Interesting information coming from SD News Watch & the Chiesman Center. In a poll taken in July, it shows that by itself, recreational marijuana is not as popular as some of it’s supporters have claimed, and it could lose in November:
A statewide poll conducted in late July shows that support for legalizing recreational marijuana for adult use in South Dakota has waned in the past two years and also appears to indicate that a referendum on legalization in November could fail.
The poll of 500 registered voters in July found that 43.8% of respondents support legalization of recreational marijuana, and that 54.4% oppose legalization.
and..
The only registered political committee to oppose IM 27 so far, formed in July 2022, is called Protecting South Dakota’s Kids.
The group’s chairman is Jim Kinyon of Rapid City, a certified mental health counselor who also serves as executive director of Catholic Social Services. State Rep. Fred Deutsch, R-Florence, is the group’s treasurer, according to state records. The group has not yet filed a campaign finance report.
“South Dakota is coming to our senses; we’re starting to see that this isn’t going to make us free and happy,” Kinyon said.
I don’t know that opposition efforts are as strong as they’ve been in past elections. While Republican officeholders aren’t big on it, there is a sense of ..ambivalence, for lack of a better word. It’s not a hill they intend to die on, and if they have to deal with it in the legislature, they’ll do their job in terms of regulating and taxing it, and they’ll move on.
Which makes the polling results more interesting; in that there’s possibly more opposition than thought.
Given these results, it may also mean that those backing the measure may have to open up their wallets, as there’s a chance they might not be as secure in the results as they had previously thought.
The poll may be flawed.
I seriously doubt that the Sioux Falls metro area would be opposed to legalization by a wide margin as this poll suggests. As the article indicates, they voted the opposite four years ago.
And I see no reason to think it would go from an eight point victory statewide, to a ten point loss. I think it will pass by a similar margin to last time.
Two years ago their campaign was for both the medicinal measure and the recreational measure. Some ads even said the constitutional amendment (which included recreational) was “necessary” to protect medicinal from repeal. It’s not hard to imagine some people who were primarily for recreational votes for both.
Good analysis
Out-of-state dark-money groups are under-estimating how much some South Dakotans know about the Demon Weed. It is bad, it is very bad, and we don’t like out-of-state dark-money (nevermind the out-of-state name-callers.)
Lol…OK. It’s going to pass.
I have to agree, in the 2020 public vote regarding Amendment A, 70% of the collective counties amassed a strong collective ‘NO VOTE” by the citizens of those counties. That is a huge portion of our population voting NO on legalization of marijuana. The “Yes Votes” clearly came from 9 or 10 most populous counties, and if the support is heavily leaning the the opposite way. perhaps the S.D Voters are not so much confused as they were the last time. Amendment A was written in such manner, most simple-minded voters did not really understand what they were voting on, legalization of marijuana or medical marijuana. Being said, 70% of the counties did VOTE YES on Medical Marijuana, so that, and the nearly 50-50 vote on Amendment A present some sense of historical sign that the S.D Voters were very much confused on what the purpose of Amendment A was for. Exactly what the petitioners most likely wanted – confusion.
This time around, when its a more ‘direct vote’ on a simple topic – Marijuana, I say the “voters” clearly VOTE NO to not legalize marijuana. in at least 40 of the possible 65 counties, I can safely say, “WE” know how they will vote, and if, we can pick up a small 5-10% of those former Yes voters in places like Sioux Falls – Marijuana will remain ILLEGAL.
I don’t understand why you keep spewing these lies, Mike. The people who did not vote in the election are not counted as a ‘NO VOTE’, read our state constitution and you will see we only count the votes sent in. Also, there is no electoral college for the state, land doesn’t vote only people do, as noted in the constitution. Furthermore, South Dakotan’s are not as stupid as the losing side continues to repeat to justify the repealing of democratically decided measures (2016, 2020). People of South Dakota can tell the difference between multiple topics on the ballot. What type of background do you have to be able judge the entire population and make this conclusion? LET THE VOTES BE COUNTED!
Tony,
I continue to encourage, and support the people to fully understand the S.D Constitution, and all the dynamics that go into “governing” the State itself.
Whereas, I present you Article 6, Section 1 of which states very clearly, that the “consent of the people” shall never be infringed.
Whereas, I present you the 2020 Voting Results of all 65 Counties, of which present an over all picture of what the people may or may not support.
Whereas, I present to you the Judicial Review Process that takes place prior to any such law or amendment taking effect (July 1st) which allows ALL citizens of the State to fully consent to be governed as such, or not to be governed as such.
Whereas, The Whole People of the State whether a voter or not, have the right to challenge any adopted law or measure prior to July 1st (December through June) by a 2nd Referred Vote of the People, by Lobbying/Concurring with the State Legislature, or by a Court Challenge.
Now, Furthermore, I contest, that in order for a law or amendment to go fully into effect on July 1st of each year, ALL Citizens of the State must fully consent to such law, if at least one citizen chooses not to consent, let alone challenge said law, the law cannot stand, so long as the proper legal process is being adhered to, giving the citizen(s) the ability to file a redress of a matter of concern of how the law may or may not effect their own personal right or privilege, of how it may effect their personal or commercial situation.
Therefore, as I Furthermore address the issue of Amendment A – presenting evidence in fact that no less than in 40 counties within the State of South Dakota, the People of said counties did in fact “Vote No” on Amendment A showing clear and present evidence that not all the State population supported such a measure, nor did they support legalizing Marijuana in its entirely.
Therefore, as I Furthermore address the issue of Amendment A, that within the County of Pennington, the residents thereof, chose to overwhelmingly vote NO on such topic, of which any such citizen, let alone the Sheriff had every right to uphold the ordinances, codes, and laws of the State of which protect the people in such county, by brining forth such legal challenge on behalf of the people on the issue concerning Amendment A.
Therefore, as I Furthermore address the issue concerning Amendment A, the Governor, of whom is tasked with “representing” both sides of the public matter as the At-Large Representative had every right to defend both sides to the matter.
Therefore, as I Furthermore address the issue concerning the manner of which we govern the state, is not solidly in the manner of public vote, but grounded in fact based in the “consent of the governed” by its own definition means ALL Citizens of the State who will be effected by such law or code or amendment. No such law or amendment may stand if one or any number of citizens stand up against it.
Therefore, as I Further address the issue concerning as to how laws are adopted, any such law at any given time may be struck down, repealed, amended by any such combination of public vote, legislative vote, let alone a South Dakota Court at anytime.
—
I need not be a lawyer, nor a college graduate to understand that as a Citizen of the State, a free Republic mind you, to fully understand that the “Public Vote” is a mere opinion of what the majority of the citizens may or may not support. And I need not be college educated, nor a lawyer to fully understand that all it takes is for 1 “citizen” to stand up, make a case for or against a LAW for the right to defeat it. And I need not be college educated nor a lawyer to understand that perhaps NOT all citizens supported Amendment A, thus had the legal right to challenge it prior to July 1st.
You asked what background I have to judge the opinion of the Population to draw upon my conclusion? I am a CITIZEN of this State, of which am well understanding of his rights, as they relate to the “constitution” and I understand fully, that ALL Citizens have the right to NOT consent, regardless if they voted or not. The State Constitution grants all Citizens that right…
I do not content to having Noem as my governor. Am I good now? Billie is now my governor? lol what are you even going on about.
Why do you not read it again, and tell me what it says Mr. No Name. Then go do the research and get come back and have a serious discussion. You cannot govern the state, if you do not know the process.
Therefore, furthermore to the point, and moreover, Mr. No Name, you must do research to respond!
Thus, furthermore, and therefore, you could have an understanding like Mike Z., perchance.
However, furthermore, you will find Kristi is seated at the right hand of the father, Donald Trump, and cannot be defeated by your lack of consent.
Perchance
Yes, it is obvious you are not a college graduate or lawyer, you cherry pick language and define it to benefit your beliefs. The problem is, the courts who are responsible for defining these things, have defined them already and set precedent by doing so. I don’t want to spend the energy to cite the case law countering your “citizen understanding of the constitution”, to put it simply you are wrong. We have a plurality voting system here in South Dakota, citing the county maps is moot, why not show townships maps? I’ll just stick with the overall state map on these issues and ignore the counties, townships, cities, etc. (the constitution also does that). We don’t weigh votes on how much land someone owns in any public US election. It has been proven with the “sovereign citizen” movement that this “consent” notion you have is not recognized legally, we all have to pay taxes, even though they are theft, even if you don’t agree with that. You lost the ability to take away the freedom of marijuana use with people in 2020, get over it, let people do what they want.
You sure love to twist my words to mean what I never said. Ty
You sure play the victim well.
LOL, this guy…
By design, the poll is about as accurate as the Biden/ Trump polls were in 2020. (insert lightbulb emoticon here)
Rather than try to convince voters that marijuana is bad for them, it would be better to point out that keeping it illegal will discourage users from living here.
is that why the South Dakota population has steadily risen by no less than 2% each and every year since 2010?
Is the population rising because of immigration or births or because young people aren’t leaving, they are in their parents’ basements smoking weed and playing video games?
Let’s stop making up stuff about marijuana being a gateway to anything but a life of apathy, and that’s bad enough.