New South Dakota proposed pot legalization act being vetted for 2020

On November 1, just before the elections, the Secretary of State’s website posted LRC Comments for a new ballot measure designed to effectively legalize pot in South Dakota:

2020 South Dakota proposed Pot Legalization act by Pat Powers on Scribd

And what a measure it is.  It may be doomed to failure quicker than the last one which failed to make the ballot.

The measure starts out by barring South Dakota Law Enforcement from enforcing any federal laws regarding pot. And it just gets worse from there, as it allows people under 21 years of age to be pot industry workers, and sets a fairly low bar for penalizing underage drug use of 10 hours community service. Drug dealers get off almost as easily, topping out at 100 hours of community service and a $1000 fine.

In one of the points that probably going to kill it, it notes that “No locality may pass any ordinance that provides for the location of operation of a cannabis-related business.” This portion of the measure would literally bar cities from restricting the location of pot shops opening across the street from churches and elementary schools.

What potential benefit does all this decriminalization act offer South Dakota? Why, the measure also expressly dedicates any tax/fee revenue from pot sales not to the general fund but explicitly dedicates them to “early-stage, high-risk local agriculture new venture, research, and development.”

So.. not only would South Dakota have to allow dispensaries next to the Boys & Girls Club, any revenues in the state are by law tied up into high-risk projects, and can’t be used for things such as law enforcement or addiction treatment.

It may be a measure South Dakotans get behind. Far, far behind as they run the proponents out of town, tarred and feathered on a rail.

63 Replies to “New South Dakota proposed pot legalization act being vetted for 2020”

  1. Anon

    The writing is on the wall for the legalization train and the days, and frankly lies, of the reefer madness era are coming to a close. From my personal perspective, alcohol is a much, much more destructive drug that marijuana will ever be. That being said, this is a terrible measure. Absolutely terrible. Why not just make it a class 1 misdemeanor for underage possession. Community service is a joke and with no real enforcement behind it, kids will quickly figure out that they don’t actually need to do the community service. make it a class 6 felony for people who illegally sell to anyone under 21. Again, community service = joke. And forcing the revenue to go to “high risk” farmers is completely insane. All farmers are high risk. Not saying they don’t deserve a break, but our legislature should be able to decide where that money goes. Any municipal group will be staunchly against this. they have to be able to regulate what businesses are where or the community will turn into madness. And a judge should certainly be able to take into account if someone is sitting on a couch all day getting stoned instead of taking care of their kids. Probably the most worrisome part of this for me is the last paragraph, “no law enforcement . . . may enforce any law regarding cannabis other than provided in this act.” so people can drive as stoned as they want? or be able to toke up while walking down main street. I would be for legalization with the right bill as I think that day is inevitable. However, this is no where close to the right bill.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Well said. I believe the blanket criminalization of cannabis was one of the biggest mistakes U.S. legislators ever made, but this proposal is so poorly written that I actually wonder whether it’s part of a false-flag operation.

      Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Why do people feel the need to have another reason to escape reality? If you think being able to get high is the greatest thing in the world, move to Colorado or Washington. Why do you think you should be able to foist your desires on everyone else who has a modicum of self control?

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Why do you think you should be able to foist your desires on those who don’t see this your way? Why shouldn’t you be the one who has to move to another state?

      I’m not saying you should have to move, as I believe peaceful coexistence on this issue would be much easier than many seem to think. I’m just pointing out your double standard.

      Reply
    2. Anonymous

      They aren’t trying to force you to smoke pot, you simpleton, they just don’t want to be considered criminals for doing it themselves. You are the one attempting to use the government monopoly on force to tell other people what they can and can’t do with their own bodies. Grow up.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        The problem is that the chronic pot smokers usually negatively affect others in one way or another. North Dakota just rejected it. South Dakota will also. Others have tried to repeal in legalized states but we outspent.

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          So do alcoholics, but according to US Today, South Dakota rates
          fourth overall for Annual per capita consumption at 38.2 gallons of beer and I don’t see the teetotalers demanding the government limit people’s consumption in that respect. Weird how we draw lines.

          Reply
          1. Sane Drug Policy

            “The problem is that the chronic pot smokers usually negatively affect others in one way or another.”

            The problem is that, with the possible exception of Jesus Christ, every human being who’s ever lived has negatively affected others. If incarceration is the blanket solution for human selfishness, we should all lock ourselves in prison.

            Of course, there wouldn’t be anyone left to feed us, and we’d starve. Problem solved?

            Government intervention doesn’t eliminate the social and economic problems caused by drug abusers. It exacerbates them and spreads them to the rest of us.

            Reply
                1. Anonymous

                  It’s what many people are doing, so they can purchase and smoke at will. Shortly after they meet reality and struggle to buy the pot they move to CO for.

                  One waitress friend was hired to a position similar to the one she had here (Sioux Falls). Even though the hourly wage and tips were better, she couldn’t afford the same type of apartment she had here. She has to live with several other roommates (which brings on its own issues) and thought she would be living in the city which did not happen.

                  What’s your argument? You want a sane drug policy? How do you suggest govt control our choices?

                  Reply
                  1. Anonymous

                    She moves to Colorado just to get high and has no choice but to live with roomies. Can’t she and the other pot smokers be make better use of their time? What a waste.

                    Reply
                    1. Anonymous

                      Yes, she and others have moved to CO only to stay high legally. I agree, they’re wasting time, money, and brain power, sabotaging a chance for a more successful and comfortable future.

                      The grass is not always greener on the other side;)

  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous – could you provide a cite to that data? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what you state as far as the cost, but would like to see that data. Thanks.

    Reply
  4. Troy Jones

    The industrial jobs and those in the distribution industries are fleeing Colorado as fast as they can extricate themselves from their leases/sell their buildings (for big discounts) and their new buildings are built.

    Omaha/Sioux Falls/Kansas City/Albuquerque are going to be huge winners because of the confluence of North/South and East/West Interstates.

    Reply
      1. Troy Jones

        I’m in the business of helping businesses prosper. I’m under non-disclosure agreements. It is 100% due to their inability to hire employees who aren’t doing dope. They don’t want to pay the higher insurance rates, expose their employees to risk of more dangerous work environment, nor have the quality of their product decline.

        Reply
        1. Sane Drug Policy

          Troy says the exodus of industrial jobs from Colorado is “100%” due to employees using dope.

          Really, Troy? No other factors whatsoever? Or are you just carelessly throwing out whatever claim advances your argument?

          Reply
      2. Anonymous

        Would you move to Colorado for your legal weed?

        Stay in South Dakota and quit cold turkey or seek treatment? There is ore to life than getting high.

        Reply
  5. Troy Jones

    Yes. Dope legalization is the straw that broke their back. 100% of the companies moving will make that statement.

    From OSHA: https://ohsonline.com/articles/2016/02/01/marijuana-use-and-its-impact-on-workplace-safety-and-productivity.aspx

    Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine: statistical association between illicit drug use, including marijuana, and workplace accidents. While some studies suggest that marijuana use may be reasonably safe in some controlled environments, its association with workplace accidents and injuries raises concern.

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: since medical marijuana was legalized in Colorado in 2009, the percentage of marijuana-positive drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes there has increased significantly.

    At the end of the day, because of the cost of training employees, firing those whose use threatens the safety of others is prohibitive. So, they are moving where the drug is illegal.

    Reply
    1. mhs

      Recent stats in the ND oil patch has employers citing drug use as the number 1 reason they can’t fill positions. One client told me a few weeks ago, he had seven qualified applicants for a white-collar job that required skills comparable to a paralegal: six of the seven failed the drug test.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        These same pot and other drug enthusiasts are pushing to eliminate drug testing at their place of work in some states. Imagine the liability and risk not only for employers but employees besides lower productivity and a higher absenteeism rate.

        Then you have an industry that markets itself as a way to cheat drug tests which some users utilize putting additional pressure on employers to stay one step ahead of the game.

        Legalizing additional mind altering drugs such as weed is bad for business, our society and national security.

        Reply
  6. Brian

    They call it DOPE for a reason!

    Horribly written measure …2 cycles in a row people did not support it…take a hint!

    Reply
  7. grudznick

    The Council of Legislator Research is a joke. A total joke. That fellow running it and being the boss of all the legislatures makes all of the GOP look like fools.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    A roadside study of reckless drivers who were not impaired by alcohol, showed that 45% of these drivers tested positive for marijuana. (Dr. Dan Brookoff, published in the New England Journal of Medicine)

    Driving while stoned off of pot is a increasingly serious issue with increased auto involved injuries and fatalities. We have enough issues with alcohol, distracted driving as it is and then throw legal weed into the mix.

    Reply
      1. Anonymous

        Yes, and testing positive for alcohol in no way means you’re currently drunk. What’s you’re point? Are you trying to make one? I know it’s tough when there’s a cloud of smoke blocking cognitive activity.

        Reply
  9. anonymous

    I know the guy/group that controls the pot in S.D. He says he has enough money to make sure weed is never legal in our state. I believe him and his black market business. So don’t worry. Legal marijuana won’t happen.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      And Allah spoke to me last night.

      Legalizing mj won’t happen because a bunch of idiots don’t know how to get it on the ballot. If by some miracle it did go to a vote, the majority of smokers are so high they wouldn’t know where to register or how to locate their polling place.

      Back to your priority… puff, puff pass.

      Reply
          1. Anonymous

            Son, Your job of the week called and your late again! For the 3rd time get out and shovel the sidewalk and I need the money to pay your bills. I wish my adult child would quit smoking that crap!

            Reply
  10. Troy Jones

    Anon @ 9:42,

    You are correct you may not be stoned and that is the worst part- You are still likely impaired to drive, operate equipment, remember what occurs in a meeting at work etc. In other words, even though you aren’t stoned, you are still a danger to yourself, those who pass you on the street, and those with whom you work.

    With a drunk, when he feels normal 6-8 hours after his last drink, his impairment is less than 10%. With a doper, after the buzz is gone, he still needs 65 hours to to get to 10% impairment.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Thoughts on decriminalizing?

      I believe there should be consequences for breaking the law and wouldn’t vote for legalizing recreational use. However, I don’t think people should serve long prison sentences for small amounts. I know there’s more to it than that, distributing, growing, transporting, causing car accidents ect. but…

      Reply
      1. Troy Jones

        They are impaired long after then don’t feel stoned. Having a small amount could be they smoked the rest. They are a threat to the safety of us no less than a drunk driver. If we don’t incarcerate them somehow, how do we get them off the streets?

        BTW, I’m ok with making them have to blow in a pot breathalyzer every day. If they mess that up, I’m good with them living in a great big controlled apartment building where they can UBER to work and back. No internet and no playstation though. That way we get rent from them and they aren’t total loads.

        Reply
      2. Anonymous

        Rather than decriminalize the question should be, is someone forcing them to ingest Marijuana? If not, lets focus on prevention and helping those kick the habit, addiction and the underlying issues that led to them using.

        Reply
    2. Anonymous

      Cite? As far as I know, it stays in your system for a lot longer than alcohol but that does not mean you’re actually impaired. If that’s the case, isn’t a field sobriety test enough to prove you’re fine to drive?

      Reply
      1. Troy Jones

        I gave an article above from OSHA. Talk to any underwriter of insurance about the “dope difference” for the same job in Colorado vs. SD. In the real world, businesses have no obligation to hire employees whose private conduct impairs their ability to be safe and do their job and can fire them (medical prescription is not a protection if safety of the employee or others is threatened). They are actively defining job descriptions where “forgetfulness” is grounds for a drug test and a positive for mj is grounds for firing.

        The burden of proof is on those who want to change the law- onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. I’m not doing all your research. Put down the gameboy, get off the dope, get off your mom’s couch, and do some research that refutes the science and statistical information which insurance underwriters and businesses are depending on. “Dude, you are over-reacting. I’m good to run that forklift and everybody forgets a meeting” is not an argument.

        Reply
    3. anon

      Troy, as someone who used to be a fairly heave user of MJ a long time ago, this entire post is literally the epitome of the “refer madness” mentality and is in no way reality. 65 hours to get to 10% impairment after using marijuana is nothing more than a farce. Never once did I still feel impaired, in any way shape or form, even the next morning after partaking in MJ the night before. At. All. MJ can stay in your system, depending on many factors, for months. So, just because someone tests positive for MJ does not mean they are stoned, and it also doesn’t mean they are impaired. in any way.

      Now, to alcohol. Two weekends ago we had a few too many drinks with friends on Saturday night. I in no way shape or form felt “normal” 8 hours after my last drink. I didn’t feel normal 24 hours after my last drink. and I currently don’t feel like drinking for a long time. so saying that 8 hours after your last drink, youre good to go as a blanket statement, is also completely incorrect.

      People can, and should be able to, choose to be responsible marijuana users. just like people can choose to be responsible alcohol users. yeah, if someone smokes pot everyday all day long, that’s a big problem. but those people are already doing that. same goes for people who drink all day long. that’s obviously a problem but no one here is advocating outlawing alcohol.

      The reality of this is that at some point, the decision to either decriminalize for medical or recreational use will be up to the people of South Dakota. Medical will likely be first. And the people will decide. not just you, and not just me. I doubt even the perfect recreational bill would currently pass in SD. and it likely wont for a very long time. and there is nothing wrong with that either. I just have a problem with people using hogwash stats, on both sides, to try and prove a point. And I know people will read this and throw out the typical “get back in your parents basement . . . stoner” lines. if it wouldn’t be a death sentence in SD, I wouldn’t remain anonymous. but until then, remember that just because someone thinks differently than you on the MJ issue, doesn’t mean they’re sitting around getting high all day. but that’s clearly hard to understand for several small minded people on this site. (I in no way include you in that group Troy.)

