Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.A. Legislative Agenda RESEI\4EIUt'JT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: December 11, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: Legislative Agenda GENrrDA SECTION: ECTION: 12SWl PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator AGENDA NO. 2....�- ATTACHMENTS: Legislative agendas from Dakota County, Eagan, and Burnsville; Memo from Chief APPROVED BY: Werner 4&1 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider a legislative agenda for Rosemount Background: There have been several suggestions or inquiries from both council and staff members in the past year about establishing a Rosemount legislative agenda. The purpose would be to identify some important or unique legislative initiatives that we wish to pursue in the 2014 Legislative Session. Several adjacent jurisdictions have already prepared their policy documents and they are included for your information. In addition, Chief Werner has prepared a memo on an emerging issue relating to the proposed use of medical marijuana. Discussion: The Council should try to determine the following: 1. Does Rosemount wish to have a legislative agenda? 2. What items or subjects important to Rosemount should be included? 3. What should our strategy be to advance our legislative agenda if one is adopted? Recommendation: The Council should address the discussion questions and provide direction to staff on the preparation of a legislative agenda if one is desired. Proposals for 2014 Dakota County Legislative Platform Initiative Contact Supported by Others 2. Revise Statutes to Allow for Changes to Dakota County New Position Brandt Richardson Citizen Advisory Committees 4. Allow Local Governments to Make Their Own Tax Levy New Position Stephanie Shawback, AMC, MICA, LMC Decisions Matt Smith tt �.� ®,.�.. 6, fig. ��. �;. 6. Fund Dakota County 2014 Bonding Requests New Position Catherine Durham, Brandt Richardson - ' .,'': .,-. .. •: ,.,� ��.,a� °a a `t �E1,<f�.�a,11.° SC:rh EErr r r .;-fir• . . .; ,: k ,. „ ..t s, a VO ;:{-e g 8. Support the Use of DNR Dam Safety Grant Funds for Lake New Position Georg Fischer Byllesby Dam Facility Rehabilitation YW ,® je 5w ®"b�'o©®G:`��.� � e� � ���°�,a.�7�°�.w�9"YJ'1- .�a�P,��&f 10. Support Metropolitan Council Request for$2.25M of New Position Steve Sullivan Metropolitan Regional Park System Implementing Environment and Natural Resources Trust Funds for Agencies Metropolitan Regional Park System Acquisition 3 � ®°® t: ?c+.©Q© ° e: ,a ,© e, ' a r'"'. °rte ° ..:? - °`�` +y ' ' . ®`°Q yo l �s °`� ,fi"v' pnra ,tR�� spa _ 12. Support Stable and Sufficient Funding for State- Previous Position Bonnie Brueshoff, MN Coalition for Targeted Home Visiting, MICA, Administered, County-Delivered Targeted Intensive Home Kelly Harder LPHA, MN Public Health Association Visiting Programs :..: e,+� .'�� - ® );41,..w. © .,.1 �P`�� �Ll:92 o C��E;y €1° i �t � .e(C e ®�.!' °fO � iN° ,Or .A � . 14. Provide Sustainable State Funding for the Local Public Previous Position Bonnie Brueshoff, Local Public Health Association of Minnesota, Health Grant and Support the Minnesota e-Health Initiative Kelly Harder MICA Attachment A: Details of the Proposals General Government and Taxation 1. Sustainable and Effective State-Local Partnership Taxpayers increasingly demand public services to be prioritized and delivered in an effective, cost-efficient manner, and that property tax burdens be affordable and stable. For Minnesota governments to meet these expectations, it is essential that the State and all levels of local government have an effective and durable working partnership based on clear policy goals and supported by sound information and analysis. In order to achieve a sustainable and effective state-local partnership, the State should maintain a sound partnership with counties by: - Avoiding cost shifts to counties that disrupt services and increase local property taxes. - Simplifying program administration requirements that will reduce costs of programs and service delivery. - Eliminating or modifying minimum spending requirements and mandates. - Adhering to good tax and budget policies so that the State is a reliable partner. - Supporting an Advisory Council on State-Local Relations. 2. Revise Statutes to Allow for Changes to Dakota County Citizen Advisory Committees The County is in the process of conducting an evaluation of its governance practices and has determined that altering the makeup of some of the citizen, advisory committees could allow them to function more effectively. However,the structure of several of these committees is dictated by statute.The legislature should amend/add to the Minnesota Statutes to either allow Dakota County to change the structure of its citizen advisory committees or to allow the County to adopt a County Manager form of government,which would give the County the power to make these changes without legislation. 3. Support a Sales Tax Exemption for Joint Powers Entities and Special Taxing Jurisdictions As of January 1, 2014, cities and counties are exempt from sales and use tax on purchases used to provide certain government services. Minnesota Revenue has provided several documents regarding the implementation of the tax exemption that was passed during the 2013 Legislative Session. Clarity is needed for local governments to comply with the new law and its application to joint powers entities.The legislature should provide specific and clarifying language to Minn.Stat. § 297.70,subd. 2,to allow the general sales tax exemption to apply to Joint Powers Entities and Special Taxing Jurisdictions as it applies to its member counties, cities and townships. 4. Allow Local Governments to Make Their Own Tax Levy Decisions The Legislature imposed levy limits for 2013 taxes and budgets as a last minute policy addition that left little time for local governments to evaluate impacts on local budgets and services. In Dakota County,the traditional levy limit formula would have limited the County's ability to execute its plan to pay down debt, shift tax resources away from debt service to other operating costs, and keep overall property taxes slightly below the level of the prior year while accommodating cost growth. Local elected leaders of cities and counties are accountable to local voters and taxpayers and are careful stewards of local budgets and property taxes. The Legislature should not interfere with those responsibilities by imposing levy limits of any sort, in particular by imposing levy limits that interfere with local governments' ability to effectively manage their budgets within an overall tax level through excessively restrictive special levy rules. 5. Require Dakota County Consent to Tax Increment Financing(TIF)Districts Dakota County is seeking legislation that would require the County's consent to a Tax Increment Financing District plan in order for the County's portion of the captured increment to be distributed to the TIF District Authority. Physical Development 6. Fund the 2014 Bonding Requests There are six 2014 requests for State bond funding. 1) $6,000,000 for land acquisition, preliminary engineering, design and construction of highway direct access to and from Trunk Highway 77 to the existing METRO Red Line Cedar Grove Transit Station in Eagan. 2) $1,448,592 to conduct the necessary preliminary engineering, design, and other engineering work to develop the Robert Street Transitway located in St. Paul and West St. Paul in Ramsey and Dakota Counties. 3) $787,500 to design and construct the Big Rivers Regional Trail Trailhead and site improvements in Mendota Heights. 4) $2,506,000 to design and construct 3.7 miles of the Mississippi River Regional Trail within Rosemount. 5) $1,345,000 to rehabilitate aging infrastructure at the Byllesby Dam and ensure continued dam safety. 6) $3,200,000 to construct a grade-separated crossing of the North Urban Regional Trail (NURT) at Minnesota Highway 3 in West St. Paul. Dakota County also supports capital budget appropriations for improvements to the Mall of America Transit Station. 7. Increase Transportation Funding The 2008 Legislature enacted a comprehensive transportation funding bill that provided for dedicated revenues for bridges, roads and transit—at both the state and local levels of government. However, as Mn/DOT's 20-Year Statewide Transportation Policy Plan makes clear, projected revenues will fall far short of transportation investments needs. In Dakota County,there is an estimated funding shortfall of almost$600 million to meet anticipated transportation needs on the County system between now and 2030.Additional transportation revenues will be necessary to support priority projects like capacity improvements on Trunk Highway 77 and Trunk Highway 3, Regional Transitways on Cedar Avenue, I-35W, and Robert Street, and development of future Principal Arterials and expansion of Minor Arterial highways to serve the County's growing population.The legislature should: - Increase long-term, sustainable,transportation user fees dedicated to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund for transportation purposes. - Provide additional sources of capital and operating funds to enhance regular route transit service and promote development and operation of the Regional Transitway System. - Maintain the autonomy of the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)and preserve its dedicated funding from the 1/4 cent sales tax enacted by participating counties to be used only for transit purposes. - Provide transportation revenue through traditional general and trunk highway bonding programs. - Consider new revenue sources based on transportation user fee, including increased user fees to address infrastructure impact of heavy commercial vehicles. 8. Support the Use of DNR Dam Safety Grant Funds for the Lake Byllesby Dam Facility Rehabilitation Dakota County requests$1,345,000 in Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(DNR) Dam Safety Grant Program funding to rehabilitate aging infrastructure at the Byllesby Dam and ensure continued dam.safety. Dakota County has identified $3,455,000 in rehabilitations and facility enhancements at the 102-year old facility as part of its 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Project(CIP). $2,690,000 of the total CIP could be identified as dam safety related,therefore eligible for 50-percent cost share through the DNR Dam Safety Grant program. Without state assistance,the total dam safety related CIP costs would fall to Dakota County. 9. Support the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council Recommendation to Appropriate$1.23M of Outdoor Heritage Funds for Dakota County Habitat Protection/Restoration Phase 5 The County submitted a$1.5M request for FY2015 funding to the LSOHC on June 13, 2013.The request included $1M of restoration and enhancement funds for Whitetail Woods Regional Park in Empire Township and $500,000 for conservation easement/fee acquisition of high priority lands along the Vermillion River and its tributaries. Hearings were conducted on September 5, 2013, and the LSOHC finalized their recommendations on September 20, 2013,to include$1,225,800 to Dakota County in their legislative recommendation. Funding approval for this project will create a critical policy precedent for allowing the use of Outdoor Heritage funds in habitat areas within metropolitan regional parks and park reserves. Continuing to protect riparian buffers builds on the County's previous eleven-year history of investing in protecting habitat and water quality through our Farmland and Natural Areas Program and the Shoreholders Initiative to create permanently protected vegetative buffers along all rivers, streams and undeveloped lakeshore in the County. 