Vote No on IM27 flyer making the rounds today among Republicans

This flyer from the Vote No on IM27 group is making the rounds among Republicans today, as I saw it at the local Republican meeting, as well as an e-mail from another part of the State.

It’s part of the opening salvo against Initiated Measure 27 to legalize pot, which some say is on tenuous grounds, and could fail this November. And that was before anyone began campaigning against it.

Stay tuned.

24 thoughts on “Vote No on IM27 flyer making the rounds today among Republicans”

  1. Can we nominate John Dale as the spokesman to debate for IM27?

    Any other regular DFPers to nominate to be the debater for IM27?

    1. Would they have to be SD residents? That would eliminate all but maybe 4 or 5 and would also eliminate Herr shorty the little propaganda minister himself. These 4 or 5 left appear to be mentally unstable, especially that old hag from the southern hills.

  2. Once the public gets the facts about legalization, they will vote against it. The L.A. Times just debunked the idea that legalization would destroy the illegal market for marijuana. The illegal market has overtaken the legal market in CA.

    1. I read and distributed that story to many folks. All one has to do to verify this is to reach out to any of the North State legislators for the north counties in general, Siskiyou, Humbold, Trinity, Lassen and Sonoma counties in particular and get their input! Most of the ‘enclaves’ within those counties don’t have the funding to support a local police department so they are patrolled by sheriffs’ departments of very few deputies…in the case of the 6,400 square miles of Siskiyou, 5 deputies plus the sheriff. Most of the illegal grows are on federal land, but this is another issue – just wanted to mention it.

  3. There still seems to be some confusion with regards to a person holding a Medical Marijuana Card and being allowed to carry a firearm or have one within one’s immediate vicinity like in a vehicle. Two questions if anyone can refer me to the answer: 1 – Is this still applicable in South Dakota and 2 – would this apply to ‘Recreational’ marijuana users?
    Thank you.

    1. When buying a gun you must fill out a 4473 form and if you answer yes to question 11, I believe, than you will denied the purchase and not suppose to possess a firearm as you are in violation of a federal law. So yes, if you have a card to get marijuana you lose your rights to but or out a gun or ammo.

  4. Happy to see there are those fighting the good fight. Still, this will pass handily, as the people who supported it last time around as a constitutional amendment will back IM27, too..

    1. If it does it will be fascinating watching all the promises from the initial campaign to legalize and this turn out to be false as it has in other states. Excuses will be made by the industry and their enablers to move the goal posts and yet the same result. People will complain about taxes going up to support all the demand on support services, crime going up, mental health and addiction related issues, homelessness with the state being especially vulnerable to what is coming. The vast majority of voters have no idea what is coming and those who are blazed will be oblivious. Hope they remember who pushed this and hold them accountable.

    2. My sources tell me out of state registrations for the cannabis lobby accounted for more than the margin of victory of Amendment A. It would have failed by a larger margin than it passed in a fair election. Medical would still have passed by 6.5 to 4.5.

      If you are correct, I will be ecstatic, but won’t hold my breath that this strangely written initiative makes it past the legislature.

      However, our ballot boxes (as per the recent work by SD Canvassing and others) are not ringing true. The result will be the result that was desired by South Dakota’s deep state, whether that was the will of the people or not.

      If the SDDS wants legalization, they will get it. If not, then not.

      Our elections are run by a corporation from MN, and we have no way to audit the results due to (arguably intentional) neglect in IT competency within the county auditors and SD SOS.

      “Knowing is half the battle.” — GI Joe

  5. My opinion: This initiative was designed to fail to preserve the medical oligopoly on cannabis.

    If it works, it will demoralize the “recreational” crowd (the folks that paint themselves into a logical corner such that water is recreational, too, since you drive boats on it).

    Freedom takes a back seat to politics in SD, which takes a back seat to the $.

    I giggle at claims of moral authority.

    I also giggle because we have legal cannabis (even if it is just medical).

    Will the anti-freedom lobby try to roll back medical?

    Will they be angry when it’s not the cash cow they thought it would be?


  6. Having family in the Portland OR area and seeing what a mess the homeless population has made of that city, it’s impossible to visit and not ask “what the hell happened?” This is what they told me:
    In 2015 they legalized recreational marijuana.It seemed like a good idea at the time; they envisioned the local population smoking in their own homes and still going to work every day, being productive members of the community. But unemployed mentally ill people from other locations came for the drugs and stayed for the soup kitchens. The rest: the panhandling, the homeless encampments, and the piles of trash everywhere all followed.