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        Throwing out “Reefer Madness is just a lazy excuse typical of potheads. Many of us have personally seen how pot negatively affects people personally and at times it has cost us money, put us at risk and watched lives wasted. We have more than enough problems with what is already legal and we do not need more.

        Reply
    4. Caveman

      Troy where did you get these statistics on impaired driving mental states? The 65 hour thing sounds like a scrambled eggs type of ad.
      I have worked with both and the alcoholics breath at meetings at 7:45 AM were 100% associated with dismal cognitive performance.
      Giving credit though to the absolute fact that working with someone stoned being much less acceptable than anyone having had just three or four beers.
      🙃

      Reply
  11. Troy Jones

    The injury and accident stats support impairment lasts up to 72 hours. It takes under 8 hours for alcohol. Both are normal excessive use (not the extreme consumption).

    In this tight labor market, employers in industries where equipment is operated or short term memory is required will immediately terminate users because of the impact on safety, performance and insurance rates. Business is agnostic on moral issues. Yet they don’t hesitate to throw always thousands of training and years of performance for use of MJ even though they might not be able to hire a replacement.

    My tone as you can tell is impatient. We have defeated this crap each of the last two election cycles. It is a distraction and diverts resources that can be spent other places. But, I guess when dopers have impaired memory, they probably don’t know they have tried this twice already.

    Reply
    1. Ike

      “My tone as you can tell is impatient. We have defeated this crap each of the last two election cycles. It is a distraction and diverts resources that can be spent other places. But, I guess when dopers have impaired memory, they probably don’t know they have tried this twice already.”

      Women’s suffrage took six tries to pass in South Dakota. Stupid people always pushing dumb ideas when we could have spent more time and money on building our future-proof farrier and grain shocking industries.

      Reply
      1. Troy Jones

        Logic Fallacy #1: False equivalence
        Logic Fallacy #2: Inconsistent comparison
        Logic Fallacy #3: Furtive fallacy

        But otherwise Ike, you make perfect logical sense.

        Reply
        1. Ike

          Logical arguments were tossed out the window the second you brought up your anecdotal “evidence” of capital flight from Colorado. Cite sources and statistics if you’re going to trot down that path.

          Piling on with “we’ve defeated this twice, so let’s don’t bother again”Argumentum ad populum

          Anyhoo – more interesting reading here:
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

          Reply
  12. Troy Jones

    Ike,

    Pat only lets one post one URL so I’ll post this one. You will note that job growth in manufacturing and transportation is significantly lagging the rest of the state (which is lagging the nation). You can yourself look at how this is a trend that goes back a few years.

    And, whether you want to accept my anecdotes or not I don’t care. There are more businesses who are planning to re-locate in full or downsize in Colorado as they can afford to do so. These moves will show up over-time.

    My comment on the prior defeats is a reference to the fallacy of argument from repetition in hope we will tire of the fight which may be a by-product of dopers loss of short-term memory and forgot it has already been defeated. I’m sorry you thought I inferred it was an assertion “defeat makes right.” That was not my argument.

    Reply
    1. Troy Jones

      BTW, great study you referenced. While all the evidence is still being gathered (widespread legal use of marijana is making information more plentiful), your report showed how a higher % of traffic accidents involved drivers with THC in their blood vs. alcohol (despite a lower percentage of drivers who smoke dope). Then initial evidence isn’t good (but has been known by insurance actuaries and reflected in rates for years).

      forgot to include my URL above: https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.co.htm

      thanks for helping the cause Ike.

      Reply
      1. Ike

        Uh, what? I got no dog in this fight. The study I referenced was largely inconclusive on high drivers being MORE dangerous than drunks. Just thought it was interesting is all – ain’t gonna be the Chicken Little and use cherry-picked studies to attempt to force the issue one way or the other. I couldn’t really give a crap if we legalize MJ or not (for what it’s worth, every plan so far has received a ‘no’ vote from me – perhaps one will come along with the merits I’d like to see, but until then, no, including this latest pile of crap).

        Also, Colorado looks to be doing just fine: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/08/27/states-best-and-worst-economies/37490453/

        Reply
  13. Troy Jones

    Caveman,

    I found it somewhere recently. Maybe it is included in one of my links in this thread. But, more relevant, there are manufacturers or warehouse companies who out of safety concerns will suspend an employee for three calendar days (not working) without pay who admits to use when confronted primarily out of safety concerns (dismiss if they deny and fail drug test). They also usually give a warning the next infraction will be termination. The rationale is certain cognitive (reasoning), memory, and reaction times all can take up to that long to get to an unimpaired condition they deem safe for being around or operating equipment.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.