Initiated Measure 29 proponents hold presser against Protecting South Dakota Kids, alleging false advertising. Likely produced by PSDK’s out-of-state consultants.

@SoDakCampaigns

The Yes on 29 group held a press conference today demanding that the “Protecting SD Kids” group opposing Initiated Measure 29 remove their advertising from the air because they note it constitutes false advertising:

SDBML Executive Director Matthew Schweich called upon opponents of Measure 29 to take down what he described as a “demonstrably false and deceptive” advertisement currently running on Facebook and Hulu. Schweich emphasized that the ad falsely claims, “Measure 29 doesn’t just legalize marijuana,” a statement he asserts is unequivocally incorrect based on the text of the initiative.

and..

“I’m here to warn South Dakota television stations that if they run this ad, then they will be receiving a letter from me demanding it be taken down. That letter will make clear that running a deceptive ad of this nature is a violation of FCC standards,” Schweich said.

Read the entire story here.

Interestingly, while the campaign for legalization seems to be largely promoted by South Dakota investors such as former Republican State Senator Deb Peters, and former Senator/former State GOP Chair Dan Lederman, opponents to legalization are relying on an out-of-state media company in Pittsburg who is likely responsible for the ad in question, according to the buy sheet filed with the Federal Communications Commission:

protecting-sd-kids from Pit… by Pat Powers

That would be the same “Protecting South Dakota Kids” that for a time switched from a ballot committee to a PAC, so they could dump the money they had raised against lawmakers who had supported them such as Byron Callies, before they changed back to a ballot question committee for the fall campaign.

Never a dull moment in politics.

22 thoughts on “Initiated Measure 29 proponents hold presser against Protecting South Dakota Kids, alleging false advertising. Likely produced by PSDK’s out-of-state consultants.”

  2. Who care where the ads are produced. What’s important to know is if Protecting SD Kids is a SD organizaiton. Does anyone know who is on thier board? Is the board from SD?

  3. Just for the record – well over 95% of the money IM29 has raised is from South Dakota business folks, most of whom were born and raised in South Dakota. I grew up walking beans and cleaning out hog confinements in Union County. I feel lucky that I’ve been able to stay in South Dakota and have a great career. This industry isn’t full of evil druglords. We’re just normal folks. Well… mostly normal folks. 🙂 But we tell the same farm kid stories I hear on other boards and committees. It’s 2024, this issue has been largely decided around us. Now it’s time to make sure we implement it responsibly.

    I raised my boys that cannabis is something that is for adults to use in moderation just like alcohol. More people will die from alcoholism in October in South Dakota than anybody has ever died from cannabis. Yet, it’s still a drug and deserves respect and responsibility. That’s our family. We understand that there’s not just one way. You do you and everybody wins. Especially the state of SD – Our neighbors in MT just brought in over 130 million.

    Respectfully,
    Doc

    1. The Demon Weed is bad. It is very bad. People should vote “no” on the measure initiated as #29.

      1. No-nothing Grudz is bad. He is very bad. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, even if it is soaked in gravy {brown}. Vote yes on 29.

  4. Good to hear most of the money is from South Dakotans. I’ve heard the same, but also heard that it’s almost all from people who own dispensories – very few donations from people outside the industry. Is that true?

    1. Sure, but in the same sense of the industrial funding from any niche specific legislation. The retailers putting in protections for the ag implement and auto dealers, or the forest service arguing for the proper regulations for the segment they are involved in.

      To put it another way: nobody has done more to test their products for safety or keep cannabis out of the hands of minors than the actual industry that has the burden of being the responsible agent. Vape shops are selling untested “weed” to the market. They are selling confused candy packaging. The actual industry is going broke to stay inside of regulations.

      Good question! We do have some donations from outside the industry – but mostly SD business owners from inside said industry.
      Thanks!
      Doc

  5. Thank about this . . . if South Dakotans vote to eliminate the tax on items people consume and if South Dakotans legalize weed, we will be the first state in the nation to not tax weed. For the first time, people could get high and not pay a tax to get high.

    What a state!

    1. Sorry but no. People have been getting high without paying taxes for DECADES! The price you’re told is the final price the dealer asks for 🙂

      1. Let’s be clear. As written, this Measure generates NO tax revenue for the state. Why? Because the sale of marijuana remains illegal under the Measure.

        Pro-marijuana advocates say this is because they believe the SD legislature will vote to enact a tax on marijuana, in spite of “the people” potentially enacting a law that clearly does not offer taxation, and in the political environment to remove tax from all consumables, including marijuana.

        If this passes, SD will see all the downside expenses that other marijuana states have seen, but without any of the state revenue.

        A NO vote will keep drug dealers out of SD.

        1. Drug dealers are already here, champ.

          Do you remember that single subject rule the governor used to overturn the vote? That’s why this is written the way it is. If it passes the legislature can decide if they want to make money or send it all to Minnesota. If it doesn’t pass, Minnesota will get even more tax money from South Dakotans seeking freedom.

          1. Champ, the answer is not to pass the buck, but to offer an amendment to tax weed. You already have several amendments on the ballot, why not offer one more? Pretty simple really. You have one petition that legalizes possession, and a second that legalizes taxation. Instead, you want the Legislature to do it. Pretty slimy if you ask me.

            1. If the Legislature recognized their constituency then they’d have passed a legalization/taxation bill right after Noem overturned the 2020 vote. But they didn’t, and they don’t.

              1. The legislature isn’t going to pass marijuana legalization and taxation bills. That’s why the weed industry went through the petition process. But it only did half the job. Asking the legislature add tax to what the industry neglected to do is irresponsible and wrong.

  7. They say they want freedom and limited government but when the rubber hits the road on something they don’t like, they definitely want more government in our lives.

  8. I am continually fascinated watching people sell their souls to make money while throwing our state, communities, our most vulnerable including kids under the bus. The destruction and wreckage will be far reaching but hey watch them attempt to rationalize away their guilt.

    1. Clutch those pearls tighter. Medical is here now, anyone can get a card, hemp derived THC is federally legal, and nothing has changed except for users not being criminalized.

      1. You are right about anyone is able to get a card. What a joke!

        As you already admitted we already have recreational Marijuana that was sold as medical. No need to vote for IM29! Thanks!

        1. As long as morons like yourself and Ismay are out there, let’s not leave anything to chance shall we?

Comments are closed.