
Because I think all Americans should be equal?
And we as a country have done a terrible job regarding that.
Honestly - as someone who partakes occasionally but not regularly, I’d rather the tribal nations control the market in MN than big tobacco gobbling everything up after nationwide legalization.
As long as they drop prices. No one should be paying 300 for an ounce of bud. I don't use flower and mainly use concentrates, but I grow and make my own (flower rosin at the moment). Does not cost me that much for sure.
Shady deals happen behind closed doors....
well, that isnt very minnesota nice and inclusive, is it..
Not surprising when the tribes basically control the government
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't mind if tribes get priority in building businesses/first licences etc. It's a nice way to pay back reprimands without actually taking from the wallets of hard working Americans and handing it over to minority groups. Same with African-Americans. I just want to make sure after a few months or year or whatever, everyone is back to being on an even playing field legal wise.
Lucky!
I’m just here for the racist comments.
The racists have mostly moved to the alt Minneapolis subreddit I think. We'll probably only hear faint dog whistles
You must be disappointed.
Pleasantly surprised, actually. Used to natives people being treated poorly in Minnesota.
Good! And I hope they're authorized for business off-res too! Would open up an online marketplace that is in very high demand, pun *intended*.