In case you haven’t seen the commercial opposing Initiated Measure 27 that’s currently running on TV, I just had it sent over to me for your viewing pleasure:
33 thoughts on “Anti-Initiated Measure 27 TV Spot is out to oppose legalization of marijuana”
Comments are closed.
It’s madness I tell ya, madness!
Most of the people opposed to marijuana are opposed to government limiting freedom. They talk out of both sides of their mouths.
If pot is legalized, invest in trailer parks to rent to folks who blew off high school and college classes and had a gummy bear instead. Ask yourself if you want your mechanic high, when he or she runs the diagnostics and makes your repairs. Your surgical nurse? well sure, why not? Its legal!
What’s stopping them now? Why aren’t people just sloppy drunk all the time since booze is legal?
Don’t come at me like that when I come at you like this.
It takes a special, but unfortunately all-too-common, kind of stupid to equate marijuana and alcohol. Most people who drink alcohol do not get drunk from doing so. They enjoy a drink or two because they like the taste. The SOLE and ONLY PURPOSE of using marijuana is to get high.
The stupidity of the potheads is apparently rubbing off on me. I wrote sole and only purpose, which is, of course, redundant.
Not true of course but if it was, so what? You’re in favor of government regulation of someone’s body?
Powerful ad. Sadly, it comes down to a simple question: do we care more about the future of our children, or individual freedoms to take mind-altering drugs?
Freedoms. That’s what Noem has told me is more important than anything.
“open season on our children”?
Thank God alcohol is already legal. I can’t imagine the lengths they would go to stop us from drinking beer.
Since when is becoming an addict “freedom”?
Since when is paying the government to eliminate choices conservative platform logic? We have to except there is a cost for all of this control you want to place on society. Whether it is medical choices, drug choices, whatever, it costs us as taxpayers to limit the choices. It isn’t worth it to most people, we see this is not causing harm in 38/50 states, its time we accept that people can do things, even if it is dangerous. This autocratic style of government will die with the boomers.
Talk to people in CO, for example, as for “not causing harm”. 66% of their local jurisdictions have banned marijuana for good reason. And as the mayor of Colorado Springs says for each $1 of tax there is over $4 of costs to the state, social, law enforcement costs, unemployable users. And black market has increased with MORE cartels coming there, etc.
The mayor of Rapid City claimed the same thing but provided no source. Do you have one?
If any of this were true Colorado would have long ago re-criminalized it.
First, I would love to see the factual statistics on how $4 goes back to the state costs. It seems like there is some correlation, but cause is not defined. For example, marijuana does not cause people to not work, this is an old reefer madness argument.
Second, if we use this logic that everything needs to make a profit, then lets start evaluating all laws. I don’t think alcohol has helped anyone, and it seems like it pertains to nearly everything law enforcement does, lets reenact prohibition and cut the cost of law enforcement by 90%! Smoking cigarettes cost the state crazy amounts through medicare/medicaid, lets ban that as well.
The reason we don’t ban these things is because we appreciate freedom, despite the risks. This isn’t the bible where you can pick and chose what to follow, this is government, and we should be consistent in our logic when regulating societies choices.
Legalize weed and Hobo Days becomes Hobo State.
Keep it on topic, please.
You people are so naïve. Literally no one who wants to smoke weed isn’t already smoking weed. All this measure does is bring behavior *that is already occurring* into the light of day — where it can be taxed and regulated. The commerce is gonna happen one way or another.
How can any rational Republican believe that the war on drugs has worked?
But, but, but… it’s open season on the children.
If we vote it down, all the losers who want to get high & do nothing productive with their time will leave the state. That would be a win, especially for those parents who can’t get their adult children to leave home.
The ad would be move effective if, instead of showing young children, they showed young adults playing video games surrounded by mounds of pizza boxes and pop cans.
Actually you’re quite wrong. It will get put on the ballot over and over again until it does pass, which it will. A loss this year only delays the inevitable. Sorry to ruin your day!
Do you realize how self-defeating this idiotic argument is? They’re too lazy to work, but will have the ambition to move to a different state if 27 doesn’t pass?
Newsflash — these people are already smoking weed and couldn’t care less if it remains illegal; pass or fail, IM 27 will have absolutely no impact on them.
Do people realize how easy it is to get a medical card? I’m not talking about a rez card either. The bar is on the ground people. “ insert lightbulb emoticon here”
Protect kids, don’t start a new generational cycle of addiction and work to stop existing generational cycles of addiction. Vote NO on IM27!
Addiction with all the unhealthy behavior and it is amplified tenfold with THC users and profiteers which act more like cult members worshiping and protecting their drug.
It’s ironic that when anti-gun people use the protect the children argument, an ad like this would be called liberal commie socialist propaganda.
God gave us guns. He didn’t give us a plant. /s
Protect South Dakota Kids! Send Matthew Schweich who is part of Out of State Psychosis Incorporated packing. Vote NO on IM27!
They know this is not about “the children”. It’s about adults living a life free of government intrusion. We can’t protect kids from all potential harm as they age. That would be the opposite of freedom.
Sorry, you can’t use “Out of state” as an insult after the last 4 years of Noem.
South Dakota Citizens have voted 5 times on Marijuana in the past – 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2020 (2 ballot concepts). In 4 of the 5 previous votes, no less than 52% of the voters voted NOT to approve of Recreational Marijuana. The 1 yes vote came also in 2020 on a measure to approve of using Marijuana for Medical Purposes under very strict and permitted use.
While 225,000 voters did approve of Amendment A, a closer look into the statistics of the result, shows in 41 counties, the voters overwhelmingly voted 60.8% not approve Marijuana Use, while in 14 Counties, 57% of the voters overwhelmingly voted to approve of Marijuana Use, while in 10 counties, which I refer to as ‘swing counties” – the voters were 50-50.
Do we rule the State based on the popular opinion of the ‘voters’ or even the legisature for that matter, or do we rule the State based on the “Consent of the Governed” which is defined by ALL CITIZENS of the State, all 887,000 who have the “Constitutional Protected Right” by means of Article 6, Section 1 to NOT CONSENT to be governed in such manner.
Folks, all it takes is 1 citizen to stand up, challenge, by petitioning the voters for a 2nd Public Vote, or that one citizen to lobby the legislature to strike down the law, or at least one citizen to challenge the law in our Public Court Room. All this must be done before June 30th, otherwise the Law stands as of July 1st.
This issue again come down to public oppions between Rural vs Urban, and on the topic of Fighting Crime, let alone Protecting the Public Health, Safety, and Properties of the People.
In the previous votes regarding Marijuana, in 2002 62% voted no; in 2006 nearly 52% voted NO, and in 2010 – 57% voted NO. IN 2020 – the much more complexed Amendment A where as 54% voted yes, however, the amendment was written so crazy, that in those 41 Counties – the voters overwhelmingly said NO, all of which led to a few citizens challenging it in our Courts.
“WE” gave you the right to use it for Medical Purposes – dont push the envelope. Prove it to the majority of us who are afraid of how the drug will be abused, earn our respect, let alone reach out to all those “Rural Citizens” in the 41 Counties to gain their opinion, thoughts, idea first. Something that the Marijuana Supporters refuse to do. ALL “Petition Signatures” derived in 14 Counties, where those counties have more than 450,000 registered voters, yes, that means of the 587,000 registered voters, less than 23% of them reside in 41 Counties, but their “VOICE” is just as loud as yours and mine.
I asked Emmett Riestropher twice, as you go out and talk to people, standing on street corners to show support for Recreational Marijuana – do you go visit any of those 41 counties where the strong belief is NO VOTE on Marijuana, or do you only reside and talk to people in those 14 Counties where you have the strongest support? He said yes he does, however, as he posts videos, I never see nor hear from him any opinions of any people in rural counties, he visits Sioux Falls, Rapid City, Pierre, Watertown, and Yankton predominantly. Maybe he does visit rural counties, but ‘we’ never see any videos or comments from marijuana supporters in any of those counties.
Leads me to believe, the MARIJUANA GROUP is 100% Canceling Out the Rural Population. And that could doom I.M 27.
I predict, IM27 will lose, this is a Mid-Term Election, typically we get 62% voter turnout, a greater turnout comes from Rural Counties, that means 366,000 voters will vote on Nov 8.
I predict 54% of the Voters or 198,000 will vote no; and only 168,000 will vote yes.
IF I am wrong, I will eat my words, and congratulate the Marijuana Faithful, but if I am not wrong, I want the Marijuana Supporters to be MORE respectful to the majority of those who voted NO, unlike last time where they repeatibly, and loudly attacked us.
People will keep buying weed either way.
Do you want that money to flow back into the community and our coffers? Vote yes.
Do you want that money to keep going directly to drug dealers? Vote no.
Make your pick, ya old fogeys!