10. Support Metropolitan Council request for$2.25M of Environment and Natural Resources Trust Funds for Metropolitan Regional Park System Acquisition The Metropolitan Council is requesting$2.25 million in Environment and Natural Resources Trust Funds matched with $2.75 million of Metropolitan Council bonds and regional implementing agency funds for regional park acquisition in 2014.The regional park system is comprised of 10 implementing agencies (including Dakota County) and is administered by the Metropolitan Council.These agencies acquire parkland according to approved master plans. The Metropolitan Council established the Acquisition Opportunity Fund to provide 75%funding to assist implementing agencies with the acquisition of private lands within approved park boundaries. However,the forecasted demand for Acquisition Opportunity Funds exceeds available funding from all revenue sources.The Acquisition Opportunity Fund has no remaining funds to finance acquisition grants for FY 2014, and thus the Metropolitan Council is requesting state assistance. Dakota County's 2014 share of Metropolitan Council Acquisition Opportunity Fund is up to $1.7M. Dakota County has numerous willing seller properties within approved master plan boundaries that are dependent on Acquisition Opportunity Funding. 11. Support Metropolitan Council Regional Park CIP Funding The Metropolitan Council is requesting$11 million in State bond funding, matched with$7.33 million of Metropolitan Council bond funding,to support the Metropolitan Regional Park System in 2014-15. Bond funds of$18.33M will provide for the strategic growth of the Metropolitan Regional Park System in accordance with approved master plans and the Metropolitan Council Regional Park System 2030 Plan. Dakota County's proposed share of funding is$1.896M or 10.34%of the requested $18.33M in bonding. Dakota County projects include: 1)$1.258M for Lebanon Hills Regional Park master plan improvements; 2)$388K for the North Creek Greenway—Zoo segment; and 3)$250K for park system redevelopment. Community Services 12. Support Stable and Sufficient Funding for State-Administered, County-Delivered Targeted Intensive Home Visiting Programs Studies show that home visiting for at-risk families is an effective investment in the self-sufficiency, health and wellbeing of families, and helps avoid high-cost remedial programming when children are neglected and abused. While it is the State's responsibility to provide basic protections and support when families are at risk or not able to provide essential support, little state funding has been provided to support home visiting services. It is critical that the State provide a stable source of funding that ensures the County is able to continue providing the current level of home visits.The legislature should support the allocation of stable and sufficient state funding for county-delivered targeted home visiting services for at-risk families. 13. Support Equity in Community Corrections Funding It is vital that the legislature supports legislation that re-establishes equity in the State-County relationship for funding to meet critical needs in community corrections by increasing the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC)funding for Community Corrections Aid subsidies and the Probation Caseload/Workload Reduction grants. Funding for Community Corrections subsidies is$1M less today than it was in 2002, and the current funding is severely inadequate. Community Corrections funding from the State must be significantly increased to assure adequate funding for effective supervision, and to sustain current efforts to utilize proven evidence-based practices to supervise offenders. Dakota County costs to supervise offenders in the community have increased, while providing a significant savings to the State. The Dakota County Board of Commissioners supports legislation that reestablishes equity in the state-county relationship for funding to meet critical needs in community corrections by increasing the Minnesota Department of Corrections(DOC)funding for Community Corrections Aid subsidies and the Probation Caseload/Workload Reduction grants. 14. Provide Sustainable State Funding for the Local Public Health Grant and Support the Minnesota e-Health Initiative Counties are mandated to provide essential public health services to promote health, prevent disease, and protect the public from the spread of communicable diseases such as influenza,tuberculosis, and pertussis. State funding from the Local Public Health Grant has remained flat since 2003 even while the costs of protecting the public continue to increase. An additional factor impacting the resources of local agencies is the requirement that all Minnesota health care providers—including health departments- have interoperable electronic health records by 2015.The legislature should: 1. Seek adequate state funding, including regular inflationary increases,to provide sufficient resources to local public health departments to protect the health and safety of the public, including responding to influenza,tuberculosis, pertussis and other disease outbreaks. Continue to integrate funding into the local public health block grant to limit administrative costs and allow maximum flexibility to meet local needs. 2. Support funding for the Minnesota e-Health Initiative, a statewide health electronic information system, and provide sufficient support for information technology in local health departments. Risk Management 15. Develop an 800 MHz Long-Term Funding Strategy The build out of the 800 MHz public safety radio system (Allied Radio Matrix for Emergency Response-ARMER) is nearly complete on a statewide basis. The ARMER system is based on radio and computing technology that requires upgrades driven by technology changes and enhanced system user features. The State of Minnesota must develop a clear direction for future funding of ARMER upgrades to allow local units of government to plan for future capital needs. Upgrade costs for the Dakota County subsystem are estimated to be$4-5 million and are being driven by the actions of the State Emergency Communications Board.The legislature should utilize the results of the long-term funding study for ARMER, Next Gen 911, and broadband by the State Emergency Communications Board (SECB)to develop a funding model for emergency communication systems. City of E 2014 Legislative Priorities The following are the City of Eagan's 2014 Legislative priorities.To avoid repetition,this list does not restate all of the initiatives addressed through policy documents set forth by the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC),Metro Cities, or the Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC). The City of Eagan respectfully requests the support of our Legislative delegation on the following initiatives: 1. Support a strong fiscal relationship between the State and local governments. A. Ensure levy limits are not imposed again in the coming year. B. Expand the State sales tax exemption to LOGIS,a joint power entity comprised almost entirely of tax- exempt municipalities and agencies. 2. Support Policies that Encourage Regional and Local Economic Development. A. Extend the length of the Cedar Grove Tax Increment Financing(TIF) District term by 15 years and extend the five-year rule to permit additional investment in public infrastructure and private projects in the district,particularly for projects within walking distance from the Cedar Grove Transit Station. B. Expand Tax Increment Financing(TIF) criteria under which production of information technology products (e.g.software,online publications, etc.) may be defined as manufacturing for TIF purposes in order that cities can attract such businesses to the State of Minnesota. C. Modify tax code to financially incent the expansion and renovation of existing and smaller-scale data centers in the State (current threshold for tax advantages when renovating an existing data centers is $50 million,which is detrimental to companies such as Unisys and Thomson Reuters). D. Ensure that any building code changes pertaining to new construction are consistent with State broadband goals to support enhanced broadband capability. E. Ensure the Department of Commerce's Office on Telecom&Broadband focus broadband deployment efforts on metro and regional job centers like Eagan so we can compete with world class broadband speeds. With other states and regions moving ahead on gigabit fiber to the home,the state lacks incentives for firms to provide such services in the Twin Cities region. F. Support a study of how to position our region's critical infrastructure,like the 511 Building in Minneapolis (the main pathway to Chicago for most Internet traffic), in the event of cyber terrorism or natural disruptions. G. Support the repeal of the"warehouse"tax enacted last year as it disproportionately affects (taxes) a greater number of commercial/industrial properties in Eagan. 2014 City of Eagan Legislative Priorities Page 2 3. Support local and regional transportation and infrastructure initiatives. A. Support the bonding request for the proposed direct access off of Highway 77 (Cedar Avenue) to the Cedar Grove Station to reduce Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) travel times and enhance rider experiences for origination, destination and transfer riders--$6 million B. Support funding for the Robert Street Transitway to enhance transit services in eastern Eagan--$1.4 million C. Require MnDOT to maintain state right-of-way and parcels acquired for state or federal highway transportation purposes located within city limits in a manner consistent with local ordinances. Alternatively,require MnDOT to reimburse Minnesota cities for the labor,supplies,and equipment necessary to maintain state right-of-way and parcels to meet city standards or minimize public safety hazards.This includes highways,traffic signals,trails,retaining walls,storm sewer/drainage systems. D. Authorize cities to create additional public infrastructure utilities,such as a street or sidewalk utility for a Street Improvement District,to address funding for building and maintaining necessary infrastructure outside of the limitations of existing special assessment authority and Municipal State Aid. E. Support enablabling legislation to allow schools to use school district transportation funding off-site (for trail plowing around schools in partnership with communities). 4. Support tools to ensure effective local government service delivery. A. Oppose industry efforts to create"Code Councils"to ensure that the process remains balanced between the interests of the public and industry. B. Retain the law enacted in 2008 requiring private utility companies to share information regarding gas and electric shut offs with local units of government to aid in efforts to identify vacant or uninhabitable properties. C. Support the establishment of wellhead protection areas or drinking water supply management areas (DWSMA) to prevent well drillers from placing private wells within the zone of the community water supply. D. Oppose any DNR efforts to significantly increase water appropriation fees as it would increase City utility/water rates. City of Burnsville Legislative Agenda 2014 City Legislative Position Statements 1. Local Government Aid (LGA) - The City of Burnsville advocates for policies that more fairly address the disparities in property tax burdens as a percentage of income as documented by the recently completed Voss Data Base.(Heather Johnston,Dana Hardie) 2. Fiscal Disparities — As the Legislature considers the study completed in 2012, the City of Burnsville advocates for legislation that would reflect a meaningful analysis of the present day applicability of the state's 1971 commercial industrial "tax-base sharing"law;and opposes the use of fiscal disparities to fund social or physical metropolitan programs since because of its complexities this results in a metropolitan-wide property tax increase hidden from the public. (Heather Johnston,Dana Hardie) 3. Levy Limits—The City of Burnsville supports the principle of representative democracy that allows city councils to formulate local budgets. The City opposes state restrictions on local budgets and opposes legislation that imposes levy limits or the imposition of artificial mechanisms proposals such as the"taxpayer's bill of rights",valuation freezes, payroll freezes, reverse referenda, fund balance restrictions, super majority requirements for levy or other limitations to the local government budget and taxing process. (Heather Johnston, Dana Hardie) 4. State Property Taxes—The City of Burnsville opposes the extension of state-levied property taxes to additional classes of property and/or the increase in taxation levels on the present state property tax.