Video: Inside The Daily Circuit studio with Tom Weber

Ever wonder what it’s like inside The Daily Circuit’s studios during a live broadcast? MPR News Reporter Tim Post is working on a special video project this summer and took some time today to install his GoPro cameras in the studio while Tom Weber hosted the show.

Do you have an idea for a future Minnesota POV video? Send MPR News the details.

  • KTN

    Why, because the Police Federation is on the wrong side on this issue. They continue to trot out the very tired, and false claims about the horrors of marijuana. They have a conflict of interest,, they are disingenuous regarding their assessment on whether the medical use of marijuana is effective, and they are not medical professionals – so why are they issuing medical advice.

    The tide is turning, and they will be left holding onto their prosaic ideals, while those suffering from certain medical conditions will be getting relief – maybe not this year, but soon, with or without the support of the Police Federation.

  • Rich in Duluth

    No, law enforcement’s concerns should only be one factor in this decision and not the controlling factor. Anecdotal evidence shows that marijuana can help relieve a number of medical conditions, but, law enforcement, through the DEA, has blocked real research on this issue . This indicates a conflict of interest in law enforcement’s objection to the proposed law, which should question the validity of their position. The governor should change his mind on this issue and rely more on medical advice and less on the fears of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association.

  • Sue de Nim

    No. It should be legalized outright. Prohibition of relatively harmless substances does more harm than good.

  • No. The science shows that marijuana is effective medicine, not just CBDs, but also THC and the plant itself. It helps treat numerous medical conditions, with non-toxic side effects and no risk of fatal overdose, unlike other, currently legal, medicines. Medical marijuana is already being used by many to treat illness, though the sick person risks arrest, labeling as a felon, and being locked up. The Prohibition of medical marijuana endangers public safety by creating a huge, profitable underground economy, and its associated violent crime, and violent police enforcement. The responsible thing to do is to legalize medical marijuana by passing the Bill as introduced. If that would inconvenience law enforcement leadership in their efforts to stop recreational marijuana use, so be it. That is not a worthy cause in any event. And many rank-and-file police officers do support legal medical marijuana.

  • John Schmidt

    No the only thing the cops want is money give it to em

  • Jim G

    No. As I recall within the last couple of years a multi-agency metro drug task force unit was shut down for profiting handsomely by confiscating drug money, cars, and other property. Records of seized property were sloppily kept if kept at all. This seizure of property and money is permitted by our laws and has become a significant source of funding for our law enforcement agencies. Knowing they will be squeezed for funding if marijuana becomes legal is a contributory reason why these organizations are against legalization.

  • Bill

    No, law enforcement only wants marijuana illegal because they can arrest more people, that’s it. Maybe even some gun practice on unarmed people like the hwy 212 shooting two weeks ago, that we are not hearing the truth.

    • Kevin

      And never mind the fact that the only reason drugs were ever even outlawed in this country in the first place was because slave owners got all bent that their slaves would get the idea to rebel if they had drugs. Initially they were the most worried about cocaine, but, all the rest were subsequently banned as well and mainly for the same reasons. The banning of drugs has never had anything to do with medical reasons!

      • David

        3 video documentaries to watch:

        the Union the business behind getting high

        what if cannabis cured cancer

        breaking the taboo

  • Joseph

    Absolutely not. Keep their grubby hands out of the decision. Encourage them to go out and do useful things.

    • Bill

      Yes I agree, they should consider their oath, to protect the constitution, and serve the public. Something that has been lacking increasingly.

  • StPmade

    No. I respect that law enforcement officials have concerns, but those concerns shouldn’t be weighted so high that they act as the primary driver for the drafting of this legislation.

  • James

    Yes. Everyone knows that legalizing medical mairjuana that is “adminstered” the way we “adminstered” it at college is the thin edge of the wedge to first, not being able to enforce the laws currently on the books, and then outright legalization of maijuana.
    Let’s be honest here.
    Kind of like the Voter ID thing, The huge push for Voter ID was never about solving a constitutional issue; it was about disenfanchising (mainly liberal) voters.
    This debate is not really about medical marijuana. This is about having ways for lots of not very sick people to get their hands on marijuana without having to return to high school, college or a nasty street coner.
    So let’s have the real debate here and now. Are we going to legalize recreational marihuana use or not. If not, don’t create this obvious loophole.

    • David

      Medicine one of the many countless legitimate uses of cannabis.

