South Dakotans knew exactly what they were voting for in Amendment ‘A’

by

I only got one prediction correct this election season, that Amendment ‘A’ for Recreational Mary would pass with 52-54% of the vote. Before Tuesday many asked me what I based that number on. It was simple. Amendment A has been polling since July at around 51%. I figured since that polling number stayed consistent over that many months it would pass. I added the extra percentage points because some people tend to lie about voting for making drugs legal. I know, weird!

What I want to remind legislators, unlike their argument for repealing IM22, South Dakotans knew what they were voting for with Rec Mary. It is a drug that used to be legal in this country about 80 years ago Federally. It is also a plant that has been used for thousands of years throughout the world. Trust me, when South Dakotans said they want this, they want it, it should not be misconstrued. Every state so far that has moved towards legalization has NOT overturned their position, there is a reason for that.

I have no doubt the Fascist Republican Party that now has an overwhelming majority in the State Legislature will regulate the piss out of it virtually making it unavailable in a dispensary, but the good news is you will still be able to possess it, use it and grow it. I expect the only retail to cash in on legalization will be hardware stores, since many people will be gardening from home.

I think it is foolish for the state or local entities to deny dispensaries because they will be missing out on the sales tax revenue. I also think this will just drive people to buy from the black market (these folks don’t pay taxes).

It is hard to understand how South Dakotans can do something so smart as legalize a pretty harmless drug, but continue to vote for legislators who want to take away our other rights. But if our lawmakers try to F’ck with Amendment ‘A’ like they did with IM22, there will be Hell to pay.

Is Amendment ‘A’ a ‘Secret Plot’ to ban gun ownership in South Dakota?

by

If you thought the lies the radical right wingnuts were spreading about Pat Starr were outrageous, it gets even better. While they may not be lying about what the ATF says about marijuana drug use, I have to say this is a pretty big steeretcccch;

In the current version of form 4473, on the BATF website, Question 21e, it asks firearm purchasers “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”

First off folks, whether recreational Mary Jane becomes legal in our state or not, I’m sure it will have ZERO affect on gun owners who currently use or will use in the future. It would be like telling out-of-state hunters we won’t issue them licenses anymore if they are drinking while hunting or enjoying some ‘ladies of the night’ after the hunt. I can just hear Bob the Banker from West Virginia, “Do you think I come to South Dakota every year to hunt a dumb Chinese bird that tastes like crap!? I come to hunt alright, but it’s a different kind of tail.”

So while the law may be factual and true, I doubt many gun owners will be calling the ATF to let them know that they are now buying pot legally instead of off the black market.

This is the kind of ridiculous crap the extreme radical right opposition cooks up, and what makes it even more funny is they think it will deter people. The people who already think like you are already voting against Amendment A, guns or not.

But hey, as I told someone today, one more reason to vote for Amendment A; Gun Control. And I would rather see more pot plants and less guns in our state any day of the week.

Both Marijuana Measures likely to pass in South Dakota

by

The polls seem to be where they were this summer. I heard about internal polling this summer that put Rec at about 51% and Medical in the 70% approval range. It seems much has NOT changed. Why? I think most people in this country and even in South Dakota have long standing views on legalization. Whether it happens in November or sometime Nationally in the near future, it is inevitable. While Medical has a high approval rating and likely will pass, I think the legislature will chop this initiative to pieces and basically make it nearly impossible for people to get it for medical reasons. And if Rec passes, it is a constitutional amendment so the legislature can only have the power to regulate that legalization. What I think most cities across the state will do is not allow dispensaries. I have a feeling if there is even any dispensaries in South Dakota, you will probably be limited to a shack on a county gravel road. I think this is foolish, because not only could major cities benefit from the business, small towns could also.

Let’s face it, Marijuana will be legalized Nationwide in less than 10 years. If South Dakota has an opportunity to do it early, I think they should;

Recreational (Amendment A)

51% Approve, 44% Disapprove and 5% are undecided. I think this will pass, but it will be close and there are NO guarantees cities will allow dispensaries, but you will be allowed to have your own plants.

Medical (IM26)

74% Approve, 23% Disapprove and 3% are undecided. This will pass, but I think the legislature will tinker with it.

Vote Yes on Amendment A & 26

by

I’m encouraging everyone to vote for these two items on the ballot in November.

My endorsement probably doesn’t mean a hill of beans, because I think most people have their minds made up about legalization.

The South Dakota Chamber has been leading a Bullsh*t campaign from the beginning. Why? Because rumor has it that internal polling done by the Chamber shows Medical has broad support. I’m not sure what Rec is polling but my guess is if Medical is doing that well, Rec probably is also.

So why the fight on one and not the other? Besides the polling, even if 26 passes, it is just an initiative and the Legislature can overturn it. If Rec passes, the legislature cannot touch it because ‘A’ is a constitutional amendment.

But what probably scares the Chamber even more is that the Amendment dictates how much of the the tax revenue goes towards education. In other words, the legislature can’t raid the fund like they did when they increased sales taxes for teacher pay.

Whether you use or not, here are some important things to consider, and one of the main reasons I support both measures; It will save taxpayers millions each year in justice and legal costs and will generate millions in tax revenue, not just for education but for the general fund. Better Schools. Better Roads. Better Courts.

The ‘social cost’ of usage probably won’t change much under our current system of black market, instead as taxpayers we will finally reap the benefits of making it legal.

Don’t be fooled by a bunch of pencil pushers at the Chamber. Decriminalization is sweeping the country, it’s only inevitable nationwide, we might as well get a jump on it now.

I believe Recreational Marijuana will pass

by

I have been saying for quite awhile that I think recreational will pass in November, but maybe not medical. BUT, it is important for medical to pass also so children with severe cases of epilepsy can get treatment without the high of THC. Recreational can only be sold to those 21 and older.

I have joked with people, Recreational will pass similar to Trump becoming president, people support it and will vote for it, but they won’t tell anyone. I think polling will be way off on the topic. I also think opposition to recreational is going to have a hard time arguing against these benefits;

But 2020 is a long way away from 2010 when it comes to marijuana policy. As we’ve noted, dozens of states have reformed their laws and the world didn’t come to an end. Some have tapped into the revenue source of legal, taxed marijuana. The measure that voters here will consider includes a requirement that marijuana be taxed at 15%, half of which is earmarked for public education.

Besides the tax, you also have to take into account that we will no longer be paying for crimes associated with marijuana. This could be upwards of $100 million dollar windfall to the state with the savings and additional tax money involved. We can bitch all we want about the negative of Rec Mary Jane, but the tax revenue will be significant, especially since Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wyoming and Minnesota don’t have legal weed. Yes, they will be crossing the border to buy it.

When he ran the medical marijuana campaign a decade ago, Emmett Reistroffer recalls that he had scant resources. The campaign raised about $100,000 in cash, and Reistroffer had about $200,000 in in-kind contributions from supporters. It wasn’t enough to mount a serious statewide campaign, especially when the issue was drowned out by political spending in the U.S. House and governor’s races.

Today, the Sioux Falls native works as a consultant in the industry, based out of Las Vegas. Reistroffer said he hopes to play a role in this year’s election by raising funds for the legalization effort. If the campaign can raise $1 million by June, he thinks it might have a shot.

“This is not a slam dunk,” he said.

I helped Emmett with his efforts a decade ago. Promoting the campaign on the blog and assisting in graphic design. I knew in my heart it would fail, but we were all pretty surprised it only failed by a slim margin.

While I think SD has gotten more conservative in the neither lands outside of Sioux Falls, I think Sioux Falls is much more progressive and could carry this measure. I also believe that there is probably more Republicans that smoke pot than Democrats (well because there are more of them). I don’t think the public is naive on this topic. I think most agree that when it comes to mind altering drugs, marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, not as harmful physically and natural. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure that out.

I once heard a comedian ask the question, “Please raise your hand if you think marijuana is more harmful than bacon?” No one raised their hands, and he quips, “What? No bacon defenders?” So if this passes, I might just start a new business selling marijuana infused bacon. We all need to live a little – right?