(Heather Johnston,Dana Hardie) 5. Public Employees'Retirement Association(PERA)—The City of Burnsville supports sharing the cost for retirement programs between employees and cities. However, the City is concerned about the ever-increasing costs of the pension program.The City also advocates state funding of costs related to state-mandated changes to the provisions of the retirement program which have the effect of enhancing benefits beyond existing levels. (Heather Johnston and Jill Hansen) 6. Transportation — The City of Burnsville supports additional statewide transportation funding and local tools to meet the long term and short term transportation system needs of our region.(Steve Albrecht) Transit: The City also supports the independence of opt-out transit service providers. More specifically,the City opposes Met Council transit oversight of opt-out transit operations and/or interference with the designated opt-out revenue stream including, but not limited to, State, County (CTIB and any others) and Federal (CMAQ and any others). A priority for the City of 11Page City of Burnsville Legislative Agenda 2014 Burnsville is maintaining support for the bus system. Funding of light- and commuter rail projects is high and all the expansion funding should not be spent solely in that arena. Operating funds are needed to maintain and enhance the bus system (given the growth displayed). Maintenance:As part of the transportation system,MnDOT should meet property maintenance standards adopted by cities through local ordinances or reimburse cities for labor, equipment and material used on the state's behalf to meet local standards. Street Improvement District:The City of Burnsville supports legislation that would allow cities if they choose to do so;through a transparent and public process,to create street improvement districts to assist with the maintenance and reconstruction of city streets. (Steve Albrecht) 7. Private Well Drilling—Cities are authorized to enact ordinances that disallow the placement of private wells within city limits to ensure both water safety and availability for residents and businesses. Municipal water systems are financially dependent upon users to operate and maintain their systems. A loss of significant rate payers as the result of private wells would economically destabilize water systems and could lead to contamination of the water supply. The City of Burnsville supports current law that authorizes cities to protect public health and safety through local controls regulating or prohibiting private wells being placed within municipal water utility service boundaries and opposes any changes to law to remove that authority.(Steve Albrecht) 8. Metropolitan Governance — The City of Burnsville favors a modification to the present governance model for the Metropolitan Council. Specifically the City favors a "council of governments"type model utilizing elected city and county officials to serve as the metropolitan governing board with appointments being made by the local governments themselves. Additionally, the City of Burnsville opposes any expansion of Metropolitan Council powers— specifically it opposes the conversion of either housing or potable waters to a "metropolitan systems"classification as defined in the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act.Further,the City of Burnsville opposes mandatory targets for affordable housing or mandatory inclusionary housing provisions in the regional comprehensive planning process or through other regulatory processes. (Jenni Faulkner and Heather Johnston) 9. Creating and Implementing Local Partnerships-The City of Burnsville supports the passage of legislation that encourages local service partnerships resulting in efficiencies and cost savings by providing state reimbursement of costs relating to creating and implementing the partnerships. Specifically the City supports enabling legislation for municipal administrative 2IPage City of Burnsville Legislative Agenda 2014 legal processes for statutory cities. This includes extending sales tax exemptions to joint partnerships.(Jenni Faulkner and Heather Johnston) 10.Development and Redevelopment — The City of Burnsville opposes the elimination or limitation of existing tools for assisting economic development and redevelopment.Specifically the City supports flexibility on the usage of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) but opposes the diversion of funds from the Metropolitan Council's Livable Community program to non- development related uses. Further the City of Burnsville supports State funding for economic development and workforce readiness such as the Department of Employment and Economic Development and its programs including the Minnesota Investment Fund and Job Skills Partnership.The State should consider bolder"increment"programs that would relieve all or a portion of state taxes on economic development activities,if the"but for"test can be met and new jobs are created.Tax relief could be in the forms of lower sales taxes for capital equipment or vehicles, lower income taxes or reductions in other burdens. (Heather Johnston and Jenni Faulkner) 11.Local Land Use Controls-The City of Burnsville opposes legislation that reduces or eliminates the City's authority in the areas of local zoning, comprehensive planning, utility and transportation planning etc. These types of regulations have significant impacts to local neighborhoods.Cities are best positioned to govern these matters and have effective processes for hearing and addressing concerns of affected citizens. The City has an adopted Comprehensive Plan based on broad community input that articulates the community's goals. Interference with these effective local processes impedes the City's ability to effectively implement the Comprehensive Plan. (Jenni Faulkner) 12.Residential Care Facilities —The City of Burnsville supports legislation that establishes non- concentration standards for residential care facilities to prevent clustering in ALL cities(current law permits non-concentration standards only in Minneapolis and St.Paul). Also when there is insufficient training for the providers' staff or inappropriate placement of residents, inappropriate and unacceptable burdens for local first responders result. Sufficient funding and oversight is needed to ensure that residents living in residential care facilities have appropriate care and supervision,and that neighborhoods are not disproportionately impacted by high concentrations of residential care facilities. The City of Burnsville recognizes and supports the services residential care facilities provide. However,The City also has an interest in preserving balance between group homes and other uses in residential neighborhoods. Providers applying to operate any kind of residential care facilities, no matter which state agency is in charge of regulating them, should be required to notify the city when applying for licensure so as to be informed of local ordinance requirements as a part of the application 31Page I i City of Burnsville Legislative Agenda 2014 process. Inasmuch as the City has no authority for revocation of operating licenses,the state and county licensing authorities must be responsible for actively inspecting facilities and removing any residents incapable of living in these environments,particularly if they become a danger to themselves or others. (Jenni Faulkner) 13.[NEW]Daycare Facilities and Licensing—The City accepts statutory allowance for daycares as a home occupation in residential districts, but only when the dwelling unit is occupied by the daycare owner.To otherwise allow a commercial use in a residential neighborhood does not fit within the City's land use expectations. Furthermore, DHS approves commercial daycare licenses(commercial daycare businesses not in a residence).Any requirement for city building code inspection and/or sign-off should be clear and follow the requirements of the law.(Jenni Faulkner) 14.[NEW] Property Maintenance Code Enforcement—The City supports enabling legislation that will better empower it to administer property maintenance codes, building codes, zoning codes,health codes,and public safety and nuisance ordinances including the authority to levy administrative fines. Traditional methods of citation, enforcement and prosecution have met with increasing costs for,and delays in enforcement for local units of government.The use of administrative fines is a tool to moderate those costs and to speed the enforcement processes. Additionally, the Legislature should clarify that both statutory and home rules charter cities have the authority to issue administrative citations for code violations. Further, state statute should allow statutory and home rule charter cities to adjudicate administrative citations and to assess a lien on properties for unpaid administrative fines. The City also supports clarification and strengthening of the state Health Department's ability to address property maintenance issues especially issues surrounding mold.(Jenni Faulkner) 15.[NEW]Preserve Host Community Economic Development Grant Program-The City of Burnsville believes that recent measures taken by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will have the direct effect of reducing the revenue that the City gains from its Host Fee Agreements relating to the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill Inc.(BSLI),and will delay re-development of the land adjacent to the landfill in our community.As long as the landfill is active,it remains a challenge to have effective economic development efforts in corridors impacted by the landfill.The City supports the 2013 legislation that created the Host Community Economic Development Grant Program and supports continued fundin g of th i s legislation as a means to restore the lost Host Fee revenue to the City and to foster redevelopment of areas impacted by extended landfill life expectancies.(Terry Schultz,Heather Johnston) 16.[NEW]Close Freeway Landfill—The City is supportive of the MPCA's efforts to close Freeway Landfill in an environmentally sustainable manner.The City supports a closure plan that primarily addresses any future environmental impacts(e.g.Minnesota River water quality, ground water impacts)and secondly provides for economic development opportunity as part of a remediation project.(Jenni Faulkner,Heather Johnston) 4 ' Page City of Burnsville Legislative Agenda 2014 17.[NEW]Warehousing Tax Repeal—In 2013 the Legislature created a new tax on goods warehoused.Burnsville has many businesses that conduct warehousing as part of their operations.This tax is an impediment to economic development efforts in retaining and attracting valued employers in the City,and in the State.The City supports the repealing of this new tax prior to its effective date of April 2014.(Jenni Faulkner,Dana Hardie) 18.Reseller Legislation—The City of Burnsville opposes legislation that would restrict the ability of police to access reseller customer data and property information. This data is a valuable investigative tool, providing the ability to protect citizens and recover stolen property. Such legislation would not only inhibit proper police investigations, but create a reseller industry more attractive to criminals to seek cash for stolen goods.(Eric Gieseke) 19.Automated Citation Technology(Photo Cop)—Cities should be allowed to enforce traffic laws and promote public safety through the use of photo enforcement technology. The City of Burnsville supports legislation that would enable it to utilize the so-called"Photo Cop" technology in a fashion that is both constitutional and effective in citing traffic law breakers. Local law enforcement officials should have the authority to issue citations for violations by mail when the violation is detected with photographic evidence.