IM27 defeated, recreational pot still illegal in South Dakota

@SoDakCampaigns

Last night, South Dakota voters continued a trend that shouldn’t surprise anyone as they rejected legalizing recreational marijuana as a stand alone measure. When separated from the medical marijuana argument, recreational pot failed as it has in the past.

Not that we won’t see it back on the ballot in the near future. But it’s a good indicator to the sponsors of such measures that it isn’t quite as popular as they might think.

49 thoughts on “IM27 defeated, recreational pot still illegal in South Dakota”

  1. The headline for this story might be “I.M. 27 Loss Saves Wreckreational Marijuana Smokers’ Gun Rights”!!!

  2. I’m glad the Nanny State came through and saved us, because we were too dumb to know what we voted for last time. Personal responsibility and keeping government out of people’s lives is for liberal nut jobs. Now is the time to amp up government control. Reinstate the 18th Amendment!

    Kids will be safe now, I know drug dealers are very discriminate about who they sell to.

    1. This guy gets it. ^^ It wasn’t a matter of whether you wanted weed or not. It was a matter of whether you wanted government telling you what choices you can and can’t make. The voters blew it last night.

      1. The Demon Weed reeks strong, and floods the district numbered 30 with stench already. Can you imagine if people could walk around openly flaunting their joints and blunts and water-bungs?

    2. “I’m glad the Nanny State came through and saved us, because we were too dumb to know what we voted for last time.”

      Hey Bobbie, in case you don’t realize it, what happened was that THE PEOPLE, you know voters, voted it down in a statewide vote. The ” nanny state” didn’t do anything. And as far as last time, ya you were too dumb to realize it violated SD law the way it was drafted.

      1. Better yet, how about we hold laws to the realm of what you can and can’t do to other people (including the usage of commonly owned facilities, i.e., traffic laws), and butt out of what you do to yourself. How’s that logic for you? 🤷‍♂️

        1. Again Gideee
          Why vote or have and laws?
          I didn’t want Medicaid expansion but it passed & I accept the vote.
          In a republic you don’t get to pick and choose.

          1. “In a republic you don’t get to pick and choose.”

            Hmmm… Let’s examine that point for a minute. The classic metaphors to explain the differences between a democracy and a republic are 1) A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, whereas in a republic, the majority doesn’t gets to eat the minority, and 2) In a democracy, 51% can vote to take your bike, whereas in a republic, your bike is protected even if you’re in the minority.

            So tell me, if 53% of the voters vote to lock you in a cage for ingesting a plant in your own home, on your own time, which model does that sound like to you?

            1. Gideee
              Sounds like you need to move where you get everything you want every time. Voting doesn’t matter . Gideee getting his way every time does.

        2. So I guess when someone fries their brain on meth or becomes hopelessly addicted to opioids they are on their own because they have done this to themselves?

          Or do they become a social problem because their free choice has now spilled over into affecting others in society in a negative manner while exercising their free choice?

          Oh but wait, we can’t hold them accountable because they are stoned out of their minds due to the fact they were exercising their freedom of choice?

          1. You can do all sorts of “legal” things and still be held accountable for your actions. Nobody’s going to prosecute you for drinking a bottle of NyQuil. But get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone, you bet you’ll be held accountable.

            Why is this so hard to understand? (This is the point where if I were on the opposing viewpoint, I’d snarkily accuse you of being on drugs because you don’t “get it”.)

            1. It isn’t hard to understand. The tax argument is a wash when you pay for resultant behavioral health and law enforcement/justice system dealing with black market pot. Kinda like current way smaller scale, but easier to enforce. When folks quit moving to SD from west/east coast I might reconsider. There is irony to be found in your comments with failure of 60/40 bill vote in primary.

  3. If they put this on the ballot in 2024, the same time we are voting on abortion, both are a lock to pass.

    Fred’s nightmare scenario.

      1. Name calling is the preferred GOP debate tactic since mid-2016. Get on the train, dude.

        1. Usually they confine their name calling to the other side. But with 47% of the vote, you can be sure that a lot of otherwise good republicans voted for it.

          It’s too bad so few have the courage to be open about this. But I guess when they do they have to deal with folks like John calling them “dopers.”

        2. Are you inferring that most of those who supported legalization are not also users (dopers)? Really, you think “doper” is pejorative? It’s always been a descriptive term to me. Couldn’t “dude” also be a pejorative?

          1. With the exception of a couple of CBD products I tried during a stint of chronic back pain, I’ve never partaken of cannabis. I just don’t believe in the government making that decision for me.

            It pisses me off to no end to know that more than half of my fellow South Dakotans are just fine with putting a fellow human being in a cage for no other reason than ingesting a plant, and if said human doesn’t go into said cage willingly, they get beaten or killed.

              1. No way. Drama kids have always scared the bejeezus out of me.

                My LinkedIn profile is up to date if you’re curious about the rest of my education and work history, haha.

            2. Putting fellow human beings in a cage? They get beaten or killed? I wonder where you get your information. No one goes to jail for simple possession of marijuana, much less are they beaten or killed. That’s just stupid progressive thinking. I’d still like to hear from one single pro-legalization supporter what are the benefits to the individual or society of having more people high on recreational marijuana. And to that silly adage that it’s only a plant…well so is the opium poppy and the psilocybin mushroom only a plant.

              1. “No one goes to jail for simple possession of marijuana …”

                Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. Here I was thinking possession of less than two ounces of marijuana was a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail.

                Armed with my newfound knowledge, maybe I’ll break with a lifetime of sobriety and go buy an ounce tomorrow just to see what my local law enforcement says about it. When they try to arrest me and take me to… gee, what’s that place with all the cages for people… ah yes, “jail”, I’ll be sure to let them know that John Santana told me they can’t take me to jail for merely possessing marijuana.

                Once they get done laughing and get back to the business of arresting my smart-alec butt, I’ll be sure to put up a fight, as I’ve got much better things to do with my Sunday than spend it in jail. I’m sure at this point, they’ll appreciate my enthusiasm and just let me go without further incident, right? After all, it’s just “stupid progressive thinking” that they would ever deliver a beating to someone who was forcefully unwilling to go to the place with the people cages.

                Seriously, John. I would love to debate you further and tell you about how I also see zero benefits to people getting high on recreational marijuana (or drunk on booze, or obese on cheeseburgers, or listening to Christmas music before November 1 for that matter), but that I’m not willing to use the force of government to enforce my own views on others. But you’ve already deemed my words “stupid progressive thinking”, so I just don’t imagine you’ll be too receptive.

  5. Weed on the 2024 ballot will give the Weiland clan something to do.
    By the way, how much money did they draw out for salaries this year?

  6. Some of us are well aware of how much personal responsibility dopers are capable of. The argument that recreational weed has any relationship to personal responsibility goes out the window when you see what has happened in cities like Portland, where the sidewalks and boulevards are lined with homeless unemployed dopers who take no responsibility for themselves or the mess they make. .

    This situation was never anticipated when Oregon made weed legal on July 1, 2015, allowing people to have a full ounce of weed in public places & 8 ounces at home. IT WAS A MISTAKE.
    I visited Portland less than 4 years later and was horrified. My siblings have moved out of Portland to escape it. I told my brother, who had picked me up at PDX, that if I had flown in for a job interview I would have turned back after only a few miles and headed back to the airport, never to return. Nobody in their right mind would consider relocating to Portland. You only have to see what recreational weed has done to a once beautiful city to figure out that “responsible doper” is an oxymoron.

    1. Poor Anne. All these years and she still doesn’t understand the difference between correlation and causation.

    2. The Cannabis connoisseur & Colorado resident formally known as Porter would disagree with you on what has happened to Oregon and Colorado. Everything is just fine with no issues attributed to Cannabis use.

        3. Looks like states that legalized will have to keep open or reopen the mental hospitals due to self medicated chemically THC induced brain damage.

            1. Yes and the Marijuana induced Psychosis cases have gone up. Homeless populations and starting out with MJ and graduating to other drugs like Meth and Heroin. Many are brain damaged permanently from using high potency THC. Plenty of denial in the drug world.

  7. This proves that the Supreme Court was right – in 2020 the multiple subjects caused people to vote for CA A. When you break out each subject, medical passes and recreational fails. The pot crowd may never admit it, but this was an example of the rule of law prevailing.

  8. Recreational will pass in ’24 because it’s a presidential year. Plus, the new liberal interpretation of pain under the medical marijuana statute – thanks to a Republican legislature – will more or less make recreational already legal, so why not pass recreational in the future? #DoneDeal

  9. Enjoy your win for another couple years, 62,000 less yes votes vs 7400 less no votes. I like numbers. This completely legal medicinal hit is for you Fred Deutsch 😉

  10. It will pass in 2024 when more young people turn out for the Presidential election. That’s why it passed in 2020 and why it failed in 2022,

Comments are closed.