♪♪ >> Mary: AS YOU JUST SAW, IT'S CONFERENCE COMMITTEE TIME WHERE HOUSE AND SENATE WORK OUT THE DIFFERENCES SO WE HAVE A HOUSE CHAIR AROUND HE IS THE AUTHOR OF THE MARIJUANA BILL WHICH IS BEING NEGOTIATED RIGHT NOW, DEMOCRAT ZACK STEPHENSON AND WE HAVE REPUBLICAN FROM THE SENATE, CARLA NELSON.

ALL RIGHT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES, WHAT DO YOU LOOK AT AS THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES?

>> WE ACTUALLY HAVE A LOT IN COMMON.

I THINK WE AGREE IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE THAT THE CANNABIS LAWS WE HAVE NOW ARE DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD AND MINNESOTANS WANT CHANGE.

SO WE'RE BUILDING FROM THAT CONSENSUS, THE FACT THAT WE CAN HAVE A CANNABIS POLICY THAT ALLOWS MINNESOTANS THE FREEDOM AND RESPECT TO MAKE NEAR OWN DECISIONS BUT ALSO DOES GREAT GOOD AROUND PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC SAFETY, ALL SORTS OF THINGS, BETTER USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

SO WE'RE BUILDING ON CONSENSUS.

>> Mary: BUT THE DIFFERENT TAXES, DIFFERENT TAX RAITT, DIFFERENT AMOUNTS THAT CAN BE POSSESSED?

>> UT, MAYOR, THESE ARE RELATIVELY MINOR DIFFERENCES WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A 10% TAX RATES IN THE SENATE AND 8% IN THE HOUSE, THAT'S NOT A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

THE DIFFERENCE IN THE POSSESSION LIMIT IS ALSO MINOR.

THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED OUT BUT I THINK THERE'S GREAT MOMENTUM BEHIND THIS PROPOSAL.

I'M FEELING VERY POSITIVE.

>> Mary: THE DETAILS TROUBLE YOU OR THE BIG PICTURE?

>> ACTUALLY, THE BILL IS JUST BRIE MATURE.

NUMBER ONE, THERE IS JUST NO TEST FOR IMPAIRMENT, WHICH S WHY PUBLIC SAFETY IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.

THERE'S TEST IF -- IF THC IS PRESENT KNEW BUT NOT IF YOU'RE IMPAIRED OR NOT, SO HUGE ISSUE.

THIS BILL SHOULD NOT BE MOVING UNTIL WE HAVE A TEST FOR IMPAIRMENTS.

THERE'S ALSO GREAT CONCERN, TOO, ABOUT THE LACK OF LOCAL CONTROL.

WE TEND TO BELIEVE LOCAL CONTROL IS BEST IN FIGURING OUT WHAT WORKS BEST.

>> Mary: THE SENATE GOT SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT LITTLE MORE LOCAL CONTROL IN IT.

>> WE GOT JUST A LITTLE BIT, SAYING THAT THERE CANNOT BE MORE THAN TWO, TWO LICENSEES IN SOME OF OUR SMALLER AREAS, SOME OF THEM OUR SMALLER DISTRICTS OUT BUT THERE'S GREAT CONCERN.

>> Mary: WHAT ABOUT THAT PROVISION, THERE'S BEEN BIPARTISAN INTEREST IN A LITTLE MORE LOCAL CONTROL?

COULD YOU TAKE THE SENATE LANGUAGE THERE?

>> THERE IS A LOT OF LOCAL CONTROL IN BOTH BILLS.

WE ALLOW FOR ZONING, ALLOWING LOCALITIES TO KEEP THE STORES AWAY FROM SCHOOLS AND OTHER THINGS.

WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS OPTING OUT AMTOGETHER BECAUSE THAT IS A BREEDING GROUND FOR THE ILLICIT MARKET AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER STATES THAT HAVE ALLOWED THOSE TYPES OF OPT-OUTS, IS THE ELICIT MARKETPLACE CONTINUES TO COULD GO.

>> Mary: THERE IS REPUBLICAN INTEREST IN OPTS OWOUT?

>> EXACTLY.

THOSE OPT-OUTS IN CALIFORNIA ARE VERY SMALL AREAS, THE LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS DID NOT OPT OUT SO CERTAINLY ALLOWING OPT-OUTS SHOULD BE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF ANY MINNESOTA CITY TOWN OR TOWNSHIP.

>> Mary: WHAT ABOUT THE IMPAIRMENT TEST?

THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, AS WELL, THAT'S SOMETHING BUSINESSES ARE SAYING, THE TRUCKERS HAVE BEEN REALLY VOCAL ABOUT THAT.

WHERE ARE YOU AT ON IMPAIRMENT AND CAN THIS GO THROUGH WITHOUT SOME TANGIBLE GUIDE ON IMPAIRMENT?

>> SO WHEN THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT IN SESSION, I WORK AS A PROSECUTOR SO THIS IS AN ISSUE I KNOW FIRSTHAND FROM MY DAY JOB AND THE THING WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IS THERE ARE A LOT OF SUBSTANCES THAT YOU CAN TAKE LEGALLY TODAY THAT IMPAIR YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE.

AND THERE'S NO TEST FOR IMPAIRMENT.

RANGING FROM PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION ALL THE WAY DOWN TO COUGH SYRUP OR SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND LET ME TELL YOU, WHICH PROSECUTE PEOPLE EVERY DAY IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LEGAL SUBSTANCES FOR WHICH THERE IS NO IMPAIRMENT TEST.

ALCOHOL IS THE OUTLEASH, THE ONLY SUBSTANCE FOR WHICH THERE IS AN IMPAIRMENT TEST SO I HAVE TO DISAGREE WHEN WE SIGH WE CAN'T HANDLE THIS PROBLEM, BECAUSE WE ALREADY ARE.

