Connect with us

Montana

Lawmakers consider bill that would limit where Montana marijuana businesses can operate

Published

on

Lawmakers consider bill that would limit where Montana marijuana businesses can operate


HELENA — On Thursday, Montana lawmakers heard testimony on a invoice that will put new limits on the place marijuana companies can function. Supporters stated it could deal with some native communities’ considerations concerning the trade, however enterprise house owners referred to as it an pointless imposition.

The Home Human Companies Committee held a listening to on Home Invoice 265, sponsored by Rep. Tanner Smith, R-Lakeside. The invoice would make two main adjustments: rising the minimal distance between marijuana companies and faculties or locations of worship, and prohibiting new marijuana dispensaries in areas the place voters opposed the 2020 legalization vote.

At present, the doorway to a marijuana enterprise have to be at the least 500 ft from the doorway of any faculty or place of worship, in the event that they’re on the identical avenue. HB 265 would enhance that distance to a minimal of 1,000 ft between any corners of the buildings. Companies nearer than that must shut or relocate by January 2024.

Smith stated he was involved a couple of dispensary that opened behind Lakeside Elementary Faculty and which was not topic to the present rule as a result of it’s on a distinct avenue. As well as, residents in Roberts protested in opposition to a dispensary that opened throughout the freeway from their faculty, however once more was allowed as a result of it was on one other avenue. That dispensary is at the moment closed, after Carbon County leaders put in further zoning restrictions for marijuana companies.

Advertisement

Roberts Public Faculties superintendent Alex Ator testified in favor of the invoice, saying the dispensary had been seen from his faculty’s playground.

“Our eight-year-olds, each time they go down that slide and see, ‘Marijuana dispensary, marijuana dispensary, marijuana dispensary,” he stated. “And that signal is now down, however that signal was up for 4 months. And that’s the repetition of apply that our children bought coming off the slide.”

HB 265 would additionally block the state from approving any new adult-use or medical marijuana dispensary licenses in voting precincts the place nearly all of voters opposed Initiative 190, the 2020 poll measure that legalized leisure marijuana within the state. Present dispensaries in these areas can be allowed to stay, except their licenses are suspended or revoked.

In 2021, the Legislature permitted Home Invoice 701, which arrange the present framework for the state’s marijuana trade. It established that, basically, adult-use dispensaries can be allowed in so-called “inexperienced counties” the place extra voters supported I-190, and prohibited in “purple counties” the place extra voters opposed it. Nonetheless, it supplied strategies for counties to modify from purple to inexperienced and vice versa, and for cities to carry elections to ban marijuana companies.

Smith stated, whereas the regulation offers cities the ability to ask voters to ban marijuana companies, it doesn’t present that authority for unincorporated communities. He stated HB 265 would offer protections for rural areas that typically opposed legalization.

Advertisement

“These small cities with 1,000 to 4,000 folks don’t have any metropolis council, and subsequently don’t have any illustration,” stated Smith. “They’re out on an island and ruled by nearly all of the folks within the nearest metropolis. The county commissioners may have handed ordinances – some did, however many didn’t; Flathead County didn’t.”

Representatives of marijuana companies stated Thursday that there was no want for this invoice, as counties have the ability to place stricter setback necessities and lots of different laws in place in the event that they select.

“If we now have native issues with marijuana, let our native governments cope with that,” stated Pepper Petersen, president and CEO of the Montana Hashish Guild. “Flathead County has all the energy to do what they need of their county, as per 701.”

Petersen stated marijuana companies take critically the authorized necessities to not promote to these youthful than 21 or permit them on the premises, and he objected to proponents’ characterizations of the trade.

Opponents stated many present dispensaries are throughout the 1,000-foot restrict that the invoice would set and must transfer, and the provisions permitting present companies to remain in precincts that rejected I-190 weren’t robust sufficient.

Advertisement

Kate Cholewa, with the Montana Hashish Business Affiliation, stated the testimony hadn’t actually defined the total influence on marijuana companies.

