Final Explanation Released for Draft Initiated Measure That Would Legalize Recreational Marijuana
PIERRE, S.D. – The final ballot explanation for a draft initiated measure that would legalize recreational marijuana, proposed by Matthew Schweich of Sioux Falls, has been released by the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office.
Attorney General Marty Jackley takes no position on any such proposal for purposes of the ballot explanation. He has provided a fair and neutral explanation of the proposed initiated measure to help assist the voters.
This proposed initiated measure would allow individuals 21 years old or older to possess, grow, ingest, and distribute marijuana for recreational purposes. The initiated measure does not affect laws dealing with hemp. The measure also does not change State laws concerning the State’s medical marijuana program.
The final ballot explanation can be found here.
State law requires the Attorney General draft a title and explanation for each initiated measure, initiated constitutional amendment, constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature, or referred measure that may appear on an election ballot. The Attorney General’s explanation is meant to be an “objective, clear, and simple summary” intended to “educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed” measure, as well as identify the “legal consequences” of each measure.
If the required 17,509 valid signatures are gathered and approved by the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office, the proposed constitutional amendment will be placed on the 2024 general ballot. A majority of the votes cast in the general election will be needed to pass the measure.
The Attorney General’s explanation was drafted after a review of all the comments received during the proposed amendment’s 10-day comment period. A total of 15 comments were received.
For more information regarding ballot measures, please visit the Secretary of State’s website.
-30-
Ltr. MJJ Final Initiated Measure Legal. Rec. Use Possession and Distrib Marijuana by Pat Powers on Scribd
marvelous. Please publish the names and addresses of every stoner who signs this petition so their employers can find out who they are, surprise them with urine tests, and fire them for cause.
This is going to be fun.
Good idea!
Yeah, let’s also do the same with the alcohol users, which are much more dangerous than the marijuana users. With a little luck, we can get them all on unemployment and government assistance. Maybe we can increase taxes to pay for their new benefits, but at least we can feel good about controlling their lives, which is priceless.
you are not eligible for unemployment benefits if you are fired for cause.
Even better, maybe we can make it illegal to be homeless too, that will give them something to think about while justifying our new SD State Prison!
Looking forward once again to seeing paid petitioner ankle bracelet brigade using their high pressure and deceptive tactics.
Out of state money will be pouring in to the state to get this passed.
It is truly amazing how many people will give their name and address to a stranger they meet in a parking lot
It’s truly amazing to what mental depths one must go to cope with others signing a petition for things they don’t like.
it isn’t even a matter of liking something or not, when the AG’s explanation is that if a measure passes it will be challenged on Constitutional grounds. (I forget which one that was, it was an unconstitutional IM that people didn’t bother to read, but they signed it and voted for it anyway. Mob stupidity there)
I don’t like candidate petitions; other states don’t require them, they require a filing fee of 1% of the salary of the position being sought, & then nobody in the SOS office has to verify signatures, the only thing that matters is whether the check clears. Instead, the voters are expected to provide their names and addresses and put themselves on a mailing list. Those mailing lists can be sold, so everybody who signs one can get lots of junk mail. I think the whole system is nuts.
It was already passed. It will again. It’s a major election cycle again and you “small government” prohibitionists can get apoplectic yet again when you cant rely on low turnout for your desired outcome.
It just seems to me people are tired of seeing their wayward kids, nieces and nephews doing prison time or facing severe public censure for a misadventure. When a behavior has proved to be, for most people who participate, a benign phase of growing up, criminal sanctions begin to seem an inappropriate response. It is puzzling that politicians still do very well by opposing legalization.