Minn. Gov. Vetoes Medical Mariuana for Terminally Ill

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Mon May 25, 2009 at 09:27:00 AM EST
Tags: medical marijuana (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A name to remember. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed an emotionally charged proposal late Friday to allow terminally ill patients to use marijuana for medical purposes, but signed into law a plan to disburse hundreds of millions of dollars from the Legacy Amendment passed by Minnesotans last year.

A bill Pawlenty didn't veto:

He also signed a bill late Thursday that allows police to pull over drivers solely because they or their passengers are not wearing seat belts. Currently, officers must spot another traffic offense before they can stop a vehicle and ticket someone for not being strapped in. The new law is effective June 9, and carries a $25 fine.

In 2008, Pawlenty has the most vetoes of any MN Governor. Here's what he had to say about the pot bill: [More...]

Pawlenty, who in 2008 set an apparent single-year record for most vetoes by a Minnesota governor, indicated in a letter that he was torn by the medical marijuana legislation. He said that while he was "sympathetic to those dealing with end-of-life illnesses," he felt marijuana poses "serious public safety and health risks." Legalizing marijuana, even under limited conditions, "could serve to compound these problems," he wrote.

Tim Pawlenty, Worst Person in the World, as Keith Olbermann used to say.

< Don't Be Scared About Prisoners Converting to Islam | Memorial Day Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Minn. Gov. Vetoes Medical Mariuana for Terminally Ill | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

i note, as with all of those (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by cpinva on Mon May 25, 2009 at 03:35:00 AM EST

who oppose medical pot legalization, they don't actually ennumerate the specific "serious public safety and health risks." it supposedly poses. to do so would require that they basically lie.

in fact, the only serious public safety and health risk it poses is to the future career in politics of one gov. pawlenty. somehow, i suspect the country would survive.

do med pot laws? (none / 0) (#15)
by diogenes on Mon May 25, 2009 at 07:10:05 PM EST

Do medical pot legalization require a documented treatment failure with marinol tablets before people are allowed to smoke the stuff? These terminally ill people must be in hospitals some of the time when they can take the pills.


: fyi - Sativex - an alternative to marinol (none / 0) (#16)
by ding7777 on Mon May 25, 2009 at 08:43:39 PM EST

There is currently an ongoing phase 3 study for cancer pain using Sativex ( report results expected in Spring 2010 )
Note : Sativex is legal in Canada by perscription

: why should someone have to take a (none / 0) (#17)
by of1000Kings on Mon May 25, 2009 at 11:16:49 PM EST

synthetic version of a substance if the real thing is readily available?
oh yeah...forget we live in the United States of Big Businesses...

Seat belt violations (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by TChris on Mon May 25, 2009 at 07:50:01 AM EST

There must be some push to get states to enact seat belt laws as primary enforcement laws. This will probably happen in Wisconsin too. Right now the police can't stop a car solely for a seat belt violation, and if they write a seat belt ticket the fine is $10 with no court costs. Hardly worth the effort.

The police are really pushing to make seat belt violations a primary enforcement law. It's just another excuse to pull people over so they can look for signs of drunk driving or drug transportation or whatever. They aren't scoring points for writing dinky little seat belt tickets but they want another reason to make traffic stops.

TC, watch and see (none / 0) (#5)
by cpinva on Mon May 25, 2009 at 10:23:50 AM EST

if the fines don't increase, and court costs get added. states are quick to discover this as a great source of low-cost revenue.

while the use of seatbelts certainly reduces the level of serious injury in accidents (and the cost of treatment), and i'm all for that, it has become more a mechanism for revenue enhancement, than a public safety issue.

with the current strains on state budgets, due to the severe economic crisis, watch for nearly every state to enact more stringent auto restraint laws, and push for stricter enforcement, to raise much needed funds for the public coffers.

follow the money.


Our seat belt ticket (none / 0) (#7)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 25, 2009 at 10:55:43 AM EST

is $124. (Washington State).

And it's gone to primary enforcement. You can always tell when the state is hurting for money, they start enforcing click it or ticket.


