Governor Noem Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Amendment A 

Governor Noem Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Amendment A

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Amendment A:

“South Dakota is a place where the rule of law and our Constitution matter, and that’s what today’s decision is about. We do things right – and how we do things matters just as much as what we are doing. We are still governed by the rule of law. This decision does not affect my Administration’s implementation of the medical cannabis program voters approved in 2020. That program was launched earlier this month, and the first cards have already gone out to eligible South Dakotans.”

You can read the Supreme Court decision here.

To learn more about South Dakota’s medical cannabis program, which was not affected by today’s ruling, go


36 thoughts on “Governor Noem Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Amendment A ”

      1. One has to wonder what else she is hiding, especially since she has been so keen on putting one of her people in as AG.

  1. Gov. Noem writes: “We are still governed by the rule of law.”

    We should also be governed by majority rule. I like the sign that pointed out that recreational marijuana received more votes… than the governor.

    1. Like gay marriage ban and the ban on out of state money…both of those also got majority support…but the courts struck those down also

      1. Just like marijuana, those examples were GOP led attacks on personal freedom. Just like banning marriage, what you do in your bedroom, etc., marijuana legalization is coming. Majority will prevail.

  2. From Kelo News:

    Justice Myren in his dissent said Amendment A should have been allowed to take effect. “Reviewing the contents of Amendment A along with its title and the Attorney General’s explanation, it is plain that the Amendment was intended to provide a comprehensive plan for all phases of legalization, regulation, use,
    production, and sale of marijuana and related substances,” Myren wrote. “Comprehensive plans are not prohibited in a single constitutional amendment if they are related to a single purpose.”

    One of the justices got it right.

    1. Absolutely with you on this one, elk
      As are the many of the majority of the people who voted for Amendment A
      Kudos to pro A , You people seem very resilient. Good luck from a conservative!

          1. Justice Myron was a Teenage Republican since before that poster ever found a card to register to vote. He’s from Campbell County where they spray for Democrats, and in all likelihood – his pickup is bigger than yours.
            If any thing, his strong sense of personal freedom and less government, puts him in that conservative segment that leans libertarian

    1. Or, perhaps, it wasn’t a constitutional amendment, and could be overturned by the legislature like they did with the 2016 IM’s, and like they tried to do with IM 26? Lets not forget the only reason this needed to be constitutional amendment was to prevent the legislature doing exactly what Noem did.

  3. It’s very brave, even progressive of Mrs. Noem to give tribal communities a major head start in the race to build their cannabis industry.

  4. Nobody will be demanding recreational marijuana as long as they can go to a dispensary, ring up a doctor in California, complain about hemorrhoids, and get a medical card authorizing them to purchase weed.
    A friend from Flandreau said that’s how the tribe is handling it, they are paying a doctor in California to take phone calls. One man qualified for his medical card because his father died three years ago and he’s still grieving. If you don’t have any dead relatives causing you grief I’m sure a dead cat or dog will do. If all else fails, tell the doctor in California your butt hurts.

    1. Anne this does not surprise me at all which is part of the lies and false claims this predatory poverty industry is known for. I used to fly into the South Bay area quite a bit and those California pot doctors have always been known as a joke among Californians. I just ordered “San Fransicko” by Michael Shellenberger and what he describes I knew would be the tragic result. He points out the truth about Portugal vs the claims made by enthusiasts in the drug culture, those profiting off of addiction and their paid shills such as the Drug Policy Alliance.

      1. My experience has been that you can find a doctor to get a prescription for anything. Anything. There are plenty of people who went to medical school and passed licensing exams for the sole purpose of making lots of money writing prescriptions for people they have never seen. It’s up to state medical boards to shut them down but it doesn’t happen often.
        That was one of the things that was so ridiculous about the women’s sports bill, the idea that athletes could present a doctor’s note verifying an athlete isn’t taking any drugs. The same doctor who writes a prescription for anabolic steroids will be perfectly happy to include a note stating the patient isn’t on anything.

        1. Anne, the tribe isn’t paying any doctor. Citizens are using out of state doctors because the big government noem lovers actually think prohibition works and no one can find a doctor in SD that isn’t afraid of the government.

          1. No it’s it’s because there is zero legitimate science to back up these so called claims for medical MJ. Even the Mayo Clinic has stated with MN qualifying conditions that there is ZERO science to back up using MJ for MN qualified conditions. It was all lobbying by potheads and those who profit from addiction. Not many SD doctors will risk their reputation nor practice on prescribing weed based off of junk science.

          2. Anonymous at 10:09:
            and how are the clients finding these out of state doctors? Ok, so maybe the tribe doesn’t pay them, the customers do? Or maybe all of us are paying through Medicaid? And if Medicaid is not yet paying for weed how long do you think we’ll have to wait for an initiated measure about that?

    2. False. I know lots of people with Tribal cards and they still all want recreational legalized. Why is this state so against freedom?

  5. The court may have gotten it right, but the legislature now knows, in no uncertain terms, that the majority of South Dakotans want this — and legislators have a duty to deliver it. I trust them to honor that duty.

    1. Highly doubtful. Potheads have much in common and often are the same as Democratic Socialists of America aka DSAs (Marxists) or nutty Libertarians being a very small minority but vocal have been delusional in always claiming they represent the majority which is completely false. Best thing that could happen is that the DSAs check into Woke Detox and the Potheads check themselves into treatment.

        1. Election results
          South Dakota Initiated Measure 26

          Result Votes Percentage
          Approved Yes

          291,754 69.92%
          No 125,488 30.08%

  6. At least we now know to never put soybean oil, soybean meal and edible roasted soybeans in the same bill……….🤣

  7. Had the attorneys/wordsmithers for that amendment written it the way it was supposed to be written in the first place, South Dakota would not be in this situation. For all of you who donated to get this written up, you should be demanding a refund at the least…definitely using different attorneys/wordsmithers at the most in your next attempt. Don’t blame the governor and law enforcement agencies for the authors’ mistakes.

    1. And for the record….Brendan Johnson was that author.

      So for all of you that think he is a future star…think twice

      1. Yeah……because, we all knew medical, recreational, and non THC containing hemp, are TOTALLY different subjects *eye roll*. Find a better argument, the “poorly written” line is getting old, this was government corruption at best. If this went to a vote, it would pass again, South Dakotan’s are not confused on the subject, you’ll see in 2022, then you’ll see again when the legislature wants to repeal what was just voted in.

Comments are closed.