    • Oliver Steinberg

      James, you just don’t know! This debate IS about medical use. I have long advocated ending prohibition across the board, but people who need cannabis for medical reasons need it NOW, and have to break the law NOW with all the risks that entails, in order to get it.

      The DEA’s own chief law judge ruled in 1988 that “the marijuana plant as a whole” (he meant the flowers and leaves) does have accepted medical uses and should be made available for doctors to recommend to patients under the law as it’s now written! The DEA bosses refuse to implement their own judge’s recommendation and cling to the legal fiction that cannabis has no medical use and is more dangerous than opiates like morphine, Oxycontin, and other prescription drugs like barbiturates, steroids, etc.
      I’m not a physician. But I know doctors who verify the effectiveness and safety of cannabis as medicine. It works and often for intractable pain or for chronic illnesses like m.s.; it’s the best anti-emetic for the side effects of cancer chemotherapy; it can help with epilepsy or convulsive disorders and spasticity; it has anti-tumor properties that help in rare diseases like Irvin Rosenfeld’s; there are dozens of conditions or diseases that it brings relief in—-the reason for this broad usefulness is now understood; it’s because of the existence in our bodies of what’s called the endocannabinoid system or process.
      The BEST ARGUMENT for general legalization is that the lawmakers are too cowardly and the “drug warrior” special interests are too venal, to even allow sick, suffering, and dying patients to receive cannabis under strict medical supervision.
      If they won’t even let sick people use it, because they want to keep the facade of prohibition from cracking, then that’s the best reason there is to crack that facade and let every citizen enjoy the freedom to consume cannabis as he or she may decide. Sick people wouldn’t need to wait for government approval or have to get a license for the privilege of getting their (overpriced) herbal remedy. They could get it like everyone else.
      That’s the irony. It’s just a natural herb, anyway.
      But I promised Bob Randall, the medical cannabis pioneer, I would not let my own interest in restoring liberty for all, get in the way of providing medicine that is critically needed to relieve suffering. I don’t think the Melin bill is perfect—already it is loaded with concessions to appease law enforcement. These latest gimmicks aren’t compromises, they are concessions designed to defeat the purpose of the reform and to continue to criminalize most of the patients affected by the present total prohibition.
      This bill—if you took the time to read it!!!—is not going to let “not very sick people get their hands on marijuana.”
      You are letting your preconceptions get in the way of accuracy. Read the bill, do some research on the extent of bona fide benefits from cannabis use by very sick people, and think about what you would do if confronted with a health challenge like cancer, m.s., glaucoma, epilepsy, or paraplegia tomorrow.
      Don’t be so glib, damn it. This is about real people really suffering, and a bunch of bullies with badges blocking a compassionate proposal.

    • Kevin

      And we should legalize it as a whole anyway! Sure, maybe the first step, even though Colorado, and Washington smartly avoided it in the first place, is to legalize it medically, and test it out, let non-believers see that it’s actually really not even a big deal at all, and then move on to legalize it entirely. Do you have any idea how much money this country could make…on both sides of the coin, if they just legalized just marijuana? First of all, you’d have the tax revenue from the sales of it. Then you’d have all the money SAVED by law enforcement, not having to waste resources on stupid, non-necessary marijuana laws. And you would virtually eliminate the violence on the Mexican border. Marijuana is a totally tame drug….it’s almost a non drug. It has all positive side effects and no negative ones. Not one person has ever died as a result of a marijuana complication. The last thing anyone who smokes it ever considers is any kind of violence! It has also been scientifically proven that not only the CBD, but also the THC BOTH have positive medicinal effects. Every single day, the FDA passes, and allows incredibly dangerous drugs to be prescribed to the general public, often without much research behind them, and especially no idea of what the long term effects of the drugs might be.I’m so tired of hearing, “Well we just don’t know enough about it.[marijuana]” PLEASE!! Marijuana has been around for eons….there’s plenty that we all know about it.

    • peterpun

      James, the issue isn’t medical or not, it’s the freedom to do as we choose without harming our neighbors. You have not been robbed by a pot-head who needs a fix. You have not have had your freedoms reduced by pot smoking neighbors. Spell Marijuana correctly in your whole screed, there’s no “h” in the word.

  • Carl Paulson

    No! They have no medical experience, why should they have any influence on this law.

  • Kevin

    Absolutely not. Nothing should ever be done just to “appease” law enforcement. It’s a simple constitution thing. Laws are supposed to be passed to appease the PEOPLE…not the government. When did we lose so much sight of this fact?

  • David

    Over the past 100 plus years, there has been a reaction in this country against cannabis that borders on hysteria. Indeed, cannabis and cannabinoids have been designated as Schedule 1 substances, meaning that they have no medical benefits and high human abuse liability. This has had the effect of delaying and even paralyzing research on the potentially important medical benefits of the many diverse chemicals in cannabis. People needing cannabinoids for relief of pain and other disorders are therefore forced to turn to plant material. It does not occur to law enforcement and conservative politicians to question the medical establishment when children with ADHD are given amphetamines, including methamphetamine (Desoxyn), during the crucial years of brain development. The hypocrisy and ignorance over the issue of medical marijuana are sometimes quite overwhelming.

    • Kevin

      Exactly. Most people have no idea what a schedule 1 substance is. They have no idea that law enforcement considers it more dangerous than cocaine, morphine, oxycontin, etc….really? But yet…..those are fine to be used medically….(as well as many countless derivatives of other schedule 1 drugs) and have actual proven medical relevance? Please. And marijuana has a high potential for addiction? Really? Has anyone ever even heard of a single person, that simply could not quit smoking weed when they just decided they didn’t want to any more?

    • peterpun

      So, I guess I’ve been using Cannabis since before it went to Schedule 1. So, I’m gonna keep right on using what was less illegal when I started. I took LSD as well in the Army (although I”m no longer interested in acid) before it was made illegal. The laws are too transient. PIck a year, either legal or illegal, what a nation of idiots we have become.

  • JQP

    that being said, law enforcement does have one very valid concern.
    There is no useful field or immediate office test for impairment under marijuana.
    They would no way of checking a persons THC level similar to alcohol – and equating it with any relative danger to drive.

    zero tolerance measures .. would be meaningless cause smelling like pot is not proof of consuming pot.

    the solution might be to more seriously police for illegal driving behavior. since more patrol cars are expensive … the solution might head towards writing a law to allow for …dunno
    – video/photo-tickets,
    – in car blackboxes that recordreport viloations
    – increased severity in ticketable offenses ( 1% of income = 1st offense, 2% on second, 5% on third , 10% on fourth, ) so the “crime” hurts equally at all income levels.
    Just some thoughts.

  • Bill

    No, the concerns of law enforcement is a red herring argument.
    1. The current pentalties for a small amount of cannabis (barely under an ounce… so actually a lot for an individual, really) possession in Minnesota constitutes a misdeameanor penalty about as deleterious as a speeding ticket.
    2. When it comes to the priority of addressing issues for law enforcement, cannabis related offenses are already dead last.
    3. I know this is anecdotal, but I know people who have been caught with cannabis by law enforcement and the police simply FORGOT to confiscate it, even while writing these misdemeanor tickets. Do you really think that a law enforcement regime that actually cared about keeping cannabis off the streets would do this?
    Now, I will admit that there is a slight chance that law enforcement might still have a legitimate concern in that if they WERE allowed to hunt for cannabis they MIGHT find heroin or cocaine or whatever, as weed is simply easier to find and thus conduct further investigation. However, this mentality perpetuates viscious cycle and bogus “gateway drug” theory caused by the cannabis trade’s association with the trafficking of more problematic substances.
    Mark Dayton is dead wrong in deferring to law enforcement, it’s time to look to competent legislators guided by the prevailing public opinion and look to widespead legalization for a solution that includes some sort of point-of-sale regime. Really starting to regret my Dayton vote…

  • See_BS

    Marijuana isn’t medicine, marijuana is for getting baked!

    • Bill

      The answer is both.
      Actually, this illustrates a good point about why legalizing cannabis for the sole purpose of a prescription regime will not address the entire issue that the nation is currently debating.
      The proposal to only allow refined chemicals for legal sale does nothing to address the incarceraton problem, nor does it address the number of peddlers on the street (and really, you’re naive to think this doesn’t include almost EVERY neighborhood). And they don’t check for ID. Think of the children!

      • See_BS

        I don’t care if people use marijuana, but it’s not medicine.

        People use marijuana to get high, pretend to own a record label and eat too many snacks.

        After awhile it doesn’t work as good, and some people turn into alcoholics or start using worse drugs both legal and illegal to get high.

        • David

          You have a truly limited perspective.

        • peterpun

          wow, really? Are you awake?

  • The Penal Colony Business

    This may set back progress in MN on this issue, but inevitably we will move towards legalization. Delay isn’t entirely bad as MN can learn how to better introduce cannabis once other states have done the difficult work first.

    • peterpun

      there has been more than enough “delay” In the years since cannabis prohibition to do all the due diligence necessary. If you didn’t do it, too bad.

  • Ed

    No, law enforcement is the will of the people, not the will of the officers. We live in a democracy, not a totalitarian state. Cops are to follow the law, not impose their will on it

  • Dan

    Definitely not. Police seem to have incentives to keep it illegal. Plus, its a democracy!

  • Warren Case

    NO! NO! NO! The opposite of what they should do. This preserves the profits for Big Pharm. Since the trade is driven by profits, what do you suppose will happen to proliferation?

  • Jessica Bleichner

    No, the role of law enforcement is not to make laws, but to enforce the laws that we the people see fit to create. That is my biggest problem with this debate. Law enforcement doesn’t like legalization, because they lose funding for the drug programs and equipment which is a big part of their current work. They might actually have to serve and protect the communities they work in, instead of being a bully to non violent people who are not complying with an outdated system. Their jobs would have to evolve and change, and that can be scary to them.

    I think legalization is a good way to go. It is a plant, not a bomb or anything harmful that hurts anyone or the planet. It is not feasible to try to enforce something that is happening in people’s person homes, just as prohibition of alcohol was not feasible, neither is prohibition of marijuana.

  • notcoldhere

    I am in Washington State and the legalization for recreational use is not as dramatic as some would like to think it is. Personally, I think the state did it because they are charging 25% tax on the grower. 25% tax on the processor. 25% on the retailer and finally 8.5% state tax at sale. Not to mention permit costs for each of the three entities. So for about 450 and some change you can get an ounce of “bud” that has been subjected to incredible tax and monitoring by the state. Or, for about 200 you can get top notch chemical free hydroponic white widow from the neighborhood dealer. Gee, I wonder which way that will go? Risk a misdemeanor for a 50% savings. Sounds doable. All I can say is that if Minnesota, my former state of residence, moves forward don’t stand for anything short of growing your own for personal use! And for those of you who really think Marijuana is a gateway drug justifiably categorized as a class one drug, all I can say is that you obviously are drinking too much of that alcohol stuff that kills a hell of a lot more people than marijuana ever has or ever will. Write a letter to Dayton. I did. Tell him that it is time for “Minnesota nice” to do his due diligence regarding the medicinal value of marijuana, or just as important, the fact that it is organic, natural and much less harmful than that after dinner bourbon! Get with the program Minnesota. The Law Enforcement agencies are not the deciding factor any more than Minneapolis and Saint Paul City Councils are able to create law. Educate yourselves. Don’t let the upper Midwest reputation from documentaries like “A Good Day To Die” be proof that Minnesota has not changed. Has not learned. Has not listened! And remember, don’t use your credit card at Dayton-Hudson target stores; Formally Dayton Dry Goods in Minneapolis that use to sell clothing, including hats, made from hemp!

  • Jon

    Absolutely not!!! If Dayton wants to VETO because of some Officials that want to play Lawmakers, than we should all focus on getting him out

  • David

    No, law enforcement should protect and serve the people and the constitution. The criminalization of hemp/cannabis was inherently unconstitutional. To replace the 8 million dollars a year Minnesota’s law enforcement get from illegal forfeitures take it from taxes on commercial profit of hemp/cannabis. Otherwise the plant and the people should be free to live in symbiotic harmony with all other beloved life forms (whatever their utilitarian status).

  • Dunc

    There is an organization of current and retired law enforcement officers who seriously support getting rid of the current drug policies. It makes good sense. For more information go to I am a member and support their efforts.

  • peterpun

    NO. Just say NO. The ridiculous laws surrounding Cannabis are solely the results of the beer and alcohol industry trying to raise its sales after the end of prohibition. Prior to prohibition’s repeal, Cannabis was legal, and used by the medical community as medicine.
    Re-schedule this substance, conduct realistic tests, then and only then have some intelligent comments and insights on the subject. Stop the “fear-based”, unrealistic war on Cannabis.

  • NO! We now know the scam in terms of why and how it was criminalized. Why can we not repeal the scam??