(Eric Gieseke,Tom Venables) 20.[NEW]Data Retention for Law Enforcement-The City of Burnsville supports the position that Cities should be allowed to retain automated license plate reader(ALPR)data for a reasonable period of time for use for criminal investigative purposes. The Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association(MCPA)and its members recommend a retention of 180 days,while recent legislation only allows for 24 hour retention of the information. The City also supports reasonable access restrictions and audit provisions for the period of time the data is retained. (Eric Gieseke,Tom Venables) 21.Primary Service Area(PSA)—Burnsville,like several other cities,has multiple ambulance services that are authorized to operate within its boundaries. The first priority for the provision of Emergency Medical Services(EMS)within the City's geographic borders should continue to be the City's Fire/EMS Department resources. Further,the City supports the existing prioritization of 9-1-1 emergency medical calls by the Dakota Communications Center that identifies the City's Fire/EMS Department as the first resource to be called and opposes any actions to modify these provisions.This in no way diminishes or seeks to alter the existing mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions. Further the City opposes any attempt to alter the PSA law that permits healthcare organizations or accountable-care organizations to utilize preferred EMS agencies to evaluate or transport emergency or non-emergent patients within the City.The City also opposes any changes that would diminish the capacity of the existing mutual aid system.(BJ Jungmann) 22.Medicare Reimbursement for Emergency Medical Services-The City of Burnsville supports legislation that would: 51 Page City of Burnsville Legislative Agenda 2014 a. Require Medicare to set ambulance payment rates at the"national average cost"of providing service. b. Establish a"prudent layperson"standard for the payment of emergency ambulance claims such that if a reasonable person believed an emergency medical problem existed when the ambulance was requested,Medicare would pay the claim. c. Make it easier for providers to file claims with Medicare by eliminating a processing system that often leads to the rejection of legitimate reimbursement claims. (BJ Jungmann) 23.Broadband Priorities-The City of Burnsville supports the goals established in 2009 by the Minnesota Broadband Task Force to make Minnesota a leader in broadband access,speed and capacity at the local level. In order to achieve these goals,the City supports efforts to eliminate barriers to collaborating and deploying broadband infrastructure and services at the local level. The City also supports statewide mapping of broadband services and public/private collaboration to achieve state broadband goals(Dana Hardie,Tom Venables) 24.Cable Services Providers—The City of Burnsville supports attracting multiple cable television service providers to the city by streamlining franchising requirements and removing unnecessary impediments to entering the market—while preserving the city's control of its rights-of-way,local programming,and customer service standards.The City believes that no case has been made for state-wide franchising.A local franchise helps ensure that cable franchise agreements reflect new technology and meet the specific needs of individual communities.Losing the ability to negotiate a local franchise would not only result in lost revenue for cities,but also lost opportunities to provide public,educational and government video programming. This loss would limit the ability to make public meetings available for television viewing,and limit the methods information can be provided to residents about City services and events.(Heather Johnston,Marty Doll,Dana Hardie) 25.Aggregate Mining Fee — The City of Burnsville advocates State establishment of a host community fee at a level mutually agreeable to aggregate producers and local governments, consistent with the goal of inducing local governments to foster the appropriate utilization of mineral aggregate resources. The fees should be applied to aggregates removed from a commercial source only as opposed to materials removed from construction project sites and fee proceeds should be deposited in the municipality's general fund. (Steve Albrecht) _ --(Formatted:Font:Bold 2-5, ' -`'- Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.56", No bullets or 26.Public Employee Labor Relations Act Arbitrations — The City of Burnsville supports numbering consideration of the obligations of public employers to efficiently manage and conduct operations, and the strengthening of Minn. Stat. § 179A.16 Subd. 7 to reflect the following considerations: a. any wage adjustments already given to or negotiated with other groups—union and non-union,for the same employer for the same contract period; 61 Page City of Burnsville Legislative Agenda 2014 b. decreases in local government aids or other dramatic losses of revenues in the year immediately prior to or during the contract year being considered; c. the general economic condition of the public employer, including its ability to raise revenues,and property tax burdens on property owners;and d. the need for the employer to maintain reasonable budgetary reserves. (Jill Hansen) 7l Page City of Burnsville Legislative Agenda 2014 Consider Removing from City's Legislative Agenda 1. Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases—The City of Burnsville supports the reinstatement of the sales tax exemption for all local government purchases without requiring a reduction in other aids.(Heather Johnston and Dana Hardie) Public Employee Labor Relations Act Arbitrations MS 179A.16 Subd.7 language referencing an arbitrator's responsibility to consider"the statutory rights and obligations of public employers to efficiently manage and conduct operations within the legal limitations surrounding the financing of these operations"should be clarified to reflect the consideration of: non union,for the same employer for the same contract period; immediately prior to or during the contract year being considered;' revenues,and property tax burdens on property owners; (Jill Hansen} I 3,2.Provisional Balloting Associated with Required Voter Identification — If the Voter Identification measure is adopted by voters in November 2012 the City advocates that state resources be made available to cities to offset the significant expenses associated with this measure. The provisional balloting associated with the measure would significantly increase administrative pressures, training requirements, and the number of employees needed to successfully carry out the election process.The City urges the Legislature to make enactment of clarifying rules and statutes an urgent priority and that it complete final enactment of the necessary election administrative procedures and rules early in the session.(Dana Hardie and Macheal Brooks) 43.Affordable Housing—The City opposes mandatory targets for affordable housing or mandatory inclusionary housing provisions in the regional comprehensive planning process or through other regulatory processes.(Jenni Faulkner) 3,4.Modernizing Bid Publication Requirements — The City supports broader use of alternative contracting and purchasing methods that streamline the process and reduce local purchasing costs.Specifically,the City advocates for the amendment of Minn.Stat.§429.041,Subd.1 and Minn. Stat. § 331A.03, Subd. 3 to allow cities to use the most up to date and cost effective mean of advertising bids and to eliminate publication requirements that do not further the goals of the Municipal Contracting Law or benefit the taxpayers.(Steve Albrecht) I 4,5.Temporary Holding of Juveniles—The City supports a statutory clarification that would affirm cities' authority to temporarily hold juveniles for questioning and booking in licensed jail 8IPage J City of Burnsville Legislative Agenda 2014 facilities for up to six hours, regardless of whether or not the county has a juvenile detention facility.(Eric Gieseke) Wage 4 REISEtvIOLINflT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: AGENDA ITEM: Medical Marijuana State Legislation AGENDA SECTION: Update Discussion PREPARED BY: Eric T. Werner, Chief of Police -- AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Minnesota Law Enforcement Coalition "General Reasons for Opposition to APPROVED BY Proposed `Medical' Marijuana Legislation" paper. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None ISSUE During the Minnesota legislative session convening in February 2014,proposed Medical Marijuana legislation will possibly be considered. A bill has been introduced in each house as SF 1641 and HF1818. The bills propose to allow qualifying patients, over 18 years of age, diagnosed by a practitioner with a debilitating medical condition, or designated caregivers to possess a minimum of 2.5 ounces of marijuana or 12 marijuana plants. The bills'language provides regulations for the use of marijuana, dispensaries, licensing,and zoning restrictions. BACKGROUND The Minnesota Law Enforcement Coalition (MLEC) opposes any legislation legalizing medical marijuana, while expressing strong empathy to those with any affliction and considering medical marijuana for treatment. The MLEC consists of the Minnesota County Attorney's Association,Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association,Minnesota Sheriff's Association,Minnesota Police and Peace Officer Association,and the Minnesota State Association of Narcotics Investigators. The MLEC's reasons for opposing medical marijuana legislation are stated in paper published by the coalition,which is attached for reference. Main points of the paper are marijuana is a Schedule I drug under federal and state statute, having a high potential for abuse,is highly used with dependent users, associated with teen abuse,increased crime rates, and contains significantly higher THC levels than in the past. November 20,2013 the Dakota County Attorney and Dakota County Sheriff hosted a marijuana education forum in West St. Paul. Ken Winters,Ph.D.,Department of Psychiatry,University of Minnesota, provided research information concerning the negative effects of marijuana on adolescents. Tom Gorman, director of the Rocky Mount HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) Program Initiative presented information on the impact of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. SUMMARY Staff's intent is to provide informational overview of the MLEC paper and education forum to the Council to consider due to the potential increased community conversation with the proposed legislation. Minnesota Law Enforcement Coalition Representing these Organizations: Minnesota County Attorneys Association Minnesota Sheriffs Association Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association Minnesota State Association of Narcotics Investigators General Reasons for Opposition to Proposed "Medical" Marijuana Legislation April 13, 2009 [Updated on July 25, 2013*] Introduction Minnesota law enforcement officers and prosecutors sympathize with individuals and their family members and friends who suffer from pain and other ill effects associated with serious medical diseases and conditions. Our Associations have members who themselves have personally and painfully been impacted by the types of serious medical diseases and conditions that this "medical" marijuana legislation attempts to address. However, as law enforcement officers and prosecutors we also experience on a daily basis the pain and suffering that is directly and indirectly attributable to the illegal cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana. We are alarmed at reports that marijuana is the most widely abused controlled substance in our state and nation. We are alarmed at surveys that indicate over 30% of 12th grade students in our state