Novstrup, Perry & Schaefbauer District 3 campaigns paying for billboard against IM27 measure

According to an image posted to Twitter today by State Representative Fred Deutsch, at least one billboard has been placed advertising against Initiated Measure 27 with a disclaimer that is was paid for by the (Al) Novstrup for State Senate, Brandei (Schaefbauer) for House and (Carl) Perry for State House campaigns, who are all running in District 3.

69 thoughts on “Novstrup, Perry & Schaefbauer District 3 campaigns paying for billboard against IM27 measure”

  1. Good for them. Its a message we need to get out. We don’t need to resemble Denver, Portland or Seattle. Vote against IM 27

  2. I have previously asked Fred Deutsch to tell us just how “reckless” alcohol and cigarettes are compared to marijuana. He just goes silent, of course. Because it’s not about the facts, it’s about politicians wanting control. He talks about freedom but does he really support it?

    (From CDC) “More than 140,000 people die from excessive alcohol use in the U.S. each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following: More than 480,000 deaths annually.”

    Marijuana? I believe it’s rare to see an overdose which may threaten a life directly. But, as with alcohol, there are drivers under the influence which may account for a relatively small number of deaths.

    Deutsch says he supports your access to cigarettes and alcohol but not marijuana. He thinks that the safest one of the three, by far, should be criminal. Well, maybe today, Fred will try to defend that position.

    1. So because there are two harmful vices that are legal we should just go ahead and add a third…..great logic genius.

      1. Better to imprison people and give the government more power. Super conservative take there. Government is terrible save for the stuff you dont like.

    2. Elk, if you want to talk to me, pick up the phone and call. My number is public. I rarely visit this blog.

      And when you call, have the courtesy to use your name. I don’t talk to people who identify as animals. Yea, I know, my bad.

      Concerning recreational weed, I’m proud to particpate in a very grass-roots movement to make SD a better and safer place to raise our children, work and live. That same concern is why so many South Dakotans are coming out of the woodwork to oppose 27. Today I learned the state Chamber of Commerce joined our effort. Last week it was the mayor of SF. Prior to that, others.

      Ask yourself why.

      Why is the Chamber oppoing?

      Could it have anything to do with studies that show an associaiton between marijuana use and workplace accidents and injuries? Might it be the Chamber is educaing its members about the study that shows employees who tested positive on a pre-employment urine drug test had 55% more industrial accidents, 85% more injuries, and 75% more absenteeism?

      The list goes on.

      1. So protect an employer’s liberty not to employ cannabis users, Fred, but stop depriving human beings of property and locking them in cages for personal decisions that are none of your business.

      2. And again… you fail to answer the question.

        The issue isn’t whether marijuana is without risk, it’s whether you should be incarcerating people because they engage in something that is far less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes.

        This is a public forum that you appear in frequently. Why would I want to call you?

        Lastly, I’d rather “identify” as an elk than a jacka$$.

        1. HMMM….so who would you rather have cutting on you,,,,,,, a cardio-thoracic surgeon who smokes 3 – 4 cigarettes/day or one who smokes 3 – 4 joints/day?

          1. Surgeons can be compromised in many ways. They have access to alcohol, OTC drugs, prescription drugs, marijuana or maybe the doctor just hasn’t slept for 3 days. To the patient, a surgeon’s cigarette habit should have little impact.

    3. This has always been a false equivalency and always will be. No one is suggesting that alcohol abuse is a positive or that legalizing marijuana would reduce alcohol abuse and cigarette consumption. It will only add another dangerous and addictive intoxicant to the mix. And it will draw more children into drug abuse. Add all that to the influx of more homeless people, and the illegal marijuana market and it’s a receipt for disaster. Legalization lobbyists goal is to legalize all drugs as they did in Oregon.

      1. Do you support spending our public finances to round up people who use alcohol and tobacco, administer their criminal trials, and lock them in cages?

  3. Leave it to Fred Deutsch to come up with… protectingsdkids.com

    The measure affects those 21 and over. Jeesh. Can they ever stop manipulating us with this “for the children” crap?

      1. Just stop. Stop with the “it’s for the children” bull. It’s getting old. That argument can be made about anything. And has.

  4. Carl Perry once again putting him money where his mouth is. Fred has marginalized himself with his loathsome fear of seeing a stray penis but Carl keeps his eye on the ball. Big things ahead for Carl in my opinion.