    1. So, there wasn’t a homeless problem in Portland before hand?

      Is there any credible research backing this up? Cite a source?

      There is a fallacy of reasoning that says, “after this, therefore because of this.”

      The culture of Portland among other things resulted in the mess that is there.

      The repression of cannabis consumers for nearly 100 years also likely pent-up the issue (like unclogging a tube).

      Because it wasn’t done nationally like it should have been, legalizing it everywhere, the greedy oligopolies created pressure in the system everywhere it was deregulated/legalized/decriminalized.

      Bad leadership that made it illegal was followed by bad leadership trying to capitalize on cannabis.

      We need federal deregulation and fewer regulations on cannabis. Without that, the cartels simply adjust their business model, file more paperwork, and still cross sell the other drugs (the same problem we had before could get worse, and it has nothing to do with anything inherent in cannabis).

    2. Excellent post Anne! Have a relative who grew up in a family of addiction with Marijuana and alcohol since many are poly drug users. He moved out to Oregon to get access to Marijuana and is now moving out citing the crime is out of control. It’s sad to see what has happened to Oregon and their once beautiful cities like Portland. Too bad we cannot bus all the potheads there. Having those potheads being relocated to Oregon would save South Dakota taxpayers and businesses money.

    3. The idea that the homeless situation in Portland (or Denver or any other city) was *caused* by legal marijuana is just so fantastically stupid.

      1. that seemed to be the start of the problem.
        You could go back further and look at a lack of services for people suffering from mental illness, which causes them to self-medicate with whatever they can get their hands on. But the fact is, Oregon rolled out the weed carpet in 2015.
        Portland also has a temperate enough climate that people can survive outside. My brother said they resist going to homeless shelters because they can’t use drugs in them and they will lose all their “stuff” if they leave their encampments unattended.
        Portland decided to go weird and allow public intoxication, loitering, panhandling, littering, obstruction of the public right of way, indecent exposure (nude bicycling is specifically allowed) and the city has completely gone to hell. Ordinances prohibiting this list of behaviors were probably on the books but they weren’t enforced. Why weren’t they enforced? The other residents were too stoned to care? Enough marijuana and nothing will bother you?
        My niece told me some town in California had loaded up their own homeless in a bus and dropped them off in Portland.

        “You realize, I hope, that it’s the leaders you keep electing who are allowing this,” I said to the assembled dozen or so relatives at a family dinner in 2019. They demurred. They are still voting for Democrats out there, illustrating the wisdom of the adage “every nation gets the government it deserves.”


    41 NO COUNTIES: Aurora, Beadle, Bon Homme, Brule, Butte, Campbell, Charles, Clark, Custer, Davidson, Day, Deuel, Douglas, Edmunds, Faulk, Grant, Gregory, Haaken, Hamlin, Hand, Hanson, Harding, Hutchingson, Hyde, Jackson, Jerauld, Jones, Kingsbury, McCook, McPherson, Mellete, Minor, Perkins, Sanborn, Spink, Stanley, Sully, Tripp, Turner, Walwertz = 60% of the popular votes were NO !!

    ***Total Voter Registrations of these 45 Counties = 132,849 voters or 3,240 per county

    21 YES COUNTIES: Bennett, Brookings, Brown, Buffalo, Clay, Codington, Corson, Dewey, Fall River, Hughes, Lake County, Lawrence, Lincoln, Lyman, Marshal, Meade, Minnehaha, Moody, Oglala, Pennington, Robert, Todd, Union, Yankton, Ziebach = 57% of the Popular Vote were YES VOTES !!

    *** Total Voter Registrations of these 21 Counties = 454,188 voters or 18,167 per county
    Includes: Watertown, Sioux Falls, Rapid City, Canton, Aberdeen, Brookings

    What does the Meade County Public Vote, held on August 30th mean for the upcoming November Election to Fully Legalize Marijuana in South Dakota?

    Up for Public Vote was a measure to expand Medical Marijuana Dispensaries across the County itself, of which the county adopted an ordinance which allows for only one dispensary

    According to Deb Holland, of the Black Hills Pioneer, ” Last year, the Meade County Commission passed Ordinance 53 concerning the issuance of new medical cannabis establishment licenses and determined they would consider all qualified applications in the order they were received, but only award one medical marijuana dispensary license at cost of $125,000…That was done and awarded to Puffy’s LLC who will do business on Highway 79 just north of its intersection with Highway 34.”