have used marijuana within the past year. We see firsthand the property crimes, assaults, child neglect and endangerment, robberies, and homicides that are related to illegal drug activity, including marijuana. In some cases, the incidents are directly related, such as when an innocent person is seriously injured or killed during a robbery attempt of a marijuana dealer or if someone impaired by marijuana causes a motor vehicle crash which kills or injures innocent persons. In other cases the impact of marijuana abuse is less apparent, such as the high percentage of methamphetamine or cocaine users who began their illegal drug experiences with marijuana. Regardless, evidence is clear that marijuana is an addictive and dangerous substance which has significant detrimental effects upon public safety. Law enforcement is not alone in our opposition to the use of marijuana as a medicine (or its outright legalization as has occurred in some states). Recently, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals adopted a strong position statement opposing such laws.' As noted in this statement: "Every dangerous and addictive drug was once believed to be safe and medicinal. Cocaine, heroin and nicotine were once advertised as being good for you, or at least not harmful. In every instance, we * This position statement was previously adopted by the Minnesota County Attorneys Association, Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association,Minnesota State Association of Narcotics Investigators,Minnesota Sheriffs Association,and the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association on April 13, 2009 [combined with a list of specific concerns with this proposed legislation - now a separate document]and updated on July 25,2013 by Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom. learned otherwise—the hard way. Marijuana is the newest "safe" and "medicinal" drug to reenact this tragic drama. Just as scientific research is documenting the unequivocal public-health and public- safety dangers of marijuana, states are moving rapidly towards legalization or decriminalization. Science, not ideology, must be our guide to rational and informed public policy."2 It is for these reasons, among many others, that law enforcement officers and county attorneys throughout this state oppose the proposed "medical" marijuana legislation. The reasons for our opposition are set forth below. I. Marijuana is a Schedule I Controlled Substance under Federal and State Law (meaning that it has a high potential for abuse and a lack of any accepted medical use). The manufacture or possession of marijuana is a federal crime. It is not sound public policy to enact state laws which encourage law- abiding citizens to commit federal crimes. Marijuana is classified under the Federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA), enacted in 1970 as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, as a Schedule I controlled substance.3 Schedule I consists of the most restricted drugs under federal law— drugs which have a high potential for abuse, a lack of any accepted medical use, and an absence of any accepted safety criteria for use in medically supervised treatment.4 States have no authority to change the federal classification of controlled substances under the CSA (including marijuana) under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.5 Federal Courts have consistently upheld the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance and the fact that marijuana is a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use.6 In 1994, a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a decision of the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, who declined to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Controlled Substance Act,' finding that marijuana was a drug with "high potential for abuse" which has "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" and that "there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug . . . under medical supervision."8 • The U.S. Court of Appeals found that the DEA Administrator properly relied upon "the testimony of numerous experts that marijuana's medicinal value has never been proven in sound scientific studies,"9 noting that physicians supporting use of marijuana for medical purposes (in testimony before an Administrative Hearing Officer) were basing their opinions on "anecdotal evidence, on stories . . . heard f r o m patients, and on . . . impressions about the drug."10 The most recent and important federal court case on this topic is a 2005 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich, et al., which upheld the authority of federal authorities to enforce federal laws prohibiting the use of marijuana in California for medical purposes as authorized under California law." If Minnesota's "medical" marijuana law is passed, it will be in direct conflict with federal law and the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly indicated in Gonzales v. Raich, et al., that federal law takes precedence under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.12 Consequently, those granted authority to lawfully produce and use marijuana for medical purposes under state law will still be committing a federal crime. It is not sound public policy to enact state laws which encourage law abiding citizens to commit federal crimes. 2 II. Marijuana is the most widely abused controlled substance in our state and nation. The proposed "medical" marijuana law will increase the potential for marijuana abuse in Minnesota. A 2008 report issued by the Office of National Drug Control Policy noted that marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in America.13 This report goes on to indicate that marijuana use rates are above 10% of the population between ages 16 to 29, peaking at 20% at age 20.14 Approximately 2 million persons began using marijuana last year in the United States and marijuana initiation occurs at a younger age than for most other drugs of abuse.15 Early initiation of marijuana use is associated with drug dependence as an adult (the younger the age at first use, the higher the likelihood of adult drug dependence). More than 4 million persons in America are estimated to be dependent upon or abusers of marijuana in the past year, higher than any other illegal drug.16 Users can become dependent on marijuana to the point they must seek treatment to stop abusing it. Almost 300,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment primarily for marijuana abuse and dependence in 2006.17 Marijuana admissions to treatment for addiction have been higher than those for any other illegal drug in America since 2002.18 "Medical" marijuana laws increase the potential for marijuana use and abuse by others for non-medical purposes. As of July 2007, there were 12 states with "medical" marijuana laws. According to surveys conducted by the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Association, 8 of the 10 states with the highest percentage of past-month marijuana users also are states with "medical" marijuana laws. The report also notes that according to the same surveys, 5 of the 10 states with the highest percentage of new youth marijuana users also are states with "medical" marijuana legislation.19 Consequently, there is clear evidence that the adoption of a "medical" marijuana law will result in increased use and abuse of marijuana for non-medical purposes. III. Marijuana is an addictive drug that poses significant health consequences to its users, including those who may be using it for medical purposes. Marijuana is not supported for medicinal use by many prominent national health organizations and many other approved drugs exist to treat the diseases for which"medical" marijuana is being proposed. A. Marijuana is an addictive drug that poses significant health consequences to its users. Marijuana is an addictive drug20 that poses significant health consequences to its users, including those who may be using it for medical purposes. Persons using marijuana, even for medicinal purposes, suffer withdrawal symptoms when use is stopped, such as restlessness, loss of appetite, trouble with sleeping, weight loss and shaky hands.21 The short-term effects of marijuana use include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, and loss of motor skills.22 Occasionally, marijuana use produces anxiety, fear, distrust and panic.23 Additionally, marijuana causes a variety of health problems, including decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, respiratory problems and anxiety.24 Long-term use of marijuana may increase the risks of chronic cough, bronchitis, and emphysema, as well as cancer of the lungs.25 Marijuana damages the immune system by impairing the ability of T-cells to fight off infections, demonstrating that marijuana can do more harm than good in people with already compromised immune systems.26 3 The following highlight additional health consequences of using marijuana: • Marijuana is a significant health hazard which contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.27 • Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits almost four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.28 According to the National Institute of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.29 • A Columbia University study found that a control group smoking a single marijuana cigarette every other day for a year had a white-blood-cell count that was 39 percent lower than normal, thus damaging the immune system and making the user far more susceptible to infection and sickness.3° • Smoked marijuana has also been associated with an increased risk of the same respiratory symptoms as tobacco, including coughing, phlegm production, chronic bronchitis, shortness of breath and wheezing. Because cannabis plants are contaminated with a range of fungal spores, smoking marijuana may also increase the risk of respiratory exposure by infectious organisms (i.e., molds and fungi).31 • Marijuana can cause the heart rate, normally 70 to 80 beats per minute, to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute or, in some cases, even to double.32 Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana.33 • According to two studies, marijuana use narrows arteries in the brain, "similar to patients with high blood pressure and dementia,"which may explain why memory tests are difficult for marijuana users. In addition, "chronic consumers of cannabis lose molecules called CB1 receptors in the brain's arteries," leading to blood flow problems in the brain which can cause memory loss, attention deficits, and impaired learning ability.34 • A laboratory-controlled study by Yale University scientists, published in 2004, found that THC "transiently induced a range of schizophrenia-like effects in healthy people.35 • According to several recent studies, marijuana use has been linked with depression and suicidal thoughts, in addition to schizophrenia. These studies report that weekly marijuana use among teens doubles the risk of developing depression and triples the incidence of suicidal thoughts.36 B. Marijuana is not supported for medical use by many prominent national health organizations. Many major medical and health organizations, as well as the clear majority of nationally recognized experts in the fields of medicine, science and scientific research, have concluded that smoking marijuana is not a safe and effective medicinal treatment. These organizations include: The American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the American Glaucoma Association, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the National Eye Institute, and the National Cancer Institute.37 • The American Medical Association (AMA) has rejected pleas to endorse marijuana as a medicine and instead has urged that marijuana's status as a federal Schedule I controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods. However, the AMA stated that this should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for a prescription drug product.38 4 • The American Cancer Society "does not advocate inhaling smoke, nor the legalization of mariqua n " (although the organization does support carefully controlled clinical studies for alternative delivery methods such as a THC skin patch). 