  5. Let’s remember “State Statutes” adopted by the “people” either directly by means of public votes, or indirectly by means of their representatives are only “Public Laws” to manage the public commercial activity of the State itself, privately, there are no such laws on the books that restrict you to smoking marijuana, so long as you do so, in private, and do not violate any such public laws that govern public property, things, roads, activity. “WE” by means of 66 counties, voted to establish uniform set of public laws to allow for, and to provide for permits to use Marijuana for “medical use”; while the voters did provide an opinion by means of 54% stating they may be in favor of legalizing Marijuana in full, however, Amendment A was widely written in such manner that it confused the voters, also as evidence of the final results – 54% voted yes, 46% voted no, however, it becomes the County official results that tell the exact truth – 41 of the 66 counties collectively, by means of their popular votes of the county, voted to NOT legalize in full, Marijuana, but it may also represent the fact that Amendment A was in fact written in such a ‘confusing manner’ that the voters did not know what they were voting on, but those who did, most likely did so, to make it legal to use it for “medical use”. Cause on Medical Marijuan alone, 70% of the counties did vote to accept Marijuana as a form of “medicine” under strict rules and codes.

    Now, the “voters” will get to decide just how they feel on Marijuana and no other subject. Do they want Recreational Marijuana yes or no? We will finally see the outcome. My bets are, the same 41 Counties will colletively say NO, while in 13 Counties, the populations will say Yes.

    Of the 66 Counties:

    60% of the voters in 38 Counties voted NO on Amendment A;
    57% of the voters in 13 Counties voted YES on Amendment A;
    50% of the voters 12 Counties were perplexed, slightly voting yes or no on Amendment A.

    When given the ability to ‘loosen the restrictions on Medical Marijuana in MEAD COUNTY a month ago, only 10% of the voters showed up to vote, and the final result was in FAVOR of “RESTRICTIONS” placed on Medical Marijuana, showing not even the so called supporters came out to vote in favor of Marijuana. MEADE COUNTY was one of the counties where that vote on Amendment A was 50-50, whereas the voters slightly voted YES on the Amendment. But…on August 30th, when given the chance to expand the use of, and loosing the tight regulations of Medical Use those voters did NOT show up.

    My Estimate on I.M 27 – the voters may in fact VOTE NO on the Measure with the final result being 52-56% in favor of NOT LEGALIZING marijuana.

    1. Agree. That’s why I keep these statistics in their face, they claim they have all thus support. When 60% of the counties told them NO in 2020. Cause they were able to squeak out a small win by large majority in 13 counties they grabbed. 54 to 46 win. However, the county vote is interesting, 38 to 13 voted NO, and in 12 counties it was 50-50

      The pot heads are in for a rude awakening

      1. If only percentage of counties had anything to do with the outcome. It won by popular vote and all your post hoc rationalizations won’t change that. How’s the election denial going?

        1. The only way the pot heads win a popular vote on recreation weed is to game the system by putting an unconstitutional, illegal measure before the voters. I for one am furious the pot industry attempted to fraud the public. They were told the multi-subject measure was not constitutional while it was being developed, but went forward anyway. But ah ha — they got caught by the Supreme Court!

          1. South Dakota voters – smart when you want them to be, easily fooled kids when you dont. The cognitive dissonance must give you migraines.

        2. You can cry about my comments all day long, but what you cannot argue is the fact that in 38 counties, more than 60% of the voters voted NO on Amendment A; while only 13 counties can be tallied where 57% of the voters voted YES on Amendment A. You cannot argue the fact, that more than half the “state population” most likely DID NOT support Amendment A.

          The facts are facts, regardless of how you look at the results or not.

          The fact is, the voters in 41 counties voted NO on Amendment A, while the voters in 21 counties voted YES on Amendment A, while in 12 of those counties, the ‘results’ were 50-50 whereas the victors won by slight majorities.

          I contest, AMENDMENT A was written so confusing, that the voters had no idea what they were voting on, where they voting to legalize Marijuana in full, or were they voting to allow for Medical Use?

          Well, I.M 26 which was Medical Marijuana, more than 70% of the Counties, more than 70% of the voters, approved of MEDICAL USE; while

          On Amendment A, more than 60% of ALL COUNTIES voted NO on Amendment A, while less than 40% of the counties voted YES.

          When we speak on the “COUNTY RESULTS” we are talking about the popular votes in each of the counties themselves.

          Let’s be clear, the issue of Marijuana came up to the voters twice before, prior to 2020, and both times the voters voted NOT to fully legalize Marijuana. However, when the issue came before the voters to legalize the use of MEDICAL MARIJUANA under ‘strict regulation’ it passes by a large majority.

          And like I said, if the MEADE COUNTY vote on August 30th has anything to say on Marijuana, lets be clear, MEADE County was interesting, it was one of the “counties” of which had a 50-50 split on Amendment A, they were also heavily in favor of Medical Marijuana. But on August 30th, when given the ‘chance’ for all those Marijuana supporters to loosen up regulations on Medical Establishments, they NEVER showed up. They passively accepted the “strict regulations” on Medical Establishments, the rules, the regulations, etc. 10% showed up, and voted 1400 to 700 to accept Meade County’s very strict regulations.

          Let’s be clear, I.M 27 adds an entire new layer of government to the state government, it hads countless of new regulations, more red tape. It will not get rid of the black market, nor will it stop criminalizing people for using Marijuana. It will bring more crime to S.D than what we have today.

          Fact is, VOTE NO on I.M 27, if all you want is to legalize Marijuana, then add Section 30 to Article 6 of the Constitution, as a protected Bill of Right that simply reads:

          Article 6, Section 30 – The Right To Seed, Plant, Grow, Harvest, to Use Cannabis – Recreational and Medical Use –
          All Citizens of this State shall have the right to plant, seed, grow, and harvest Marijuana within this state, and no person shall violate that protected right by imposing a rule, code, or regulation that harms a person’s ability to transact with others the ability to purchase cannabis seeds, to plant, to grow, to distribute, other than to regulate the commercial activity thereof. No government entity shall make nor pass a law or code that substantially harms the free market will of the people, nor subject them to a fine, penalty, sanction less for violations of statute where the government has the requirement to protect the health and public safety, and property rights of another person.

          A simple short paragraph is all need, while through the legislative process, ‘we’ slightly amend state laws where necessary. NO new laws needed.

          1. That’s right, the FACTS ARE THE FACTS. And guess what bud, the fact is THE MAJORITY OF SOUTH DAKOTANS VOTED FOR IT.

            1. The fact is the election was thown out. The election was fraud. Unconstitutional elections don’t count. Ii doesn’t matter how many people vote for it when it is an illegal election.

  6. Thank God we have legislators willing to stand up to protect children and the populace. Ask someone who has lived in CO and you will hear plenty. You’ll also hear from healthcare providers: Do WHATEVER you can do to stop it!

    The car accidents in CO have gone up substantially since they legalized pot. People also move from pot to hard drugs MUCH faster. So it is not uncommon for a MVA patient to enter the hospital busted up from an accident (needing pain meds), high on drugs of all varieties (including pot) and drunk. Fun times for the RN who has to try to figure out if this person is dealing with detox issues or pain? Or all? Oh, and they make for pretty hostile patients too – my daughter was an RN out there. For a little gal, she was struck, swung at and spoken to pretty terribly. That’s just the hospital setting. I’m not even addressing the school issues – parents and students.

    Oh, you think you hate vape shops here? Wait until those vapes have pot in them (with much higher levels of THC than the pot of the 70’s). No, I will do all I can to educate people about the dangers of marijuana. You hate seeing so many young people unemployed by choice? Ya, that’s a problem out there too. Who wants to work when your motivation has been sucked out of you?

    NO on 27!

    1. And public drunkenness increased substantially since we legalized alcohol. People have shown up to work inebriated. Harsh words have been exchanged. There have been fights. It’s just crazy.

      “Do WHATEVER you can do to stop it!”

      1. Your logic is brilliant (sarcasm). We already have harmful activities that are legal so what the hell, let’s just make a third one legal too….brilliant, just brilliant logic…..what a dolt.

    2. Agree with 7:09. The majority of Republicans serving in the legislature oppose legal weed. Thank you to Deutsch, Schoenbeck, Perry, Novstrup, and all the others. However, the reality is an IM is not dependent on a legislative vote, but a vote by the people. Give South Dakotans the truth and the people will make the right decision. Don’t give the people an unconstitutional mess with mutiple subjects like last time. In contrast, IM27 is a straight up or down vote on a single subject. I am convinced South Dakotans will make the right choice and VOTE NO.

  7. South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry Opposes Recreational Marijuana out of concern for the impact it will have on the workforce and the increased risks to young people in South Dakota.

    According to the news release, “This fear is reinforced by the National Institute on Drug Abuse that found that marijuana use in the workplace had:

    55% more industrial accidents
    85% more injuries
    75% greater absenteeism

    According to David Owen, “The threat to children is clear. Children get their hands on beer and cigarettes and it will be impossible to prevent South Dakota kids from getting ahold of recreational marijuana. We need to protect South Dakota Kids by voting NO on IM-27.”

    1. They say “The threat to children is clear.”

      Don’t believe it. Politicians continually use the “it’s for the children” mantra to exploit voters. They know that marijuana is far less deadly than cigarettes or alcohol. And the measure legalizes it for those 21 and older.

      Do they think that we need to ban guns in the home too? You know… to protect the children.

        1. And having a firearm in a house with kids greatly increases their chance of dying. But none of us are clamoring for their ban because we aren’t reactionary libs. But for some reason, we go ape over weed. Its none of your, or my, business.

          1. No one is going ape. It’s a social ill that we don’t need in SD. It hurts people, especially children. The data is very clear.

            It is my business. I pay taxes. You want to legalize it? Than you pay for the increased costs for police, for hospitalizations, etc.

            Everything has a cost. I am not willing to put children at risk so you can have a little mind-trip.

            1. Nice ad hominem, but I’m a geetotaler. Dont even drink. Oops. Also: I look forward fo your initiated measure on guns in households with children. I am not willing to pht kids at risk because you like killing game.

              See how stupid that sounds? Do better.

  8. No need to vote for IM27. South Dakota already has recreational marijuana. It’s called medical by the marijuana industry, their enablers and users and was used to dupe South Dakota voters. Wait till those pot shops they call them medical marijuana saturate our cities and towns. It will be bad enough. Long considered a joke in California with 24/7 pot doctors writing scripts for $25.00.

  9. The fact that Lauren Boebert was elected to the US Congress is proof positive that too much weed is being smoked in Colorado. There’s probably a lot of glue huffing going on too, the idiocy could be at a genetic level, who knows? Vote no on IM27.

  10. Here’s the question no one can answer: why hasn’t any state that legalized marijuana changed its mind, due to all the horrors stare above, and recriminalized? Why hasn’t a single state done that?

    If legalization really leads to all these terrible things, you’d think that at least one state would have gone back to prohibition. But none have. Neither through the legislative process or initiative/referendum. Not one.

    What gives?

    1. Pueblo County Colorado tried to repeal after the citizens witnessed how it negatively affected their community. Pueblo, Colorado is ground zero in Colorado. Those citizens who tried to repeal were heavily outspent by Big Marijuana aka Big Tobacco 2.0 and it’s paid shills like the Drug Policy Alliance part of Big Marijuana which has an end goal of legalizing/fully commercializing ALL drugs.

      Imagine how devastating it would be for Big Tobacco 2.0 to have one county or state to repeal legalization/commercialization of THC (Marijuana). You would have others joining to repeal and the push to legalize/commercialize THC (Marijuana) would essentially stop. Prior to the Pandemic Big Marijuana’s efforts were thwarted in a number of states and countries with massive financial losses and layoffs in the industry. Despite Big Marijuana’s efforts to sell lies and misinformation the truth of the high socio-economic costs in states that were duped were publicized with data mounting. Big Marijuana which now includes Altria parent company of Phillip Morris, Big Pharma and Alcohol doubled down and invested even more and pushed forward with openly lobbying for legalization in Virginia. It’s all about the money being addiction for profit. Not Compassion and not false claims of medicine. Same exact playbook Big Tobacco has used for decades.

      1. If the sky really was falling like you say, it would be easy to get a majority to vote to recriminalize. The fact that it hasn’t is clear evidence that the sky really isn’t falling, and that you’re just dishonest.

      2. Why bring up another State, they mean nothing to the citizens of South Dakota. “WE” are our own “republic” let alone sovereign people. WE can make our own laws, repeal our laws, strike down voter initiatives, etc.

  11. What gives is that where drugs have ruined communities, people have left.
    Rather than reinstate prohibition, they’re moving.
    They don’t want to live in their old neighborhoods any more.
    A way to decide how to vote on this is to ask yourself who will decide to move here and who will decide to leave?
    That can apply to a lot of legislation: if you allow something or even subsidize it, you’ll get more of it. Prohibit or tax it, you’ll get less of it.

    As far as marijuana goes, if we prohibit it, the people who want it will decide to live somewhere else. If we allow it, the people who don’t want to be surrounded by stoners will decide to live somewhere else.

    1. I can’t fathom a more stupid response.

      Everyone in SD who wants marijuana already has it. Literally not one person will leave if 27 doesn’t pass.

      1. what you mean is, the people who want it have already left for Colorado, Oregon, etc. Why would we want them back?

        I have met a few recent arrivals from Portland and Seattle, escaping the crap there. I have also known a few unwed mothers who moved to Minnesota because the benefits are better there, a family which moved to California because their disabled son would get better services there, and another family which moved to Texas for free dialysis.

        Do not underestimate the willingness of people to relocate for stuff they want, or to escape stuff they don’t want.

      2. Anonymous 10:13pm your response is a perfect example of “Reefer Blindness” coined by Dr. Karen Randall an ER Physician in Pueblo, Colorado.

    2. “ If we allow it, the people who don’t want to be surrounded by stoners will decide to live somewhere else.”

      Well, bye.

  12. Looking forward to a public debate on IM27. I nominate John Dale with his guitar to debate FOR IM27 on KELO, any other major media outlet or venue in SD. John would represent those FOR IM27.

    Can I get a 2nd?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.