: And crossing the gore point, (none / 0) (#11)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon May 25, 2009 at 01:22:10 PM EST

and taking free right turns where they aren't allowed, and, and, and....WSPs are all over 405 during morning rush hour at certain times of the month, and the Bellevue motorcycles are hiding at their key trap spots at the same time....generally early in the month. I expect that's to get a jump on their quotas.
My daughter got a seatbelt ticket as a passenger some 14-15 years ago...it was $65 then.

Compassionate conservative (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by gyrfalcon on Mon May 25, 2009 at 08:27:05 AM EST

He's oh so "sympathetic."

Bill Clinton defined "compassionate conservative" very well during the 2000 campaign. He said it amounts to, "Oh, I feel so badly for you! I wish I could help. But I just can't."

maybe he'll get cancer. (2.00 / 1) (#8)
by Dadler on Mon May 25, 2009 at 11:50:38 AM EST

when you are this cruel and illogical, you deserve nothing but misery. if all those cancer paitents wanted to get drunk, fine, no matter drunk driving is the number one drug problem in america. dumb as bricks, stupid as sand, this is yet another pol who would piss on his own mother if he thought it would get him votes.

aceholes, aceholes, aceholes. no respect deserved or granted to this sack of cowpies. hope he ends up humiliated.

Sorry, Dadler, but that is (none / 0) (#12)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon May 25, 2009 at 01:25:15 PM EST

just not appropriate to wish on anyone.


: hate the sin, not the sinner... (none / 0) (#13)
by of1000Kings on Mon May 25, 2009 at 01:28:38 PM EST

think it goes something like that, right?
it's just so darn hard not to hate the sinner when the person makes no attempt to be moral...
I'd respect him just a bit if he spent 10 minutes to outline the studies that show marijuana's disastrous effects on society...
you know, other than the already-proven-false studies done at the initial time of the governments push for prohibition...
but as the liars on the right will say often, the ends justifies the means...

: tempting though n/t (none / 0) (#14)
by Jen M on Mon May 25, 2009 at 03:09:07 PM EST

I agree, in part (none / 0) (#2)
by jbindc on Mon May 25, 2009 at 07:22:37 AM EST

The medical marijuana veto is just shameful - no excuse to let people unnecessarily suffer.

The seatbelt law - well, until they require that the public will not be liable for adults who are injured or killed while choosing not to wear their seatbelts, then this is not just an argument of "freedom of choice". I'm all for getting rid of seatbelt and helmet laws - provided my insurance rates don't go up because so many people refuse to wear them, or provided that government funding doesn't go for care of those who exercised their choice not to take these easy, instant, basic safety measures.

And I think children should always be properly buckled in and any adult who does not, should be heavily fined.

Jeralyn, you are wasting your breath on Pawlenty (none / 0) (#6)
by ProudTroll on Mon May 25, 2009 at 10:50:18 AM EST

This guy is not respected among actual likely conservative voters and will get laughed out of Iowa. The establishment's favorable opinion of Pawlenty is useless among likely Republican voters. He gets the worst of both worlds: not conservative enough for conservatives and too conservative for the moderates.

Pawlenty . . . (none / 0) (#10)
by Doc Rock on Mon May 25, 2009 at 12:58:57 PM EST

. . ., how Christian? What what Jesus have done?

You may have misunderstood (none / 0) (#18)
by reslez on Tue May 26, 2009 at 12:27:29 AM EST

the new law. Minnesota already had a law requiring seatbelt use in cars. Police and troopers already had the ability to cite drivers/passengers for not wearing a seatbelt. The controversy over the new law is that it makes seatbelt non-use a primary offense, meaning police can pull people over for that alone. Basically it gives police an extra excuse to pull people over and "hassle them" -- depending on your opinion.

27 states including Minnesota now have "primary offense" seatbelt enforcement laws. In all but 8 of those states the law started out as a secondary offense. Hawaii is one of those 8. Its seatbelt law was enacted in 1985.