WE DO THIS EVERY DAY WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT SUBSTANCES.

>> CERTAINLY OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE RIGHT -- ARE THE ONES THAT ARE RIGHT ON THE GROUND, THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AND SO ARE MANY, MANY MINNESOTANS.

AND THEN, SPECIFICALLY, JUST THE ASPECT OF MORE ILLICIT OR MORE ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES AND PARTICULARLY HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT KIDS.

CERTAINLY I'VE BEEN A LEADER IN TOBACCO, KEEPING TOBACCO AWAY FROM THE YOUTH.

WE KNOW THERE IS THE HALO EFFECT AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN FROM OTHER STATES, WE SHOULD LEARN IN OTHER STATES.

OTHER STATES HAVE SEEN INCREASES IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE, THEY HAVE SEEN INCREASES IN TRAFFIC FATALITIES UNDER IMPAIRMENT UNDER CANNABIS USE, SO WE SHOULD LEARN FROM HOSE OTHER STATES.

>> Mary: LET'S TALK ABOUT AGE BECAUSE ORIGINALLY YOUR BILL STARTED 18, YOU MOVED TO 21.

THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO TAKE IT TO 25 AND A LOT OF ARGUMENTS BEHIND THE BRAIN NOT FULLY FORMING UNTIL 25.

IT CAN'T CHANGE NOW IN CONFERENCE, CAN IT, BECAUSE 21 IS IN CONFERENCE?

>> CAN'T AND SHOULDN'T.

21 IS THE AGE OF MAJORITY, IT'S THE AGE AT WHICH WE'VE DECIDED THAT PEOPLE ARE ADULTS AND THERE IS A HOST OF DECISIONS THAT YOU GET TO MAKE AT THE TIME YOU'RE 21 RANKING FROM DRINKING ALCOHOL, BUYING TOBACCO, JOINING THE ARMY, GETTING MARRIED, HAVING KIDS.

THIS IS THE AGE OF MAJORITY.

WE CERTAINLY THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SMOKE CANNABIS IF THAT'S THEIR CHOICE AND I WANT TO SAY, THE EVIDENCE IS REALLY STRONG IN DATA FROM OTHER STATES, THAT YOUTH ACCESS TO CANNABIS DOES NOT INCREASE, AT ALL, IT HOLDS STEADY AND STAGNANT IN STATES LIKE COLORADO AND WASHINGTON.

WHERE WE DO SEE N INCREASE IN CONSUMPTION IS AMONG OLDER PEOPLE, SENIOR CITIZENS WHO USE IT FOR PAIN RELIEF.

THIS IS A MOST ACTIVE THING.

EVERY SINGLE STATE THAT HAS LEGALIZED CANNING ABYSS HAS SEEN A DROP IN OPIOID OVERDOSE DEATHS BECAUSE PEOPLE SUBSTITUTE CANNABIS FOR OPIOIDS.

>> Mary: THE HOUSE GOT SOME HUSBAND SUPPORT, HE SENATE DID NOT, WHY NOT?

THERE ARE REPUBLICANS WHO WERE INTERESTED IN THIS.

>> YES, YES, AND THERE ARE OTHER LEGALIZATION BILLS OUT THERE THAT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN MORE SUPPORT.

THIS ONE, AS I SAID, IS JUST PREMATURE.

>> Mary: COULD YOU SUPPORT ANY VERSION?

>> IT DEPENDS ON WHAT IT IS.

YOU HAVE TO EE WHAT IT IS.

DOES IT TAKE CARE OF THE MAJOR ISSUES?

>> DECRIMINALIZE.

[Overlapping Conversation].

>> WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT, DECRIMINALIZATION, BUT THE FACT THAT IT REMAINS A SCHEDULE I SUBSTANCE AT THE IF I HAD LEVEL CONTINUES TO BE AN ISSUE AND I HINK IF THAT WE'RE AND THERE MAY BE OVES TOWARDS THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP A LOT BUT WHAT'S HAPPENING, BECAUSE IT IS A SCHEDULE I SUBSTANCE AT THE FEDERAL EVEL, THIS WILL BE AN ALL-CASH BUSINESS.

THE BANKS CANNOT LENDS.

THAT MEANS THE TAXPAYERS ARE FRONTING AND BUILDING UP THIS NEW ADDICTION FOR PROFIT INDUSTRY, AND MANY TAXPAYERS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

>> Mary: YOU'RE A LAWYER, YOU GET THE COMPLEX TEE OF THIS STILL BEING ILLEGAL FEDERALLY.

IS IT HARD FOR THE STATES TO GET IN FRONT OF THE FED HERE OR HAVE OTHER STATES OF DONE THIS?

>> OTHER STATES HAVE DONE IT, WE'LL BE THE 23rd.

AND IT PROVIDES A REAL BENEFIT TO MINNESOTANS WHO CAN'T GETS IT NOW, SO VETERANS, ARE A CLASSIC EXAMPLE.

VETERANS CAN'T GET CANNABIS THROUGH THE V.A.

BECAUSE IT'S FEDERALLY ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE, BUT IF WE MAKE IT LEGAL ON THE ADULT USE MARKET, THEY WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO A LEGALITY SOURCE OF CANNABIS TO TREAT THEIR PAIN AND, AGAIN, EVERY STATE THAT'S LEGALIZED IT HAS SEEN A DROP IN OPIOID DEATHS.

>> BUS JUST TO KNOW, THOUGH, WE ALREADY HAVE LEGALIZED MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND -- >> Mary: IS THIS GETTING SIGNED?

>> YES.

AND AND WE -- >> Mary: