Governor Noem continuing opposition to legalizing industrial hemp, to keep South Dakota from eventual pot legalization.

Because of problems that law enforcement would face with differentiating legal hemp from illegal hemp (pot), Governor Kristi Noem is continuing her opposition after speaking with law enforcement and tribal leaders on their experiences and the headaches they would face:

Gov. Kristi Noem is digging in against legalizing industrial hemp in South Dakota, setting up a potential showdown with the Legislature as a bill legalizing it is sailing through with little opposition.

Noem reiterated her opposition to legalizing industrial hemp in 2019 during her weekly press conference, saying she has “very real concerns” about passing House Bill 1191 during this legislative session.

“I believe if we move ahead with industrial hemp and we aren’t prepared with it from a regulatory standpoint, from an enforcement standpoint, if we don’t have the equipment and dollars to do this correctly, we will be opening the door to allowing marijuana to be legalized in the state of South Dakota,” Noem said.

and…

Noem hasn’t outright said that she’ll veto the bill when asked, saying instead that she’ll consider the bill’s language before making a decision. If Noem vetoes the bill, the Legislature has the ability to override her veto.

and…

But she also has concerns about the family and social implications if industrial hemp is legalized. She said she’s heard from social workers, addiction treatment counselors and families hurt by addiction that marijuana is a gateway drug — and that industrial hemp will open the door to marijuana distribution in South Dakota. Noem agrees with that, saying she is “100 percent convinced” that it would open that pathway.

Read it all here.

Contact your Senators today to make sure they hold the line against starting down the path of pot legalization in the state. South Dakota doesn’t need to be the next Colorado, with all the societal ills they’re facing because of going down that path.

47 Replies to “Governor Noem continuing opposition to legalizing industrial hemp, to keep South Dakota from eventual pot legalization.”

  1. T

    Maybe she should talk to the people that know plants at SDSU. Industrial hemp is not psychoactive. It’s not a “gateway plant” to everyone getting high in South Dakota. This shows her complete ignorance to the issue. Maybe she should educate herself before stooping to long held and incorrect stereotypes. Industrial hemp is proven to have hundreds of uses. Our farmers could use the additional option. Let them decide if they want to grow it and sell it.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    We better ban tomato plants too, you can get just as high from them as you can hemp. Noem is just embarrassing herself with this nonsense.

    Reply
  3. Anne Beal

    Ridiculous. We don’t need to train the cops to know the difference: every county already has a weed supervisor. Those of us out in the rural areas know about these botanists who alert property owners to the presence of noxious weeds and tell us to get rid of them.
    If the cops get a tip or complaint, they can send the weed supervisor out to investigate,

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    The governor is correct! Just like medical marijuana, industrial hemp is a canard. Listening to its advocates proselytize about all of the glorious wonders of hemp is like listening to a snake-oil salesmen, but the hempists actually believe that hemp, especially smoking it, will solve all problems. Their strategy is to make hemp seem wondrous and make it difficult for law enforcement officials, thus paving the way for the decriminalization and even legalization of marijuana and then other drugs.

    Reply
    1. T

      Your ignorance must be blissful. There is plenty of evidence about the benefits of medical marijuana…and, completely separately, about the many uses of industrial hemp. If you actually would take some time and google: “Marijuana vs. industrial hemp” you would be educated beyond your wildest imagination. I know that must be difficult to open your mind to the possibility that you are flat WRONG about this.

      Reply
  5. Anne Beal

    https://www.brookingscountysd.gov/261/Weed-Pest

    Here is the contact information for Weed Supervision in Brookings County. As hilarious as the title sounds in this circumstance, we have a Weed Supervisor in every county. The staff are already hired, trained and on duty. If law enforcement doesn’t know that these experts are already on hand to assist, that’s their problem.
    There’s a lot of reason to proceed with caution on hemp production, but confusing the plants with marijuana shouldn’t be one of them.

    Reply
    1. Anne Beal

      Looking over the list of Noxious Weeds of Interest, Absinthe Wormwood is on the list as a local problem.

      If your county already has the Green Fairy living amongst you, you have bigger problems than marijuana.

      Reply
  6. Tara Volesky

    Geez Anne……….unbelievable…….don’t play people for idiots. So the 65 state representative, yes 65-2 voted for hemp. So, are their constituents idiots. Freedom for farmers. Time to quit with scare tactics.

    Reply
  7. Melissa

    Thank you for using the example of Colorado! Colorado legalized medical marijuana and it’s psychoactive derivative THC in 2000. Thankfully, the Legislatures in the State of SD are conservative and are not willing to legalize medical or recreational marijuana in our state, but they are willing to legalize Industrial Hemp. Industrial Hemp is an ag product that does not have the psychoactive THC properties of Marijuana. It contains equal to or less than 0.003 THC in the seed, plant and products. The 2018 Farm Bill legalizes Industrial Hemp. HB 1191 would allow Businesses and Farmers in the State of South Dakota the opportunity to produce, process and manufacture Industrial Hemp Products, that under federal law, will be allowed to be sold in our state. Why wouldn’t we allow farmers and businesses the opportunity to produce, process or manufacture products that are federally legal to be sold in South Dakota.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    Marijuana is bad which leads to pot heads and bad choices that affect us all.

    Hemp is good but pot heads smoking Marijuana make bad choices and make Hemp look bad. Me sad!

    Reply
  9. Anne Beal

    the enthusiasm for hemp production has been overblown, but so has the paranoia about marijuana. It would be nice if the arguments for both sides were presented by people who haven’t lost their minds.

