I have had experts testify under oath, in court, on this very subject.
I find the article interesting, because marijuana is still considered to be illegal in the State of Minnesota. Actually, possession of a small amount of marijuana is listed as “not a crime” because of its petty misdemeanor status.
If you have less than 1.5 ounces in Minnesota, and are not selling it, then you can only get a fine of up to $300 as a potential penalty.
If you have more than 1.4 grams in a motor vehicle, then it can be a misdemeanor.
It is very important that you fight this particular designation, because it will usually go on your traffic record as “Sale or Possession of a Controlled Substance.” They don’t designate the nature of the possession, nor that it is marijuana. Consequently, potential employers often shy away from people with this on their records.
For that reason, it always pays to have the marijuana weighed prior to settlement, if your prosecuting attorney will not give you a deal so that it comes off your record.
The Free Press article is important also, because it looks at the reality of the situation. In other words, people are dying from opioids. The author indicates 18,000 people, as a figure given by the CDC. However, recent investigation indicates there are 50,000 deaths a year from these prescribed controlled substances, which amounts to 78 people dying, per day.
If a client were to give a drug that killed somebody, they would be charged criminally. However, when licensed doctors, supposedly demonstrating the highest care that we can give, allow their patients too much of this medicine, so that they die, no charges are ever brought forth. They bury their mistakes.
It is an example of big pharma, at its worst.
This article, appearing in our local Mankato arena, is important also, because it advocates a higher principle. This is what I always talk about.
Love is a Fundamental Right. When we start prioritizing our lives this way, we see it as much more important to give a medicine that allows somebody to live, versus one that has a high potential for death. That is how love works. That is one of love’s many facets. We think about the well-being of ourselves, and other loved ones.
In my humble review, I believe that the Mankato Free Press is attempting to lead us into a safer tomorrow. By our practical solutions, we are changing the nature of marijuana in the State. It is inappropriate to have this herb classified as a Schedule I drug. And yet, the authorities insist that it has no medicinal value and that it cannot be administered safely under medical supervision. Any old time hippie will tell you that they know how to successfully administer this herb. Let us catch up with reality. The simple message is, marijuana is safer than opioids, heroin, alcohol, and cigarettes. Would you rather take something and live? Or die? The choice is ours, because we all possess medical freedom and the ability to love ourselves.
Recently, in conversation with a relative who paid me to represent her child, it became apparent that she was focused on misrepresentation by the probation agent in dealing with her son. She was very upset that a probation agent would engage in unethical behavior, including communications that exceeded professional boundaries. The parent wanted retribution against the probation agent, including an order for protection.
Needless to say, I said that an order for protection would not be forthcoming, as it would only inflame the situation, and put the accused in a worse position than the child was already suffering.
Then I heard myself telling her:
Remember, all too often, my clients get in trouble because they are conducting a form of retribution. We all want to get even.
There are two sources of energy here, love and power. When we seek retribution, we are seeking power. However, an accused has little room for retribution. When he asks that retribution not apply to himself, it is difficult for him then to point the finger at another.
The other source of power is love. In the criminal justice system, love triumphs over power. Love is the trump card, always.
Petition to Use Marijuana for PTSD and Chronic Pain
I know Illinois doesn’t have much sway over Minnesota, but I was fascinated by this article allowing citizens to petition to use marijuana for PTSD and chronic pain, under the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act.
Years ago Robert Kennedy’s son died on his way to in-patient chemical dependency treatment in South Dakota. He OD’ed on the plane ride there. So close to a remedy, tragically cut short by using “one last time.”
From that experience, I came to know and understand that many individuals who suffer addictions want to have a “final toot” before their sobriety.
We see this now in the story of Prince. His healers were present at his home when he OD’ed. The people who were going to take him to treatment the day he died, could not save him.
You and I will never eliminate the final toot. Those who are addicted will often see a final need to use.
However, we can be aware of this phenomenon. That means, if we have a loved one who is going to treatment, we pay special attention. Often, this simply means being with them as a friend, helping another during their time of need.
Many of us have experienced the delight of seeing a loved one get sober. The sad reality is, many people do not stay sober after treatment. Those who go back or “fall off the wagon,” often find themselves using at the same pace they did before treatment. For the opiate user, using either prescription opiates or illegal heroin, this often can mean death. We must be aware of this. Let us teach the opiate user that returning too soon to their old level of use may lead to catastrophic results.
As caring observers, let us help by paying attention.
Mankato Freepress Prioritizing Rights over the Convenience of a DWI Breath Test
Hooray for the Mankato Free Press prioritizing rights over the convenience of a DWI breath test. Read their opinion to understand that our US Constitution prohibits threatening criminal prosecution to compel consent. Our Bill of Rights require honoring the rights of the individual. Please Read…
Mankato Free Press
OUR VIEW: Implied consent High court rightly skeptical of law
Why it matters: Criminally punishing people for using their constitutional right not to be searched without a warrant should not stand.
Apr 25, 2016 - The U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to strike down implied-consent laws in Minnesota and 12 other states, laws that criminally punish suspected drunken drivers who refuse to take a blood-alcohol test.
It’s time the laws are done away with.
No one wants drunken drivers on the road or left unpunished. But there is no evidence that doing away with implied-consent laws will lead to anyone who drives drunk from going uncharged.
Under implied consent, suspected drunken drivers can be charged with felonies for refusing to take a breath or blood test. The charge is actually often treated more seriously than if the person is convicted of drunken driving.
When the justices heard arguments last week in cases involving Minnesota and North Dakota, they made clear they see the implied-consent laws as being at fundamental odds with protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor noted the “drastic” and “extraordinary” demands that were being made by states that have implied-consent laws.
Attorneys for the states argued that getting a warrant in a timely manner was a difficult task.
The attorneys for the states didn’t help themselves in their argument. One argued it was difficult in places like rural North Dakota to quickly get search warrants while the other attorney later argued that it was too hard to get one in busy urban areas.
But most of the justices, weren’t buying the argument — noting that with today’s technology, getting a judge to relatively quickly approve a search warrant electronically was not an undue burden on the government. Sotomayor said it wasn’t the Supreme Court’s job to waive constitutional protections simply to make it easier for states to prosecute suspected drunk drivers.
“It’s as if you want to create an exception to the Fourth Amendment … in a drastic way,” Sotomayor said.
The constitutional right to not face unreasonable searches from law enforcement and the government is too important to trifle with simply to make things easier for the state. The implied-consent laws severely punish people for using their constitutional rights not to be searched without a warrant. It’s a law that shouldn’t stand.