listen to this article
Four Minnesotans who want to buy and sell homegrown marijuana are waiting for clarification on whether home growers can sell their product without a license. They filed suit seeking clarification, but a Ramsey County district judge concluded that the plaintiffs' claims lacked subject matter because their claims were not yet ripe, and the complaint was rejected.
Some Minnesotans grow marijuana at home to treat a variety of medical conditions. One of the plaintiffs, Patrick McClellan, grows marijuana to treat muscular dystrophy. He has eight cannabis plants in his home, with no more than four flowering plants. Following the May 2023 cannabis legalization bill signed into law by Governor Tim Walz, people 21 and older in Minnesota can now grow up to eight plants per household and share some of them with other adults. is allowed to give.
However, the plant produces more than McClellan could reasonably consume for recreational or medical purposes. McClellan said the costs of growing cannabis at home, including purchasing proper cultivation equipment and paying for legal compliance, are “significant,” and offset the costs by selling surplus crop without a permit. I'm thinking of doing it.
Two of the plaintiffs, Edwin Engelman and Gregory Schiffler, want to buy marijuana from private residences rather than dispensaries. The fourth plaintiff, Eric Reck, wants to sell his marijuana to other adults.
According to Article 13, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution, “Any person may sell the produce of any farm or garden he occupies and cultivates without obtaining a license.” 1918. The Minnesota Attorney General issued an advisory opinion stating, “Growers are guaranteed the right to sell or peddle the produce of their occupied farms or gardens without obtaining a license.” Announced. The plaintiffs argued that private cannabis growers “are not required to obtain a license to sell plant products produced on their property to consumers.”
However, Minn.Stat. § 342.09, subchapter. Article 6 provides criminal penalties for those who engage in the sale of cannabis without a license. Plaintiffs believe they have a constitutional right to sell home-grown cannabis, but are unsure whether they can sell their home-grown cannabis because they don't know whether they will face criminal charges if they sell surplus. I can't have it.
Litigation was a way to resolve uncertainty. The Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) does not approve of the application of Article 13(7) as interpreted by the plaintiff. In an email, the Bureau of Cannabis Control insisted it would “not issue an advisory opinion.” It added: “We are aware of the controversy surrounding agricultural exempt products and cannabis and are closely monitoring it.”
OCM will finalize rules governing cultivation standards, licensing, and operational requirements. However, this is not expected until 2025.
Jeffrey O'Brien, a partner at Husch Blackwell and a member of the board of directors of the Minnesota Industrial Hemp Association, said he is considering asking the attorney general's office to issue an opinion. However, private citizens cannot request advisory opinions. Instead, the request must come from an employee of the state or state agency. O'Brien hoped the lawsuit would prompt the attorney general's review to clarify that Minnesotans have a constitutional right to sell surplus marijuana from their home-grown plants.
“Rather than instructing individuals to risk criminal prosecution, we believe the next best option is to go to Ramsey County District Court and ask a judge to interpret the interrelationships of the constitutional provisions and laws. “We determined that there was,” O'Brien explained at the time. of litigation. “We hope this will encourage the state and the attorney general to take a look, clarify that there is a constitutional right, and put an end to this issue.”
The case was heard on July 22nd. The Bureau of Cannabis Control moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that it was not yet ripe for consideration. The court agreed.
“Plaintiffs are unable to show that they face any direct or imminent harm from which the court can provide relief,” Justice Edward Shue wrote. “Specifically, OCM has not yet completed the rulemaking process to ensure that what the plaintiffs allege they are trying to do, which is allow legal quantities of home-grown adult-use cannabis to be sold without a license, is limited to legal quantities.” No one knows at this point whether “buying and selling” will be authorized under Chapter 342. ”
OCM stressed that it is carefully analyzing its policies to avoid the problems other states have faced with legalizing adult-use recreational marijuana. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' desired sale may be approved. Defendants argue that plaintiffs simply must be patient.
But the plaintiffs argue that the question is not whether there is an imminent threat of prosecution, but whether there is a constitutional right to prosecute without authorization. The plaintiffs said they were seeking “assurance that they have the rights provided by the Minnesota Constitution when they comply with state regulations where there are currently no regulations.” They argued that their case was ripe.
The court agreed with OCM. “Defendants argue that OCM’s rules could ultimately permit the type of conduct plaintiffs seek to engage in, namely the unauthorized buying and selling of excess adult-use home-grown cannabis, and plaintiffs also No objections. It is too early to know at this time,” Schuh wrote. “This court cannot interfere with OCM's rulemaking process, and no such challenge has been filed.”
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and could not address the case on its merits. The company dismissed the charges without prejudice.