    Before thousands of acres are turned over to hemp production it would be a good idea to ask Glanbia just how much they are planning to buy.
    Farmers have gotten stuck before. I remember about twenty years ago when I was working at Smithfield we learned that one man, unable to sell his hogs at any price, just left them at the stockyards rather than haul them home. We were aware that the price had bottomed out, but that incident was a surprise.
    35 years ago a friend of mine got stuck with a crop of Jerusalem artichokes. We don’t need to repeat such mistakes.

    How many acres can be devoted to hemp production before the bottom falls out? What will happen to corn prices if the fields are used to grow too much hemp instead? I don’t hear the proponents of hemp production considering these issues. I just hear a bunch of stoners yammering about how great it’s going to be. On the other side are full blown hysterics about marijuana, coming from people who live where wormwood is growing wild.
    They’re all nuts.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      You sound like a communist, Anne. I don’t say that hyperbolically. You truly sound as if you favor a centrally planned economy wherein the government regulates and limits crop production based upon its five-year forecast.

      Reply
      1. duggersd

        I am not sure you can read. I do not see Anne stating the government should be in charge of telling how many acres of each crop farmers should plant. I see her wondering what happens when Adam Smith’s invisible hand causes there to be fewer acres of corn or whatever else is planted. She is also pointing out that the enthusiasm is overblown. Imagine the chagrin some farmers are going to have if there is a market for about 1/4 of the hemp grown.

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          If the governor refuses to legalize hemp production because she’s worried that cropland will be converted from corn to hemp, she’s exceeding her role. It isn’t for the government to pick and choose how much acreage should be given over to which crops. The farmers alone should decide that. Government interference in this matter amounts to a defector planned economy in agribusiness.

          Reply
        2. Tara Volesky

          It’s a great rotational crop. Just because it is legal doesn’t mean farmers have to grow it. But isn’t it nice to give them that freedom to choose to produce it if they want.

          Reply
        3. Melissa

          That’s a valid point. Our farmer’s are smart business men and women. Each year before they plant, they know where their crop is going. Until they have a contract for hemp, they will continue to grow corn. However, without the Bill passing, the farmers won’t have the option to look for available contracts. But the Tribal farmers will. The Federal Law states that the Tribes are sovereign from the states when it comes to growing and processing Industrial Hemp. They can submit their own plan to the USDA for approval. Once approved, the tribes will be able to move forward with growing and processing, moving their goods legally across South Dakota State Highways because the Farm Bill specifically says the states cannot interfere with Interstate Commerce.

          Reply
      2. Anne Beal

        No the farmers should allowed to grow it if they want to, but shouldn’t come crying if they lose their shirts, asking to be bailed out, either. The advocates of hemp production are promising huge profits which might not be realized. I am not convinced that hemp is going to be a big hit. It’s a really good fiber for marine use, and might save the lives of a few sea turtles and dolphins if it replaces nylon in fishing equipment. But it isn’t as durable as nylon and will cost more. In order to get fishermen to trade out nylon nets for hemp nets, legislation and subsidies will be called for. South Dakotans who normally oppose government mandates and subsidies will be all for them.
        What else is hemp good for that isn’t already being supplied by synthetics and other plant fibers?
        Given all the other options, the enthusiasm for hemp is just strange. Everybody needs to chill

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          Anne, we could say that about many things. Don’t wear a seatbelt or helmet, don’t look for help from the taxpayers if you are crippled. There are many instances where our choices put us into precarious positions that don’t disqualify us for taxpayer funded financial help. When and where do we apply that?

          Reply
    2. Tara Volesky

      Anne apparently you didn’t listen to all the proponents for hemp that testified at the committee hearing in Pierre. Glanbia was one of them that will manufacture Hemp protein right here in SD. The only opponent was ,you guessed it………Dept. of safety. lol. Pro-government….not. Pro-farmers…..yea!

      Reply
  10. Lee Schoenbeck

    I’d just like to point out that the video shows the Governor wearing a cardigan. Hemp aside, exceptional good judgement on outerwear.

    Reply
    1. Anne Beal

      Good point Lee. Looks like a Ramie and Polyester blend. Ramie is good stuff, a bast fiber from a member of the nettle family, Much nicer than hemp. Perhaps SDSU could develop a hardy hybrid to grow here instead.

      Reply
  11. Anonymous

    Pot legalization and the legalization of industrial hemp are different subjects entirely. Noem intentionally conflates the two in order to confuse the issue in hopes of bolstering her policy position. Why she really wants to limit production of industrial hemp is anyone’s guess.

    If I had to guess, I’d bet her buddies at the corn growers association don’t want to compete with hemp producers for crop production acreage.

    Reply
  12. MC

    To be fair, the Govenor’s reasons have some merit. However, with all the challenges our farmer’s are facing, this shouldn’t be one of them. They can’t wait for us (the Government) to get our ducks lined up.
    Let’s pass the bill, then get all the relevant agencies working to make it all happen by July 1. They can move at amazing speed when they need to.

    Reply
    1. Tara Volesky

      States like Kentucky, ND, MN and many others are already way ahead of us. No time to snooze. You snooze, you lose.

      Reply
  13. Anonymous

    South Dakota could have moor money than thay no wat to do with if thay planted monsanto-bayer hemp seeds and roundup ready smokable cannabis

    Reply
  14. Anonymous

    I think her problem is control.

    She didn’t give her approval.

    The legislature is there to serve her.

    They aren’t listening.

    She got mad.

    She is now just upset that legislators aren’t falling in line after they were publicly ridiculed by her and her staff in the Argus.

    Somehow the legislators are still acting like reps of the people and not the governor.

    It’s pure madness.

    Thank goodness for legislators who are able to operate separately of the governor.

    Reply
  15. Anonymous

    Every time Noem and her ignorant followers open their mouths, they remove all doubt that they are completely clueless. Such fear mongering and illogical reasoning. Her veto will get overridden so fast it will make her head spin.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.