9 • The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) opposes the legalization of marijuana because it believes that "[a]ny change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults," [which would include its use for medical purposes] "could affect the prevalence of use among adolescents."40 The AAP has asserted that "even a small increase in use (of marijuana), whether attributable to increased availability or decreased perception of risk, would have significant ramifications."41 • The National Multiple Sclerosis Society has stated that "it could not recommend medical marijuana be made widely available for people with multiple sclerosis for symptom management, explaining: `This decision was not only based on existing legal barriers to its use but, even more importantly, because studies to date do not demonstrate a clear benefit compared to existing symptomatic therapies and because side effects, systemic effects, and long-term of effects are not yet clear.">42 • The American Glaucoma Society has stated that "although marijuana can lower the intraocular pressure, the side effects and short duration of action, coupled with the lack of evidence that its use alters the course of glaucoma,preclude recommending this drug in any form for the treatment of glaucoma at the present time."4 • A recent study by the Mayo Clinic, showed THC to be less effective than standard treatments in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites.44 • Even the 1999 landmark study of The Institute of Medicine (IOM) which reviewed the supposed medical properties of marijuana (a study often cited by "medical" marijuana advocates) clearly discounts the notion that smoked marijuana is or can become a "medicine."45 A close review of the IOM study reveals the following: - The IOM study noted: "[t]he effects of cannabinoids on the symptoms studied are generally modest, and in most cases there are more effective medications [than smoked marijuana]."46 - The IOM study concluded that, at best, there in only anecdotal information on the medical benefits of smoked marijuana for some ailments, such as muscle spasticity. For other ailments, such as epilepsy and glaucoma,the study found no evidence of medical value and did not endorse further research.47 - The IOM study explained that "smoked marijuana . . . is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances." In addition, "plants contain a variable mixture of biologically active compounds and cannot be expected to provide a precisely defined drug effect." Therefore, the study concluded that "there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication."48 C. Many other approved drugs exist to treat the diseases for which "medical" marijuana is claimed to be needed. Advocates for the medical use of marijuana would have the public and policy makers incorrectly believe that crude marijuana is the only effective treatment alternative for masses of cancer sufferers who are going untreated for the nausea associated with chemotherapy, and for those who suffer from glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and other serious ailments. Numerous effective medications, however, are currently available for these conditions. A list of over 20 approved medications that exist to treat the medical problems for which medical use of marijuana would be authorized under Minnesota's proposed "medical" marijuana legislation is set forth in footnote 49 of this document.49 5 Also of importance is the fact that there already exists an approved form of marijuana for medical use in America — it's called Marinol. Marinol is an approved pharmaceutical product that is widely available through a doctor's prescription. It comes in the form of a pill (which can accurately regulate the dose of THC delivered, unlike smoked marijuana), and it is also being studied by researchers for suitability by other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or a patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which is the main active chemical found within marijuana. However,unlike marijuana which also contains more than 400 different chemicals (including most of the cancer-causing chemicals found in tobacco smoke), Marinol delivers therapeutic doses of THC in a manner that has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration.50 There is, therefore, no medical need to substitute a dangerous and addictive drug like marijuana for an approved prescriptive drug like Marinol that can provide a synthetic form of THC treatment with safe and controlled amounts to assist patients suffering from nausea or vomiting associated with chemotherapy and the loss of appetite associated with AIDS, two of the recognized and approved uses of Marinol.51 IV. Marijuana has not been approved for use by the FDA (the organization charged with insuring the safety of medicines used in the United States) and unlike any other legitimate medicine, including even over the counter drugs, this proposal would allow marijuana to be produced, distributed and used for medical purposes without any regulations in regard to safety, quality or effectiveness. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the entity in the United States which oversees the regulation of medicines to insure the health and safety of American citizens. The FDA and the U.S. Public Health Service have rejected smoking crude marijuana as a medicine.52 The FDA in an advisory issued on April 20, 2006 stated: • "[T]here is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful. A past evaluation by several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSA) and National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use. There are alternative FDA-approved medications in existence for treatment of many of the proposed uses of smoked marijuana."53 • "FDA is the sole Federal agency that approves drug products as safe and effective for intended indications. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act requires that new drugs be shown to be safe and effective for their intended use before being marketed in this country. FDA's drug approval process requires well-controlled clinical trials that provide the necessary scientific data upon which FDA makes its approval and labeling decisions. If a drug product is to be marketed, disciplined, systematic, scientifically conducted trials are the best means to obtain data to ensure that drug is safe and effective when used as indicated. Efforts that seek to bypass the FDA drug approval process would not serve the interests of public health because they might expose patients to unsafe and ineffective drug products. FDA has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease indication." 54 • "A growing number of states have passed voter referenda (or legislative actions) making smoked marijuana available for a variety of medical conditions upon a doctor's recommendation. These measures are inconsistent with efforts to ensure that medications undergo the rigorous scientific scrutiny of the FDA approval process and are proven safe and effective under the standards of the FD&C Act. Accordingly, FDA, as the federal agency responsible for reviewing the safety and efficacy of drugs, DEA as the federal agency charged with enforcing the CSA [Controlled 6 Substance Act], and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, as the federal coordinator of drug control policy, do not support the use of smoked marijuana for medical purposes."55 It is also important to note that the FDA has never approved the delivery of a medication through smoking. This is because not only is it difficult if not impossible to administer safe and regulated dosages of medicine in a smoked form, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are by-products of smoking create an entirely new set of health problems.56 As noted by the Office of National Drug Control Policy: • "Even if smoking marijuana makes people `feel better', that is not enough to call it a medicine. If that were the case, tobacco cigarettes could be called medicine because they are often said to make people feel better. For that matter, heroin certainly makes people `feel better' (at least initially), but no one would suggest using heroin to treat a sick person."57 • "Marijuana use, even by those using it for `medicinal purposes,' is significantly harmful to the body. Smoking pot delivers three to five times the amount of tars and carbon monoxide into the body as does smoking cigarettes and it also damages pulmonary immunity and impairs oxygen diffusion.58 It is hard to understand how changes such as these could be good for someone dying of cancer or AIDS.59 As noted above, before a medication is approved by the FDA, it must undergo rigorous testing procedures to insure its safety and when distributed it must contain FDA approved warnings listing proper dosages and risks, including the dangers of potential adverse drug interactions. Unlike any other legitimate medicine, including even over the counter drugs, Minnesota's "medical" marijuana proposal would allow marijuana to be produced, distributed and used for medical purposes without any regulations in regard to safety, quality or effectiveness. There would be no dosage information, no user instructions, and no warnings about the consequences or risks of misuse, all of which exist for any other substance used as a medicine in this country, including even aspirin. The Minnesota Legislature should not substitute its judgment for that of FDA as to the fact that marijuana has no general acceptance for medical use and as to defining what is the appropriate way to deliver safe medications to our citizens. V. Marijuana is a dangerous drug that is associated with violent crimes including assaults, robberies, and murder and its use impairs driving skills and endangers public safety. A. Marijuana is a Dangerous Drug that is Associated with Crime and Violence. • Research shows a link between frequent marijuana use and increased violent behavior.6o - Young people who use marijuana weekly are nearly four times more likely than nonusers to engage in violence.61 - Marijuana users in their later teen years are more likely to have an increased risk of delinquency and have more friends who exhibit deviant behavior. Teenage marijuana users also tend to have more sexual partners and are more likely to engage in unsafe sex.62 - Approximately two-thirds of teens who already use marijuana report that legalizing the drug would increase their likelihood of using it.63 Adopting a "medical" marijuana law here in Minnesota will have a similar impact upon increasing its illegal use by youth and adults.64 • A large percentage of those arrested for crimes test positive for marijuana. Nationwide, 41 percent of males tested positive for marijuana at the time of their arrest.65 - Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in America. Of the nearly 20 million current illicit drug users, 14.6 (about 75 percent) are using marijuana."66 7 - Nearly one-fifth (17.3 percent) of daily hospital admissions for substance abuse indicated that marijuana was their primary and only substance of abuse,but the majority (82.7 percent) reported marijuana and at least one additional substance of abuse. Of this latter group, about one-third (32.1 percent) reported primary abuse of marijuana (with secondary abuse of another substance), and approximately half(50.6 percent) reported secondary abuse of marijuana(with primary abuse of another substance).67 • There is a strong correlation between drug use and crime. Drug use affects the user's behavior. In 1997, illicit drug users were: - approximately 16 times more likely than nonusers to report being arrested for larceny or theft; - more than 14 times more likely to be arrested for driving under the influence, drunkenness, or liquor law violations; - and more than 9 times more likely to be arrested on