From a Press Release from Attorney General Marty Jackley:
Attorney General Explanation for Initiated Measure Petitions Relating to Alcohol and Tobacco Released
PIERRE, S.D.- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that two Attorney General Explanations for initiated measures have been filed with the Secretary of State. These statements will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsors of the measures. If the sponsors obtain a sufficient number of signatures on the petitions, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measures will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.
1. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages
2. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia
Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. It is anticipated that additional Attorney General Statements for initiated measures and initiated constitutional amendments will be filed in the near future. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, a clear and simple summary
Editors Note…. And the explanations were provided as as follows:
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S STATEMENT
Title: An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia
Explanation:
The initiated measure prohibits a person or business from transferring tobacco, tobacco pipes, or tobacco rolling paper to another person or business in this state .. In the measure, “tobacco” means cigarettes, cigars, cigarellos, or loose tobacco. “Transfer” includes the sale, delivery, trade, or gift. A transfer of tobacco or tobacco paraphernalia in violation of this measure is a crime. The severity of the maximum criminal penalty increases based upon the quantity of the tobacco or tobacco paraphernalia transferred. In addition, a civil penalty up to ten thousand dollars may be imposed.
If approved, this measure will result in a loss of state and local tax and license revenues. Also, this measure will likely be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. If the challenge is successful, the State of South Dakota may be required to pay money damages, attorney fees and costs.
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S STATEMENT
Title: An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages
Explanation:
The initiated measure prohibits a person or business from transferring any alcoholic beverage containing more than one percent ethyl alcohol to another person or business in this state. “Transfer” includes the sale, delivery, trade, or gift of the alcoholic beverage. A transfer of an alcoholic beverage in violation of this measure is a crime. The severity of the maximum criminal penalty increases based upon the quantity of the alcoholic beverage transferred. In addition, a civil penalty up to ten thousand dollars may be imposed.
If approved, this measure will result in a loss of state and local tax and license revenues. Also, the measure will likely be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. If the challenge is successful, the State of South Dakota may be required to pay money damages, attorney fees and costs.
Well those laws seem just insaner than all get out. I bet you Gordon Howie is behind them.
Grudz your old friend Bob was behind this. BTW! When was the last time you two shared a good breakfast? Did he wear one of his fancy hats?
i can’t help but think that these two referral items are somehow related to the petition to enact the legalization of marijuana. if you can move a massive amount of people to the polls, ostensibly to vote no and prevent the banning of tobacco and alcohol, you can 1. put forth the logic of adding marijuana to the taxable product base, and 2. make the argument that marijuana should join the list of not-banned substances. this of course constitutes a tacit admission that marijuana is a recreational substance, and not just a medicinal pain relief aid. it was interesting to see the other blog entry about the marijuana legalization petition sponsor pulling the app to work on the language, and that they were trying to de-link marijuana from laws that govern public intoxication. that’s kind of like having your cake and eating it too. or pot brownie as it were.
oh, ya think?
some days it’s a struggle to simply be droll and obvious. i think i hit the mark.
So this is bringing back Prohibition Era in order to establish a legal Pot Era. This should put SD on the map – yeah, right.
Just say NO on the two “prohibition” initiated measures. A libertarian would not put up these. Sounds like a “nanny stater”.
let me get this straight…
So if one person (of legal drinking) at a friend’s house (who is also of legal drinking age) for a BBQ and the home owner of legal drinking offers the friend a beer that could be considered illegal if this ballot measure is enacted?????
Under the ballot measure explanation, it sounds like transfer or gift of an alchoholic beverage is what constitutes violation of this law then the above scenario applies.
This sounds like stupidity on steroids.