Sounds like there’s a bit of daylight between Governor Noem and some legislators on hemp

Pat Powers

The Argus Leader is reporting this evening that it sounds like there are some Republican members of the legislature who are not completely in agreement with Governor Kristi Noem’s opposition to the legalization of hemp:

“I think the governor has some valid opposition to it, she makes some valid points, but it doesn’t seem to me that she wants to work on finding a solution,” said Youngberg, R-Madison.

And..

South Dakota lawmakers are looking to implement a hemp program that has a “very, very stringent permit process,” and someone will still be liable for marijuana possession if he or she is caught with hemp without a permit to grow, process or transport it, Qualm said. He said he’d like to believe that legislators can change Noem’s mind if they can sit down to discuss every aspect of it.

“I know she’s drawn a line in the sand right now,” he said. “And we’ll see what we can do to change that line.”

Read the story here.

My question would be whether anyone thinks the hemp issue is going to move voters. Personally, I think it’s pretty far down on voters’ list of priorities. And even then, as many or more may be opposed than would be in favor, given the Governor’s opposition because of problems with testing it against pot.

Thoughts?

49 thoughts on “Sounds like there’s a bit of daylight between Governor Noem and some legislators on hemp”

  1. I read Gov Noem’s article in the Wall Street Journal on this an believe we need to let the marijuana issue play out on the national stage, without spending taxpayer $ on a hemp experiment. Yes, I know hemp is not marijuana, however, the marijuana lobby pushes hemp as part of their program. CBD oil which is derived from marijuana and hemp is pushed as a miracle cure for all kinds of common ailments. The fact is CBD oil is not legal throughout the US, the same as marijuana. No actual medical studies have been done on CBD oil or marijuana for that matter because such studies would be illegal under Federal law. The medical benefits of hemp and marijuana are based on stories told by their promoters. Although, I think there are some medical benefits to marijuana, there needs to be actual studies done to to determine those and the quantities of THC needed to get the desired benefit. SD is not in a position financial to be part of the marijuana/hemp experiment.

    1. THe issue is HEMP and you as all those opposed to even medical pot are arguing against pot and CBD— Hemp is NOT an experiment … it is like arguing against growing cotton or timber..

      2. since we make widespread use of cotton and timber, arguing against them would be silly, so it is actually not like that at all.

    1. Tara have you considered running for the legislature as a Libertarian? You should and it would be a good opportunity to see if the ideas you have resonate with voters.

      1. I think it would resonate with SD voters. It would give farmers freedom of choice without overreach from Pierre.

        1. Freedom of choice is also the freedom to say no to to ideas that have little upside and big costs, including societal costs. As you well know hemp is a red herring.

          1. Mike, there are tens of millions of annual tax revenue to be had from legalization, and the “societal costs” associated with marijuana are overstated, and undeniably dwarfed by other legal vices, such as tobacco, alcohol, sugar, etc.

            In this case, you have the freedom of choice to be ill informed.

            1. BS–look at the recreational bill a few cycles ago and it gave roughly 4 million to the general fund…big whoop

        2. Mentele the SDDP party unit chair of Hanson County would support you as a Libertarian candidate. It would not matter if there were a SDDP candidate running from the same district.

          Other dopers would support you.

          Run Tara Run!

      2. Yes I would run as a Libertarian on the hemp issue. It seemed to resonate well passing in the House and Senate until some Senators got weak and caved on the veto.

      3. Why would she need to run as a libertarian when the vast majority of Republican legislators voted for hemp?

        Noem and Ravnsborg are against it. Otherwise it is a widely supported issue.

        I personally do not care.

        1. Name anyone in law enforcement who is for it?

          It is not just the AG and Gov.

          Seemed like not enough Senators to override a veto supported it either

          Why don’t you spend some time on the actual drug problems facing our state instead of falling pray to the liberal mentality of just legalizing them…shamful

        2. Name anyone in law enforcement who is for it?

          It is not just the AG and Gov.

          Seemed like not enough Senators to override a veto supported it either

          Why don’t you spend some time on the actual drug problems facing our state instead of falling pray to the liberal mentality of just legalizing them…shameful

  3. Hemp itself won’t be a big issue… But her rigidity and willful ignorance on the issue isn’t flattering. And the betrayal of small government principles is no small deal for some either…

    1. Since when is thoughtful opposition “rigidity and willful ignorance”? Shall we say that the marijuana zealots are willfully intransigent? That lobby was hired, not elected. The Governor was elected as CEO of all South Dakotans and she is determined to protect and defend family values and the public safety and public health issues as well. She has my unqualified support in the transparent and forthright way that she has handled it.

      2. This sort of reasoning, while articulate in delivery, is representative of the hypocrisy of the “small government” conservatives that typify this state. Your concept of small government ends at your own nose. You don’t trust the government with your tax dollars, but you do trust them to enforce your concept of family values on others. You are some of the most unprincipled people I’ve ever met.

  6. Not even close. Noem wins politically. The hemp advocates are nearly exclusively recreational dope advocates, a link which is death (literally and figuratively).

    1. Watch this all you anti hemp people…..Kentucky is so far advanced compared to SD…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STrPzGaqwfk

  7. It’s very brave, even progressive, of Governor Kristi Noem to veto the widespread cultivation of industrial cannabis (hemp) and empower the tribal nations trapped in South Dakota to be the sole leaders of cannabis industry growth in my home state.

      1. Many reservations are landlocked and have to ship the harvest through hostile states. Alex White Plume will have to get his through Nebraska to reach his buyer in Colorado. It’s a test of tribal sovereignty.

  8. Hey Youngberg— hoe about this for a solution… you pull the wool back from your eyes and stop supporting the marijuana crowd with this support of hemp and CBC oil.

    Name me one pro pot organization that is against hemp?

      1. Dr. Karen Randall an emergency room physician at a hospital in Pueblo, Colorado coined the term Reefer Blindness. She describes Reefer Blindness being an affliction affecting potheads and those looking to profit from weed that fail to recognize the risks of harm from today’s super high potency Marijuana.

        Great video to watch and Dr. Randall recently testified before Congress also. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfIaJ1jO2ms&fbclid=IwAR1PHwNc4qTVX9ev4Dm26Lro7JPwDK-My0Mkz_3UL31GUIPlbsJdPQet1Is

        1. People are going to abuse no matter what they put in their body. You can’t legislate against stupidity. Government is problem, not pot.

    2. Name one Ag organization that is against hemp. They must must be pro pot too! What a stupid equivocation.

  9. She loses big on this. You wouldn’t know it from the comments on this blog, but Americans generally, and even South Dakotans specifically, are figuring out that cannabis prohibition is foolish from a policy standpoint, and blatantly violates the limited government principles that are central to conservative Republican ideology.

    If we could vote on hemp and medical marijuana, 70% or more would support it.

    I understand why opponents are so desperate to keep it off the ballot.

  10. Even the AARP — hardly a liberal organization — sees the light here…

    “As for their stance on medical marijuana, AARP was clear on that as well. “In March, the AARP Board of Directors approved a policy supporting the medical use of marijuana for older adults in states that have legalized it. The decision was based on the growing body of research suggesting marijuana may be helpful in treating certain medical conditions and symptoms. The policy also notes that decisions related to the use of medical marijuana should be made between a patient and a health care provider and appropriately balance clinical evidence of benefit and harm, the patient’s preferences and values, and any laws that may apply.”

    https://www.marijuanatimes.org/the-aarp-weighs-in-on-cannabis/

    1. WHAT THE F ? AARP is liberal as hell, they supported Obamacare full throttle and many other positions

      I would never join that liberal organization and your example reinforces my opposition to marijuana if AARP is for it…

      WTF

      1. get off the labels…..hemp is here to stay. Are politicians need to vote the will of the people, not the will of the Governor.

  11. Despite the summer study on hemp, I doubt any legislator’s position will change when a new hemp bill is introduced in 2020. It will lose again in the Senate.

  13. Youngberg is essentially undermining his own financial interest. He owns a weed and pest company. He would have less weeds to spray.

    I appreciate that he thinks for himself.

    1. Is Brunner using his weed (noxious weeds not pot) fund to be the frontline against hemp in SD?

      Youngberg would let it grow.

Comments are closed.