assault charges.68 B. Marijuana growing operations, even if lawful, create a valuable "cash crop" that in turn creates a significant risk of drug robberies which would endanger the qualifying patients, caregivers and others living or working in and around these premises. Recent statewide surveys indicate that approximately 11% of Minnesota's population used marijuana within the past year. The popularity of marijuana, and increases in its potency, has resulted in a steady increase in the "street value" of the substance.69 State law enforcement agencies who regularly purchase marijuana in undercover operations indicate that a pound of marijuana currently has a street value of $1,200 to $3,500 depending upon its potency. One ounce of marijuana has a street value of approximately $165 to $200. As a result, even small marijuana growing operations are capable of producing marijuana valued at thousands of dollars, with large scale operations capable of producing marijuana valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The high monetary street value of marijuana provides monetary incentives for criminals, gangs, and organized crime, under the guise of "medical" marijuana, to cultivate marijuana for illegal possession or sale. States that have enacted "medical" marijuana legislation have reported instances of individuals and other entities that have fraudulently used such legislation as a "front" for operations that illegally cultivate and distribute marijuana for non-medical use.70 The U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich, et al. also noted that legalizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes will clearly lead to increases in the marijuana supply, greater use of marijuana by non-patients and more criminal activity under state law.71 The Supreme Court stated: • "The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase the supply of marijuana in the [state] market." • "The likelihood that all such production will promptly terminate when patients recover or will precisely match the patients' medical needs during their convalescence seems remote, whereas the danger that excesses will satisfy some of the admittedly enormous demand for recreational use seems obvious." • "[T]he [fact that the] national and international narcotics trade has thrived in the face of vigorous criminal enforcement efforts suggests that no small number of unscrupulous people will make use of the . . . [state] exemptions to serve their commercial ends whenever it is feasible to do so."72 8 Consequently, it is clear that if the "medical" marijuana proposal is enacted in Minnesota it will lead to an increased supply of marijuana in our state, some of which will be used for illegal purposes. This"cash crop" will in turn create a significant risk of drug robberies, which would endanger the qualifying patients, caregivers and others working in and around these premises. C. Marijuana Use Impairs Driving Skills and Puts the Public at Risk. There is incontrovertible evidence that marijuana impairs driving skills, putting the public at significant risk from such impaired driving.73 One recent study showed that marijuana use alone, without any use of alcohol, caused driver reaction time to increase 36% above that of an unimpaired driver, which translates to increasing stopping distance by 139 feet at a speed of 59 miles per hour.74 Such studies also showed a diminished ability to perceive and/or respond to changes in the relative velocities of other vehicles and to adjust one's own speed accordingly.75 The clear impact of these studies is that there is an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes from persons driving under the influence of marijuana which endangers the public safety. Lives will be lost and permanent disabling injuries will occur from motor vehicle crashes caused by persons under the influence of"medicinal" marijuana if this legislation becomes the law in our state. VI. Marijuana is far more powerful today that it was 30 years ago and it serves as a gateway to the use of other illegal drugs. Legalizing marijuana for medical purposes will lead to the perception that marijuana is harmless, which will result in increased use of marijuana illegally by other persons, including youth. A. Marijuana is far more powerful today that it was 30 years ago and it serves as a gateway to the use of other illegal drugs. One study has shown that the average THC levels in marijuana in the past two decades has increased from 6 percent to more than 13 percent, with some samples containing THC levels of up to 33 percent (which is far higher than the 1 percent potency levels in marijuana used in the mid-1970's).76 There was a 151% increase in the THC levels in marijuana sized by law enforcement from 1983-2007.77 Marijuana is a gateway drug to the use of other illegal drugs like methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine. Long-term studies of students who use drugs show that very few young people use other illegal drugs without first trying marijuana. The use of marijuana often lowers inhibitions about drug use and exposes users to a culture that encourages the use of other drugs.78 • The Journal of the American Medical Association reported a study of more than 300 sets of same-sex twins. The study found that marijuana-using twins were four times more likely than their siblings to use cocaine and crack cocaine, and five times more likely to use hallucinogens such as LSD.79 • A study by Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse showed that teens who use marijuana at least once a month are 13 times more likely than other teens to use another drug like cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine and are almost 26 times more likely than those teens who have never used marijuana to use another illegal drug.80 - Other studies show that twelve to seventeen year olds who smoke marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not. Sixty percent of adolescents who use marijuana before age 15 will later use cocaine. These correlations are nine to ten times higher than the initial relationships found between smoking and lung cancer in the 1964 Surgeon General's report.81 9 B. Legalizing marijuana for medical purposes will lead to the perception that marijuana is harmless, which will result in increased use of marijuana illegally by other persons, including youth. One of the greatest concerns associated with legislation authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes is the perception this will create that marijuana is safe, particularly among youth. Marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug that is harmful to the human body in many ways (see detailed discussion in Section III above). In states where the issue of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes has been put on the ballot for voters to decide, well-financed and organized campaigns spearheaded by pro-marijuana legalization groups have contributed to the misperception that marijuana is harmless.82 According to the Office of National Drug Policy, "these campaigns are not led by medical professionals or patients-rights groups, but by pro-drug donors and organizations in a cynical attempt to exploit the suffering of sick people."83 This misperception that marijuana is harmless will perhaps be most prevalent among teens. If we call this illegal and dangerous drug a "medicine", even though it is not sold by prescription through a pharmacy with warnings and use restrictions, this will clearly enhance the perception of harmlessness of this substance. Consequently, legalizing marijuana for medical purposes will lead to the perception that marijuana is harmless, will result in increased use of it for illegal purposes, causing more crime (see Section V above), endangering our youth and the safety of all persons in our state. Conclusion: For all of these reasons [and many more, including those articulated in a separate document listing our specific concerns with Minnesota's proposed "medical" marijuana legislation], the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, the Minnesota County Attorneys Association, the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, and the Minnesota State Association of Narcotics Investigators all strongly oppose the adoption of a law in Minnesota which would authorize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Admin/MedicalMarij uana/L,awEnforceCoalitionGeneralReasonsforOppositonReMedicalMarijuana7-25-13.doc 10 1 ALL RISE,The Magazine of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals,Spring 2013. 2 Id. 3 Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act)(21 U.S.C.S. §§801 et seq.). 4 Id., §812(b)(1). 5 Gonzales v. Raich, et al., Supreme Court of the United States, 545 U.S. 1;125 S. Ct. 2195; 162 L. Ed 2d 1; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4656; 73 U.S.L.W. 4407; 18 Fla.L. Weekly Fed S 327, p.2212. 6 See Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v.Drug Enforcement Administration,et al.,304 U.S.App. D.C. 400; 15 F.3d 1131; 1994 U.S.App. LEXIS 2684(1994);and Gonzales v.Raich,et al.,supra note 3. 7 Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. Drug Enforcement Administration, et al., 304 U.S. App. D.C. 400; 15 F.3d 1131; 1994 U.S.App. LEXIS 2684(1994). 8 Id. at p. 1132. 9 Id.at p. 1137. 10 Id. 11 See note 3,supra. 12 Id.at p.2212. 13 2008 Marijuana Sourcebook,Office of National Drug Control Policy,Executive Office of the President,July 2008,p.2. 14 Id. at p.3. 15 Id.at p. 5. 16 Id.at p.6. 17 Id. at p. 6. 18 Id.at p.6-7. 19 Id.at p. 19. 20 Herbert Kleber,Mitchell Rosenthal,"Drug Myths from Abroad: Leniency is Dangerous,not Compassionate"Foreign Affairs Magazine, September/October 1998. Drug Watch International"NIDA Director cites Studies that Marijuana is Addictive." "Research Finds Marijuana is Addictive," Washington Times,July 24, 1995. 21 Budney et al., Marijuana abstinence effects in marijuana smokers maintained in their home environment. Archives of General Psychiatry. 58(10): 917-924. 2001. (NIDA Notes Vol. 17 No.3): http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA notes/NNVo117N3/Demonstrates.html . See also: Marijuana:: Facts for Teens,NIDA,Revised 1998: http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html . See also: State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems for Fiscal Year 1995: An Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile Data,National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors,Inc.,July 1997. 22 NIDA InfoFacts:Marijuana,May 7,2008,found at http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html; See also:National Institute on Drug Abuse,Research Report Series:Marijuana Abuse,NIH Publication Number 05-3859,first printed October 2002; and PEDIATRICS,Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics,Marijuana:A Decade and a Half Later, Still a Crude Drug with Underappreciated Toxicity,Richard H. Schwartz,2002,http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/109/2/284. 23 Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization,a publication of the Drug Enforcement Administration,p.30;See also: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,National Institutes of Mental Health,National Institute on Drug Abuse,"Research Report:Marijuana Abuse,"October 2001. 24 National Institute of Drug Abuse,Journal of the American Medical Association,Journal of Clinical Pharmacology,International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics,Pharmacology Review. 25 Tashkin,D.P.Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse. West JMed 152: 525-530, 1990. See also: http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marij uana3.html. 26 U.S. Dept. of Justice publication: Exposing the Myth of Medical Marijuana, p 2. See also: Marijuana:Facts Parents Need to Know, National Institute on Drug Abuse,National Institutes of Health. 27 Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization, a publication of the Drug Enforcement Administration, p. 30; See also: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Mental Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, "Research Report:Marijuana Abuse,"October 2001. 