“Actually, the way in which this invoice is ready up, it’s in some methods, form of like setting the chessboard to select off dispensaries all through the state,” she stated.

Additionally throughout Thursday’s listening to, the committee heard testimony on Home Invoice 286, which might permit cash from Montana’s HEART Fund to go towards youth suicide prevention. The HEART Fund receives $6 million a 12 months in tax income from Montana marijuana gross sales – cash that’s then leveraged for extra federal matching funds.

Advocates stated Thursday that they anticipated to have the ability to use HEART Fund {dollars} for suicide prevention work, however the language didn’t clearly permit it, and this invoice would resolve that subject.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Montana

Montana Supreme Court affirms decision in landmark youth climate case

Published

on

Montana Supreme Court affirms decision in landmark youth climate case


What’s New

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed a landmark climate decision that declared the state was violating residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by allowing oil, gas and coal projects without regard for global warming.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces an August 2023 ruling by District Court Judge Kathy Seeley, who found that Montana’s practices violated its residents’ constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment.”

This pivotal case, spearheaded by a group of young plaintiffs aged 6 to 23, represented a milestone for climate advocates seeking judicial intervention to compel governmental action on climate change.

What To Know

On Wednesday in a 6-1 ruling, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the August 2023 decision.

Advertisement

The court’s decision strikes down a state policy that prohibited the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in granting permits for fossil fuel development.

The state had previously appealed the ruling by Seeley, and arguments were heard in July, in which the state argued that greenhouse gases released from Montana fossil fuel projects are minuscule on a global scale and reducing them would have no effect on climate change.

Dale Schowengerdt, representing Montana Governor Greg Gianforte and state environmental agencies, argues before the Montana Supreme Court on July 10, 2024, in Helena, Montana, in the youth climate lawsuit Held v. Montana. The Montana Supreme…


Thom Bridge/Independent Record/ AP

Chief Justice Mike McGrath dismissed the state’s argument that Montana’s emissions are insignificant on a global scale, likening the defense to an “everyone else is doing it” excuse.

McGrath wrote, “The right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless if the State abdicates its responsibility to protect it.”

What Are People Saying

Melissa Hornbein, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center and attorney for the plaintiffs said, “With the ruling now in place, the Montana Supreme Court’s decision compels the state to carefully assess the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts of all future fossil fuel permits.”

Advertisement

Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority: “Plaintiffs may enforce their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment against the State, which owes them that affirmative duty, without requiring everyone else to stop jumping off bridges or adding fuel to the fire. Otherwise the right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless.”

Republican Governor Greg Gianforte said in a statement that the state was still reviewing the decision, but said it will lead to “perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills for hardworking Montanans.

Pushback From State Leadership

The ruling has sparked a backlash from Gianforte, who criticized the court for what he described as judicial overreach. He warned the decision could invite an onslaught of lawsuits, increase energy costs for Montanans and hinder the state’s “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.

“This Court continues to step outside of its lane to tread on the right of the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, to make policy,” he said in a statement. “This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above approach to energy, which is key to providing affordable and reliable energy to homes, schools, and businesses across our state.”

Gianforte also convened energy stakeholders earlier this week to discuss boosting production to meet rising demand, emphasizing the need for “unleashing American energy” to maintain grid stability.

Advertisement

The Plaintiffs’ Perspective

For the 16 young plaintiffs, the court’s decision validates their personal struggles with the tangible effects of climate change. In a Wednesday statement, lead plaintiff Rikki Held called the ruling “a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change.”

During the trial, the plaintiffs described how worsening wildfires, droughts and diminishing snowpack have disrupted their lives, polluted the air and depleted vital natural resources. They argued that the state’s failure to address these challenges imperils their future and violates their constitutional rights.

What Happens Next

The ruling has positioned Montana as a flashpoint in the national debate over climate accountability, potentially inspiring similar legal challenges across the United States.

