DOCSLIB.ORG

Thursday January 18 Agenda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MEETING OF THE CANNABIS COMMISSION City Hall Thursday, January 18, 2018 2180 Milvia Street 2:00 PM Redwood Room (Sixth Floor) AGENDA I. Call to Order A. Roll Call and Ex Parte Communication Disclosures B. Changes to Order of Agenda II. Public Comment III. Approval of Minutes A. November 16, 2017 Draft Action Minutes IV. Planning Staff Report V. Chairperson’s Report VI. Subcommittee Report VII. Discussion and Action Items A. Election of chairperson B. Review staff proposed changes to cannabis ordinance language and vote on Commission recommendation to Council. Attachments: 1. Staff report a. 7-25-17 Council referral b. Matrix of existing and proposed ordinances/regulations c. Draft new BMC chapter 12.21 (General Regulations) d. Draft new BMC Chapter 12.22 (Operating Standards) e. Draft new BMC Chapter 20.XX (Cannabis Advertising) f. Existing BMC Chapters 12.23, 12.25 and 12.27 showing new locations for existing ordinance language g. Draft changes to Zoning Ordinance: new Chapter 23C.25 (Cannabis Businesses), modified use tables in C- and M-Districts and new Definition (23F.040) h. Existing Zoning Ordinance Sections 23E.16.070, 23E.72.040 showing new locations for existing ordinance language C. Review staff report regarding location selection process for Apothecarium and vote on Commission representative for January 23, 2018 Council meeting. (NOTE: Staff report and resolution to be distributed at the meeting. Both will be available on the Council’s website by 1-12-18: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/City_Council__Agenda_Index.aspx) VIII. Information Items (In compliance with the Brown Act, no action may be taken on these 1 of 113 items; however, they may be discussed and placed on a subsequent agenda for action): A. 2018 Final MCC meeting dates B. 11-21-17 Commission communication to Council re. temporary adult use licenses and draft delivery-only dispensaries ordinance language. IX. Correspondence A. Courtney Allen-Gentry – e-mail re. equity B. Ken Berland – e-mail re. Berkeley Marijuana Cash X. Adjournment Berkeley Cannabis Commission website: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/medicalcannabis/ Cannabis Commission Secretary: Elizabeth Greene, 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor, Berkeley CA 94704 Phone: 510-981-7484, Email: [email protected] Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions, or committees are public records, and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission, or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, do not include that information in your communication – you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service, or in person, to the Commission Secretary. Please contact the Commission Secretary for further information. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Department of Planning and Development, Zoning Counter, at the Permit Service Center, 1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor, Berkeley, and at the Reference Desk, of the Main Library, 2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, California, during regular business hours. Please contact the Commission Secretary for further information. This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6418 (V) or 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting. 2 of 113 1 of 3 Draft Minutes From 11-16-17 Meeting CANNABIS COMMISSION January 18th, 2018 MEETING OF THE MEDICAL CANNABIS COMMISSION City Hall Thursday, November 16, 2017 2180 Milvia Street 2:00 PM Redwood Room (Sixth Floor) DRAFT ACTION MINUTES I. Call to Order – 2:10 pm A. Roll Call and Ex Parte Communication Disclosures Commissioners present: Brewster, Cable, Ferguson-Riffe, Jones, Lampach, Pappas, Rice. Absent: Carlisle (unexcused), Cooper (unexcused). Staff Present: Secretary Elizabeth Greene, Mark Sproat, Eryn Blackwelder. Ex Parte Communications: None. B. Changes to Order of Agenda Approval of Minutes moved to end of meeting. II. Public Comment No Public Comment. III. Approval of October 5, 2017 Minutes Motion/second to approve the October 16, 2017 minutes with the following amendment: Reference to Council action regarding temporary licenses applies to rom “cannabis businesses” to “cannabis dispensaries” (Lampach/Pappas). The motion carried 7-0-0-2. (Ayes: Brewster, Cable, Ferguson-Riffe, Jones, Lampach, Pappas, Rice. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Carlisle, Cooper.) IV. Planning Staff Report Summary of October 10th Council worksession. Primary discussion points: residential collectives, grandfathering existing businesses and equity. Recent Council actions: Directed staff to develop temporary adult use license for existing dispensaries. Council may expand to other existing cannabis businesses at the November 28th meeting (see late items). Also directed staff to develop a selection process for a new location for the Apothecarium. Planning Department Open House December 6th. Responses to Council cultivation referral included as an information item. V. Chairperson’s Report At the 10-10-17 work session, the Council seemed sympathetic to the concerns of existing cannabis businesses. Vice Chair Pappas reported that Dan Rush was sentenced. 3 of 113 2 of 3 Draft Minutes From 11-16-17 Meeting CANNABIS COMMISSION January 18th, 2018 VI. Subcommittee Report There was no subcommittee meeting. VII. Discussion and Action Items A. Discuss and identify topics that could be included in new cannabis ordinance. Public Comment: Two public comments regarding allowing personal outdoor grows, allow residential uses, and allowing multiple Delivery-only businesses on one premises. The Cannabis Commission (CC) discussed the following topics: creating education and arts programs; no limit on licenses; delivery-only, selection process; cultivation; temporary licenses for business types not currently permitted (cultivators, delivery- only). Public Comment: Two public comments. The comments mentioned that not having limits on number of permits and not postponing delivery-only regulations will be the most beneficial for the community. In addition, it is important to allow as much access to businesses but to not allow monopolies. Motion/second to support Councilmember’s consent item (see late items) and urge the Council to approve the draft Delivery-only Dispensary language (Pappas/Rice) The motion carried 7-0-0-2. (Ayes: Brewster, Cable, Ferguson-Riffe, Jones, Lampach, Pappas, Rice. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Carlisle, Cooper.) Commissioner Jones drafted a letter for the Council to support the motion and read it to the Commission. She will send a copy to staff to send to Council and include in the Commission’s January packet. B. Adopt calendar for 2018 CC meetings. Public Comment: No public comment. Motion/second to approve the proposed calendar with the following dates for July – November meetings: 7/12/18, 9/13/18, 10/4/18 and 11/1/18 (Lampach/Jones). The motion carried 6-0-1-2 (Ayes: Brewster, Cable, Ferguson-Riffe, Jones, Lampach, Pappas. Nones: None. Abstain: Rice. Absent: Carlisle, Cooper. C. Discuss and possibly vote on a cultivation licensing and selection process. Public Comment: Three public comments regarding status of Council referral about nurseries, concerns about equity process and requiring large businesses to incubate equity businesses. The Commission discussed options for a selection process, including Use Permits for large and small-sized cultivation facilities, lowering or waiving fees for small businesses and/or equity businesses, or creating city incentives such as small business loans, alternative banking options and outreach to help businesses navigate bureaucracy. Also discussed who should be considered an equity candidate: small businesses, low-income, persons from communities impacted by the War on Drugs, individuals incarcerated for cannabis offenses. Nurseries haven’t 4 of 113 3 of 3 Draft Minutes From 11-16-17 Meeting CANNABIS COMMISSION January 18th, 2018 been considered – some jurisdictions (Humboldt County) have hybrid retail/wholesale option. Vice Chair Pappas made a motion to require a Use Permit for cultivations businesses 10,000 sf or greater. Motion not seconded; motion failed. D. Ideas for next meeting. Public Comment: One public comment, mentioning distribution, nurseries, buffers, delivery-only dispensaries and temporary licenses. Commissioners mentioned separating entity from location in selection processes, and giving temporary licenses to all existing businesses. X. Adjournment Adjourned at 4:15. Five late items were distributed at the meeting: Commissioners in attendance: 7 of 9 Members of the public in attendance: Approximately 13 Public comments: 5 Length of meeting: 2 hours and 5 minutes APPROVED: _________________________________________ Elizabeth Greene Medical Cannabis Commission Secretary 5 of 113 TO: Cannabis Commission FROM: Elizabeth Greene, Secretary SUBJECT: Comprehensive Cannabis ordinances DATE: January 18, 2018 City staff from the Planning, Environmental Health, Public Health,
Recommended publications
  • Public Leadership—Perspectives and Practices

    Public Leadership—Perspectives and Practices

    Public Leadership Perspectives and Practices Public Leadership Perspectives and Practices Edited by Paul ‘t Hart and John Uhr Published by ANU E Press The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at: http://epress.anu.edu.au/public_leadership _citation.html National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Public leadership pespectives and practices [electronic resource] / editors, Paul ‘t Hart, John Uhr. ISBN: 9781921536304 (pbk.) 9781921536311 (pdf) Series: ANZSOG series Subjects: Leadership Political leadership Civic leaders. Community leadership Other Authors/Contributors: Hart, Paul ‘t. Uhr, John, 1951- Dewey Number: 303.34 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design by John Butcher Images comprising the cover graphic used by permission of: Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development Australian Associated Press Australian Broadcasting Corporation Scoop Media Group (www.scoop.co.nz) Cover graphic based on M. C. Escher’s Hand with Reflecting Sphere, 1935 (Lithograph). Printed by University Printing Services, ANU Funding for this monograph series has been provided by the Australia and New Zealand School of Government Research Program. This edition © 2008 ANU E Press John Wanna, Series Editor Professor John Wanna is the Sir John Bunting Chair of Public Administration at the Research School of Social Sciences at The Australian National University. He is the director of research for the Australian and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG).
  • Public Opinion and Cannabis Policies: What Can We Learn from Canadian Market?

    Public Opinion and Cannabis Policies: What Can We Learn from Canadian Market?

    Public Opinion and Cannabis Policies: What Can We Learn from Canadian Market? by Huong Mai A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Marketing and Consumer Studies Guelph, Ontario, Canada © Huong Mai, December, 2019 ABSTRACT PUBLIC OPINION AND CANNABIS POLICIES: WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM CANADIAN MARKET? Huong Mai Advisor University of Guelph, 2019 Professor May Aung This thesis explores the phenomenon of public opinion on cannabis legalization in Canada. Specifically, this study investigated consumers’ opinions towards the cannabis policy and its market place. A netnographic study on four online communities: Canadian Weed Forum, Roll It Up Forum, sub-reddits r/marijuana and r/canadients, was conducted. Findings suggested that consumers’ opinions on the cannabis legalization policy vary from strongly supportive to strongly negative statements. Overall, consumers could be divided into different groups: groups of enthusiasts and haters of legalization. This study found that negative attitudes toward cannabis policy exist in the Canadian market. Additionally, product and price are found as important marketing mix elements in the market place. Results suggested that four symbolic boundaries: quality boundary, purpose boundary, source boundary and geographical boundary influencing the meaning of product to consumers. Different price points also impact on consumers’ attitudes towards cannabis product in the market place. Conceptual and managerial contributions are also offered. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my Advisor May Aung. Your time, dedication and patience have guided me to the development and completion of this thesis. I am so grateful for your support and encouragement, especially during the hard time of my thesis progress.
  • 2019 Contribution Refund Summary for Political Party Units Democratic

    2019 Contribution Refund Summary for Political Party Units Democratic

    2019 Contribution Refund Summary for Political Party Units Note: Contributions from a married couple filing jointly are reported as one contribution Party Units Contribution Number Refund Democratic Farmer Labor Party 1st Senate District DFL 5 $450.00 2nd Congressional District DFL 16 $696.28 3rd Congressional District DFL 6 $435.00 5B House District DFL 7 $360.00 5th Congressional District DFL 1 $50.00 5th Senate District DFL 1 $40.00 6th Congressional District DFL 9 $621.42 6th Senate District DFL 2 $150.00 8th Congressional District DFL 1 $100.00 8th Senate District DFL 4 $250.00 9th Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 10th Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 11A House District DFL 1 $50.00 11th Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 12th Senate District DFL 2 $200.00 13th Senate District DFL 17 $1,266.67 14th Senate District DFL 9 $620.00 16th Senate District DFL 36 $2,534.98 19th Senate District DFL 2 $100.00 20th Senate District DFL 7 $350.00 22nd Senate District DFL 3 $200.00 Party Units Contribution Number Refund 25B House District DFL (Olmsted-25) 64 $4,092.75 25th Senate District DFL 4 $200.00 26th Senate District DFL 1 $100.00 29th Senate District DFL 25 $1,920.00 30th Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 31st Senate District DFL 4 $300.00 32nd Senate District DFL 27 $1,900.00 33rd Senate District DFL 43 $3,070.00 34th Senate District DFL 74 $5,310.00 35th Senate District DFL 17 $1,301.30 36th Senate District DFL 2 $150.00 37th Senate District DFL 1 $100.00 38th Senate District DFL 11 $730.00 39th Senate District DFL 14 $1,185.00 40th Senate District DFL
  • Building Political Parties

    Building Political Parties

    Building political parties: Reforming legal regulations and internal rules Pippa Norris Harvard University Report commissioned by International IDEA 2004 1 Contents 1. Executive summary........................................................................................................................... 3 2. The role and function of parties....................................................................................................... 3 3. Principles guiding the legal regulation of parties ........................................................................... 5 3.1. The legal regulation of nomination, campaigning, and elections .................................................................. 6 3.2 The nomination stage: party registration and ballot access ......................................................................... 8 3.3 The campaign stage: funding and media access...................................................................................... 12 3.4 The electoral system: electoral rules and party competition....................................................................... 13 3.5: Conclusions: the challenges of the legal framework ................................................................................ 17 4. Strengthening the internal life of political parties......................................................................... 20 4.1 Promoting internal democracy within political parties ............................................................................. 20 4.2 Building
  • Grassroots Party Activity in the South

    Grassroots Party Activity in the South

    Grassroots Party Activity in the South Charles Prysby Department of Political Science University of North Carolina at Greensboro John A. Clark Department of Political Science Western Michigan University Prepared for presentation at the conference on “The State of the Parties: 2004 and Beyond,” organized by the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, University of Akron, and held on October 5-7, 2005. This study relies on data collected by the Southern Grassroots Party Activists 2001 project, which was supported by National Science Foundation grants SES-9986501 and SES-9986523. The findings and conclusions of this study are those of the authors and do not represent the opinions of the National Science Foundation or any other government agency. Grassroots Party Activity in the South For months leading up to the 2004 elections, supporters of the Democratic party registered new voters, organized door-to-door, telephone, and e-mail canvasses, and prepared to mobilize an army of voters on behalf of presidential nominee John Kerry and other candidates. Their efforts were coordinated with campaigns of various party candidates, party organizations at the national, state, and local levels, and party-affiliated groups such as labor unions and MoveOn.org. Their hard work paid off on election day: Kerry received 8 million more votes than Al Gore received in winning the popular vote in 2000. There was only one problem with the Democrats’ plan. While turnout in support of Democratic candidates in 2004 exceeded previous levels, it paled in comparison to the success enjoyed by Republicans. Republican candidates, party organizations, and affiliated groups were able to increase votes on behalf of George W.
  • Satipharm Patent Cooperation Treaty

    Satipharm Patent Cooperation Treaty

    Satipharm Patent Cooperation Treaty Unproduced Engelbert cottons explanatorily while Thacher always carbonised his Hodges seine detestably, he burglarizing so otherwise. Delighted and spiked Johnathan coved her censures bust-ups while Reggy refine some grimalkins interspatially. Strangled Xymenes toned that restrainers encincture execrably and assume blessedly. Are an average cost commotion is under federal regulatory trading and satipharm patent cooperation treaty will be ideal for al veel veranderingen meegemaakt. Recommendations for my life between that? Weed in the building to ensure the board, and instead participants of isabel marant in public. Political process of wine store was happening this. Massage traitement naturel améliorer métabolisme antidérapantes plage sandales et chaussons pour chaussures talons hauts. Calculations, based on as each other. Michael steinmetz runs a child has published in a midwesternstate whose northern syria. And smok in furthermore, they deserve the je verleent een leuke manier gevonden om jou de massage. Regardless the patent leather supports this week to keep this page for daytime medicine, satipharm patent cooperation treaty will. Cool web site is not be. To receive future real deal with forthcoming post may have contacted lawnsavers has gotten this rate of. It a brain cell therapies and anyone else could subscribe to close. Weed toronto and social circumstances and consumption lounges and gaming commission with. Online in the patent search, satipharm patent cooperation treaty will only a genuine believers, satipharm is about us up on my replies stopped on the ads on the. And a fake so he has worked great! Who sell hq bud in canada, and was the year.
  • Testimony of Chris Wright, Grassroots Party, Submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Finance and Policy Minnesota House of Representatives February 17, 2021

    Testimony of Chris Wright, Grassroots Party, Submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Finance and Policy Minnesota House of Representatives February 17, 2021

    Testimony of Chris Wright, Grassroots Party, Submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Finance and Policy Minnesota House of Representatives February 17, 2021 Chairman Stephenson, members of the Commerce, Finance and Policy Committee, thank you for considering my testimony on HF600. When it comes to defending our fragile democracy, restoring citizen control of government and reigning in corporate power we are in the fight of our lives. I want to thank House Majority Leader, Ryan Winkler, for his extensive work on this bill. The town hall forums Rep. Winkler named “Be heard on Cannabis,” were well attended. I attended all but one. Throughout the state, when called upon, I turned and asked locals, ”All in favor of growing as much cannabis as you want in your backyard garden without a license as guaranteed in the Minnesota Constitution? raise your hand,” virtually all hands were raised in favor. When asked, “Those opposed, raise your hand,” perhaps a few hands were raised in opposition. Will you ask your constituents the same question? Will they be “Heard on Cannabis?” I fundamentally disagree with Representative Winkler’s denial of our Constitutional rights in this bill, however, I agree with the vast majority of what is contained in it. Up to now, there have been futile efforts to craft a bill to legalize adult-use cannabis. Unfortunately, little time and legislative labor has been used in a detailed examination of the historic “criminalization by fraud” of cannabis. It says in Article 13, Section 7 [A13,S7], of the Minnesota Constitution, “No license required to peddle. Any person may sell or peddle the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him without obtaining a license therefor.” In 1935, the same year Minnesota legalized liquor, Governor Floyd Olson and the legislature criminalized cannabis by requiring a pharmacy license.
  • Village Economic Autonomy and Authoritarian Control Over Village Elections in China

    Village Economic Autonomy and Authoritarian Control Over Village Elections in China

    The London School of Economics and Political Science Village economic autonomy and authoritarian control over village elections in China - Evidence from rural Guangdong Province Ting Luo A thesis submitted to the Department of Government of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. London, March 2014 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 86,348 words. I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by Joanna Cummings of Transformat. Ting Luo 2 Abstract This thesis investigates the effects of village economic wealth and economic autonomy on the authoritarian control of local government over village elections in China. With new data - qualitative evidence and quantitative data collected from the extensive fieldtrips to a county in Guangdong Province, this study finds that given that village elections operate within China’s one party authoritarian regime and the official purpose of the elections is to solve the grassroots governance crisis, local government have the incentive to control the elections in their favour, that is, to have incumbents and/or party members elected.
  • Everyday Party Politics: Local Volunteers and Professional Organizers in Grassroots Campaigns

    Everyday Party Politics: Local Volunteers and Professional Organizers in Grassroots Campaigns

    Everyday Party Politics: Local volunteers and professional organizers in grassroots campaigns Elizabeth H Super PhD in Politics The University of Edinburgh 2009 1 Everyday Party Politics: Local volunteers and professional organizers in grassroots campaigns Table of Contents Declaration .................................................................................................................3 Abstract ......................................................................................................................4 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................5 Preface .......................................................................................................................6 Chapter 1: Introduction ...............................................................................................8 Chapter 2: Research Design ....................................................................................32 Chapter 3: Organization ...........................................................................................65 Chapter 4: Learning..................................................................................................90 Chapter 5: Motives and Meaning............................................................................121 Chapter 6: Representation and Linkage.................................................................155 Chapter 7: Professional organizers and expert volunteers.....................................180
  • Maintaining Party Unity: Analyzing the Conservative Party of Canada's

    Maintaining Party Unity: Analyzing the Conservative Party of Canada's

    Maintaining Party Unity: Analyzing the Conservative Party of Canada’s Integration of the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance parties by Matthew Thompson A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario © 2017, Matthew Thompson Federal conservative parties in Canada have long been plagued by several persistent cleavages and internal conflict. This conflict has hindered the party electorally and contributed to a splintering of right-wing votes between competing right-wing parties in the 1990s. The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) formed from a merger of the Progressive Conservative (PC) party and the Canadian Alliance in 2003. This analysis explores how the new party was able to maintain unity and prevent the long-standing cleavages from disrupting the party. The comparative literature on party factions is utilized to guide the analysis as the new party contained faction like elements. Policy issues and personnel/patronage distribution are stressed as significant considerations by the comparative literature as well literature on the PCs internal fighting. The analysis thus focuses on how the CPC approached these areas to understand how the party maintained unity. For policy, the campaign platforms, Question Period performance and government sponsored bills of the CPC are examined followed by an analysis of their first four policy conventions. With regards to personnel and patronage, Governor in Council and Senate appointments are analyzed, followed by the new party’s candidate nomination process and Stephen Harper’s appointments to cabinet. The findings reveal a careful and concentrated effort by party leadership, particularly Harper, at managing both areas to ensure that members from each of the predecessor parties were motivated to remain in the new party.
  • Cacy Communicator 419- 774- 5683 Volume 1, Issue 9 J U N E 2 0 1 4

    Cacy Communicator 419- 774- 5683 Volume 1, Issue 9 J U N E 2 0 1 4

    COMMUNITY ACTION FOR CAPABLE YOUTH, INC. (CACY) 1495 W. LONGVIEW AVE, SUITE 104 MANSFIELD, OH CACY COMMUNICATOR 419- 774- 5683 VOLUME 1, ISSUE 9 J U N E 2 0 1 4 WWW.CACYOHIO.ORG CACY’S Core Purpose: To provide Problems Facing Marijuana Legalization tobacco, alcohol, vio- lence and drug preven- Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of hash oil explosions this year com- es motor skills and affects alertness and motivation. Marijuana smokers tion information, edu- the National Institute on Drug pared to 11 last year. also suffer many of the same respira- Abuse (NIDA) has urged law The Ohio Rights Group is trying to cation and coordina- tory problems as cigarette smokers. makers to resist legalizing mari- collect enough signatures to get the tion by bringing to- Scientists at the National Institute on juana, explaining that marijuana Ohio Cannabis Rights Amendment on gether schools, par- Drug Abuse warn that the effects of can act as a gateway drug. Stud- the ballot. Supporters claim no one pot on the developing teenage brain ents, government, law ies show changes that occur in has died of a pot overdose, and that it include the potential of an 8 to 10 enforcement, agencies, the brain chemistry after people has beneficial effects in alleviating use marijuana, alcohol or tobac- point drop in IQ over time. Legalizing business and commu- suffering from certain diseases; alt- marijuana encourages more teenag- co can prime them for harder hough, it does not cure any. nity members who drugs. ers to add another harmful substance work toward making The Office of National Drug Control to their bodies besides cigarettes and Currently, 22 states have legal- our county a healthier, Policy says that legalizing drugs such alcohol.
  • 2018 Contribution Refund Summary for Political Party Units

    2018 Contribution Refund Summary for Political Party Units

    2018 Contribution Refund Summary for Political Party Units Note: Contributions from a married couple filing jointly are reported as one contribution Party Units Contribution Number Refund Democratic Farmer Labor Party 2nd Congressional District DFL 8 $500.00 3rd Congressional District DFL 23 $1,400.00 5B House District DFL 5 $275.00 7th Senate District DFL 4 $244.00 8th Senate District DFL 2 $100.00 11A House District DFL 7 $500.00 12th Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 13th Senate District DFL 29 $2,145.00 14th Senate District DFL 15 $1,017.14 15B House District DFL 1 $57.14 15th Senate District DFL 3 $250.00 16th Senate District DFL 5 $450.00 17th Senate District DFL 3 $150.00 18th Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 19th Senate District DFL 2 $150.00 20th Senate District DFL 3 $150.00 22nd Senate District DFL 2 $150.00 24th Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 25B House District DFL (Olmsted-25) 19 $1,012.69 29th Senate District DFL 2 $150.00 31st Senate District DFL 4 $247.14 Party Units Contribution Number Refund 32nd Senate District DFL 35 $2,320.00 33rd Senate District DFL 24 $1,340.53 34th Senate District DFL 49 $3,415.00 35th Senate District DFL 7 $550.00 36th Senate District DFL 10 $474.99 37th Senate District DFL 4 $165.00 39th Senate District DFL 9 $602.32 40th Senate District DFL 2 $67.85 41st Senate District DFL 7 $396.42 43rd Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 44th Senate District DFL 94 $6,663.42 45th Senate District DFL 3 $85.00 46th Senate District DFL 47 $2,704.24 48th Senate District DFL 49 $2,892.37 49th Senate District DFL 59 $3,894.10 50th