    On July 5 of this year, the Meade County Auditor’s Office received an initiative petition containing the required 1,009 signatures asking to amend the county’s ordinance on medical cannabis establishments. Of which, the petitioners are asking to amend the county’s ordinance and award three dispensary licenses as well as three licenses for cultivation facilities, three for cannabis testing facilities and three for cannabis product manufacturing facilities. The county’s original ordinance didn’t offer any licenses for cultivation, testing or product manufacturing.

    The drafted proposal would have amended the Meade County ordinance by changing the distance between businesses, by allowing 3 dispensaries (rather than one), while allowing for at least 3 establishments each regarding Cultivation, Manufacturing, Testing Facilities.

    On August 30th – the voters went to the polls, voting 1,426 to 719 against to not expand upon the number of establishments, let alone the changes to distance between them. A total number of 2,145 ballots were requested, and received, of which the number of registered voters within the county as reported by the South Dakota Secretary of State as of August 1st, was 19,610 of which shows a 10.9% voter turnout on the issue itself.

    The Meade County Vote may present a clear and present opinion of how the majority of the citizens of the State may feel regarding the topic of Marijuana itself, Whether you support full legalization or not, what is clearly evident, that there seems to be a stark contrast in full legalization versus simply permitting people to to use the plant for medical purposes. While 54% of the voters approved of Amendment A back in 2020, what is evident, is when you analyze the county vote, nearly 62.1% of all 66 South Dakota Counties overwhelmingly voted against adopting Amendment A.

    In the Forty-One Counties of which voted collectively not to legalize Marijuana, the results showed that 60% of all voters who showed up, voted against legalization of Marijuana in its entirety within those counties. While in contrast, on the matter of Medical Marijuana, allowing a small, select few citizens the permission to utilize marijuana for medical purposes, 67.3% of the counties collectively voted to approve of the measure.

    South Dakotans seem to be very complex on the issue of Marijuana itself – on one hand, they approve of using it as a ‘medical drug’, but on the other hand, they disapprove of allowing it to be fully legal.

    Where do we stand today, according to the South Dakota Secretary of State, there are 587,037 registered voters in the state, of which 132,849 registered voters reside within the 41 counties of which all voted against Amendment A a few years ago. To compare that to the six most populated counties of the State – Minnehaha 128,355 voters, Pennington 84,479 voters, Lincoln 43,075 voters, Brown 24,362 voters, Brookings 19,900 voters, and Codington 17,456 voters, clearly – of the twenty-one counties who all voted “yes” on Amendment A, they have a clear and present majority of registered voters @ 454,188.

    It does not take a scientist to determine where many of the Petitioned Signatures derive from during nominating petitions to get ballot questions on the ballot ahead of the November 2022 Election.

    If history can provide any evidence as to how many ‘voters’ will show up in November of 2022, we can predict at least 62.5% of the voters, or 366,898 will vote in the Midterm Elections.

    A far greater percentage of voters clearly show up to vote in the rural counties, that is obvious by the closeness of that ‘vote’ during the 2020 results on Amendment A, cause in 21 Counties, of which most likely support full legalization of marijuana, they have the numbers, but practically got out voted by the other 45 Counties, which kept the results as close as they ended up.

    Knowing that in those 45 counties, 60% of all voters who did vote, all voted No on Amendment A, while in the 21 counties who voted in favor of Amendment A, that popular vote was at 57% per county.

    The “swing counties” on the issue of Marijuana tend to be Codington, Fall River, Hughes, Lake County, Lyman, Meade, Moody, Beadle, Day, and Jackson – all of which the results were more 50-50. So that narrows possible “YES” counties 14, as compared to 38 for the counties who clearly voted against legalization of Marijuana.

  8. Regarding the 2020 County Vote on Amendment A:

    60% of the Voters who voted on Amendment A in 38 Counties voted “NO”

    57% of the Voters who voted on Amendment A in the 21 Counties voted “YES”

    12 Counties had 50-50 Results where in 8 of them, the voters slightly Voted “YES”, whereas 4 Slightly voted “NO’

    Take away the 12 Counties – a large majority of the State of South Dakota voted NOT to legalize Marijuana – 38 Counties to 13 which shows nearly 75% of the people clearly do not support “Full Legalization” of Marijuana.

    Ironically, Meade County is one of the 12 Counties who very slightly voted YES to adopt Amendment A, however, when it came to loosening up the rules concerning Medical Marijuana, only 10% of the Registered Voters actually showed up, presenting a clear evidence that the “Voters” may NOT support Marijuana at all. You would think, if the voters were such heavy lifters for Recreational Marijuana, they would come out in full force.

Comments are closed.