This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Pregnant woman claims Montana Highway Patrol wrongfully arrested her for DUI

Published

on

Pregnant woman claims Montana Highway Patrol wrongfully arrested her for DUI


BOZEMAN — A pregnant woman from Sheridan is claiming she was wrongfully arrested by the Montana Highway Patrol (MHP) for allegedly driving under the influence during a traffic stop near Bozeman.

“I was just pretty shocked. And I constantly told him I’m pregnant, and I haven’t drunk in probably eight months,” says Alyssa Johnson.

Alyssa is a photographer from Sheridan who, at 22 weeks pregnant, was pulled over by an MHP trooper on Dec. 1, 2024 for an alleged traffic violation.

“I have a stutter, and he thought I was slurring so he pretty much said can you step out of the car. Made me do all these kinds of tests,” says Alyssa.

Advertisement

Alyssa explains that she has severe dyslexia, which makes understanding directions, and completing any sort of test, difficult.

“I mean, Alyssa, when she was in school, she used to have extra time to take an exam and she’d have questions read to her,” explains Alyssa’s husband, Tim Johnson.

Alyssa says in addition to her mental handicap, she was in a state of panic during the traffic stop—affecting her ability to give a proper breathalyzer result.

“They were saying that since I couldn’t breathe through the breathalyzer and the testing wasn’t doing good, they arrested me and pretty much took me to the hospital for more blood work,” she says.

A written statement by her therapist confirms Alyssa’s dyslexia diagnosis.

Advertisement

And after the incident, the couple got a third-party blood test—because the one conducted by law enforcement could take up to eight weeks to return.

The blood test, provided by the Johnsons, shows negative for any type of drug.

Alyssa says, “I take a prenatal, an aspirin for my blood pressure, and stuff for my heartburn, like Tums. Just like simple stuff.”

Tim explains that in addition to expecting their second child, they’re currently building a home—making the cost of bail and towing a hard hit on finances.

He says, “We have a budget to stick to and the budget doesn’t include any unexpected costs like this.”

Advertisement

Tim says this is an opportunity for police to receive better training on mental impairments and hopes that charges will be dropped from Alyssa’s record.

“And I understand they have to do their job too. I mean, support police. But this wasn’t right to do,” she says.

The couple says they have filed a formal complaint with MHP.

I reached out to MHP for comment but did not receive a response regarding the incident. We will update this story if we hear back.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Montana's Weather Update: Low Chance Of White Christmas Revealed

Published

on

Montana's Weather Update: Low Chance Of White Christmas Revealed


While our prospects for a “white Christmas” in Montana are still looking dim, a blast of vigorous winter weather promises to make travel tough Wednesday, with high wind warnings, and in some places winter storm warnings.

It’s part of a rather odd winter to date, as we hit mid-December with limited snow in the valleys of Western Montana, but more normal snowfall at the higher elevations.

National Weather Service forecasters have issued wind warnings for many corners of the state, with winds gusting 20 to 30 miles per hour in most locations, with the potential to top 50 miles per hour in the Bitterroot, the Madison, along the passes over the Divide, eastern Flathead County and the Northern Rocky Mountain Front. Some locations in North Central Montana could see gusts top 60 miles per hour this afternoon.

A brief warm-up, then cold

Advertisement

While snow levels will rise, freezing rains will be a problem in some areas, and then temperatures will plunge on Thursday. Northeast Montana will drop to 5-below to 5-above zero, with some areas in the single digits in Southeast Montana.

The severe cold isn’t expected west of the Divide. Forecasters expect overnight and morning temperatures in the Western Montana valleys to drop back into the 20s through the weekend.

And the forecast still doesn’t look conducive to a “white Christmas” unless you’re at that cabin in the mountains or on the slopes. High pressure will move back into the region in the second half of this week and could last into next week.

READ MORE: Missoula Snowplows Stand Ready

Scenic Montana Airbnb Has a Sauna, Perfect for Holiday Getaway

Gallery Credit: Ashley

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending