It was a bummer hearing that SD’s governor and court agreed that the amendment to their Constitution regarding the legal status of cannabis was struck down.
It is a nit picky type of a reason, but the reason is very important to South Dakota. It is a single subject rule for ballot initiatives. I personally find this type of regulation a breath of fresh air. It prevents pork filled extras to these bills, and keeps things simple in the Midwestern state.
In response to the overturning of the voters’ will, cannabis activists filed four more initiatives, should the original amendment maintain its status as not eligible by law.
In my opinion, only one of the proposed bills is worth while, and that is the Constitutional Approach #1. This allows adults to grow 3 plants for personal use, and in homes with more than one adult, six plants would be the cap. This also allows for a retail system to be setup, and does not prevent folks from growing their own even with a retail location nearby.
Constitutional Approach #2 does not legalize retail sales, though that could be enacted later on.
Both Statutory approaches are awful in that both prevent adults from growing their own at home when a dispensary is near their area.
I would also like to see the inclusion of those who have had felonies many years prior and have not had any trouble since. Usually that is set to 10 years since the completion of their sentences.
What do you think? Are the measures sound? Do you see any potential pit falls to them? Leave a comment below, and let’s chat about it!
If the South Dakota Supreme Court declines to overturn a February ruling that nullified a voter-approved marijuana legalization initiative, activists are going to go all-in on the ballot initiative process again to ensure that the reform is enacted in 2022.
Late last week, they filed four separate legalization measures with the state Legislative Research Council—the first step toward putting the issue before voters next year. South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws says the sponsors will drop the proposals if Amendment A, which was approved by voters last November, is fully restored by the state’s high court. But for now, they’re getting the process rolling in case the judiciary doesn’t uphold the will of the electorate.
The four initiatives share some basic provisions, but they each take a unique approach to the policy change. There’s also a fifth measure that the group is backing which would eliminate a single-subject rule for the ballot process—a policy that led to a state judge deeming the 2020 recreational measure unconstitutional.