28 U.S.Dept.of Justice publication: Exposing the Myth of Medical Marijuana, p 1. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuanap.html; See also: http://meshealth.about.com/library/blcannabis.htm and http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-07-31-marijuana-studv_N.htm. 29 Id. 30 Dr.James Dobson,"Marijuana Can Cause Great Harm" Washington Times,February 23, 1999. 31 "Marijuana Associated with Same Respiratory Symptoms as Tobacco," YALE News Release. 13 January 2005. http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/05-01-13-01.all.htm (14 January 2005). See also: "Marijuana Causes Same Respiratory Symptoms as Tobacco," January 13,2005, 14WFIE.com. 32 Gilman,A.G.;Rall,T.W.;Nies,A.S.;and Taylor,P.(eds.). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 8th Edition. New York: Pergamon Press, 1998. 11 See also: http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana3.html. 33"Marijuana and Heart Attacks" Washington Post,March 3,2000. 34"Marijuana Affects Brain Long-Term, Study Finds." Reuters. 8 February 2005. See also: "Marijuana Affects Blood Vessels," BBC News. 8 February 2005; "Marijuana Affects Blood Flow to Brain." The Chicago Sun-Times. 8 February 2005; Querna, Elizabeth. "Pot Head." US News& World Report. 8 February 2005. 35 Curtis,John. "Study Suggests Marijuana Induces Temporary Schizophrenia-Like Effects." Yale Medicine. Fall/Winter 2004. 36"Drug Abuse: Drug Czar, Others Warn Parents that Teen Marijuana Use Can Lead to Depression." Woman's Health Weekly, June 2, 2005. [John Walters, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Charles G. Curie, Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and experts and scientists from leading mental health organizations joined together in May 2005 to warn parents about the mental health dangers marijuana poses to teens]. 37 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration publication Say it Straight: The Medical Myths of Marijuana, formerly available at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/sayit/myths.htm (can now be found at: http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/sav-it- straight-the-medical-myths-of-marijuana.html) See also: Bonner, R., Marijuana Rescheduling Petitions, 57 Federal Register 10499-10508;and Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v.DEA and NORML v.DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C.Cir 1994). 38 The DEA Position on Marijuana, p. 4, January 2011, p. 3-4; found at http://www.justice.gov/dea/docs/marijuana_position 2011.pdf. See also: "Policy H-95.952 `Medical Marijuana."' American Medical Association. http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/hod/i09-reference-committee-reports.pdf; and American Medical Association, Featured Council on Scientific Affairs. "Medical Marijuana (A-01)." June 2001, which can be found at: http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/csaph-report3-i09.pdf. 39 Id.at p.4. See also:American Cancer Society."Medical Use of Marijuana:ACS Position";found at: P , h' Marijuana: uana.procon.org/sourcefiles/ACSposition.pdf. 49 Id. at p. 4. See also: Committee on Substance Abuse and Committee on Adolescence. "Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth." Pediatrics Vol. 113,No. 6(6 June 2004): 1825-1826; and Joffe, Alain, MD,MPH, and Yancy, Samuel,MD. "Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth." Pediatrics Vol. 113,No.6(6 June 2004): e632-e638h. 41 Joffe, Alain, MD, MPH, Yancy, Samuel W., MD, the Committee on Substance Abuse and the Committee on Adolescence, Technical Report: "Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth",American Academy of Pediatrics,6 June 2004. 42 The DEA Position on Marijuana, p. 4, January 2011, supra note 38. See also: "Recommendations Regarding the Use of Cannabis in Multiple Sclerosis: Executive Summary." National Clinical Advisory Board of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Expert Opinion Paper, Treatment Recommendations for Physicians, April 2, 2008, which can be found at http://www.nationalmssociety.org. 43 Id.at p.4. See also:"American Glaucoma Society Position Statement:Marijuana and the Treatment of Glaucoma."Jampel, Henry MD.MHS,Journal of Glaucoma:February 2010-Volume 19-Issue 2—pp.75-76;doi: 10.1097/IJG.obol3e3181d12e39: found at http://www.glaucomaweb.org 44 U.S.Dept. of Justice publication: Exposing the Myth of Medical Marijuana, p 2. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuanap.html . See also: "Marijuana Appetite Boost Lacking in Cancer Study" The New York Times,May 13,2001;and a Mayo Clinic publication in 2012 found at: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/marijuana/NS_ patient-marijuana/DSECTION=evidence. 45 The DEA Position on Marijuana, p. 4-5, January 2011, supra note 38. See also: Institute of Medicine. "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base." (1999). Executive Summary: http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed(12 April 2005). 46 Id. 47 Id. 48 Id. 49 U.S.Drug Enforcement Administration publication Exposing the Myth of Medical Marijuana,p 1, http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marij uanap.html. THE ALTERNATIVES TO SMOKED MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE: (List compiled by Dr. Eric Voth,Fellow of the American College of Physicians). Below is a list of the medications currently available for chemotherapy,and for all those who suffer from glaucoma,multiple sclerosis,and other ailments. Serotonin Antagonists Ondansetron(Zofran) Granisetron(Kytril) Tropisetron(Navoban) Dolasetron Phenothiazines Prochlorperazine(Compazine) Chlorpromaxine(Thorazine) 12 Thiethylperazine(Torecan) Perphenazine(Trilafon) Promethazine(Phenergan) Corticosteroids Dexamethasone(Decadron) Methylprednisolone(Medrol) Anticholinergics Scopolamine(Trans Derm Scop) Butyrophenones Droperidol(Inapsine) Haloperidol(Haldol) Domperidone(Motilium) Benzodiazepines Lorazepam(Ativan) Alprazolam(Xanax) Substituted Benzamides Metoclopramide(Reglan) Trimethobenzamide(Tigan) Alizapride(Plitican) Cisapride(Propulsid) Antihistamines Diphenhydramine(Benedryl) [SOURCE: 2001 WL 30659(Appellate Brief)Brief of the Institute on Global Drug Policy of the Drug Free America Foundation; National Families in Action; Drug Watch International; Drug-free Kids: America's Challenge, et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner(Jan. 10,2001,),U.S.v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 121 S.Ct. 1711 (2001)and list reconfirmed on May 14, 2006]. This list was originally compiled by the Drug Free Schools Coalition and submitted to the Minnesota Legislature on February 14,2007 by the Minnesota Family Council. 5o Id. 51 Id. 52 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration publication Say it Straight: The Medical Myths of Marijuana, formerly available at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/sayit/myths.htm. See also: The DEA Position on Marijuana, p. 4-5, January 2011, which can be found at: http://www justice.gov/dea/docs/marijuana position_2011.pdf. ss FDA Statement,April 20,2006: "Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine." http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm 108643.htm. 54 Id. 55 Id. References to various agencies or acts not specified in text quoted are as follows: CSA: Controlled Substances Act;and DEA: Drug Enforcement Administration. 56 See"Medical"Marijuana—The Facts,a publication of the U.S.Drug Enforcement Administration,found at www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marinolp.html. See also: National Institute on Drug Abuse "Is Marijuana Medicine?" July 2012, which can be found at: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana-medicine. 57 Office of National Drug Control Policy's What Americans Need to Know about Marijuana(Important facts about our nation's most misunderstood illegal drug),p.9. http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/mj rev.pdf. See also: National Drug Prevention Alliance. Medicine and Marijuana,2010,which can be found at: http://drugprevent.org.uk/ppp/category/papers/medicine-and-marijuana/. 58 Id. 59 Id. 6o Adolescent Self-reported Behaviors and Their Association with Marijuana Use, Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1999: http://www.samhsa.gov/press/980922fs.htm. See also: Brook,J.S.et al. The risks for late adolescence of early adolescent marijuana use. American Journal of Public Health,October 1999. 61 See note 22,supra. See also: NCJRS "Marijuana Myths and Facts". https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/mar/juana myths_factspdf 13 62 Office of National Drug Control Policy. "What Americans Need to Know About Marijuana,"which can be found at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/mj rev.pdf. 63 CESAR FAX,A Weekly FAX from the Center for Substance Abuse Research,July 1,2013,Vol.22,Issue 26. 64 See note 19,supra. 651d. See also: Narconon"Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana,"2005,which can be found at: http://www.theroadout.org/drug information/marijuana/exposing the_myth of smoked medical marijuana.html. 66 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality.(February 2, 2012).The TEDS Report:Marijuana Admissions Reporting Daily Use at Treatment Entry.Rockville,MD,which can be found at: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k12/TEDS_SR 029 Marijuana_2012/TEDS Short Report 029 Marijuana 2012.pdf. 67 Id. 68 U.S.Department of Health and Human Services(HHS)National Household Survey on Drug Abuse(NHSDA)(1997). See also: Almanac of Policy Issues,Drug Related Crime,2000,which can be found at: http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/drug related crime.shtml. 69 Minnesota State Estimates of Substance Use from the 2005-2006 National Surveys on Drug Use. See the following website: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k6State/Minnesota.htm. 7°See CBS News,60Minutes Story on Medical Marijuana,"California Pot Shops" 12/30/2007;and"The Great California Weed Rush", Rolling Stones Magazine,posted on the following website on 2/22/07: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/1339069/the great california weed rush/print. 71 See note 3,supra at p.2215. 72 Id.at p.2215. 73 PEDIATRICS,Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics,Marijuana:A Decade and a Half Later, Still a Crude Drug with Underappreciated Toxicity,Richard H. Schwartz,2002,p.287. http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/109/2/284. 74 Id. 7s Id. 76 Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project.University of Mississippi,2002. See also: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/inte1/01020/index.html#ma4 http://www.recoverymonth.gov/2003/kit/OverviewAndGeneralFacts.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/mj rev.pdf. 77 2008 Marijuana Sourcebook,Office of National Drug Control Policy,Executive Office of the President,July 2008,p. 13. 78 U.S.Dept. of Justice publication: Exposing the Myth of Medical Marijuana, p 2. http://www.usdoj.govidea/ongoing/marijuanap.html. 79 Lynskey et al. Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs. Co-Twin Controls,JAMA,289:427-433,2003: www.csdp.org/research/joc21156.pdf. S0 Non-Medical Marijuana II: Rite of Passage or Russian Roulette?" CASA Reports. April 2004. Chapter V,p. 15. See also: http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/380-Non-Medical Marijuana III.pdf. 81 U.S.Drug Enforcement Administration publication Say it Straight: The Medical Myths of Marijuana,formerly available at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/savit/myths.htm. See also: http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/say-it-straight-the- medical-myths-of-marij uana.html. 82 Office of National Drug Control Policy's What Americans Need to Know about Marijuana(Important facts about our nation's most misunderstood illegal drug),p. 12,which can be found at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/mj rev.pdf. 83 Id. 14