T O P
[deleted]

[удалено]


crazybluegoose

Even then, they will only follow that law as far as they have to.


Spoonie_Luv_

...which is not at all. States can always add restrictions on top of federal laws. Alcohol stayed illegal in the South for decades after it was federally legalized in 1933.


VerticalYea

God forbid, imagine what the South would be like if they hadn't held onto prohibition for all of those years!


Matthias987

Probition agents use to work with KKK because the KKK saw alcohol as a vice that degrade man. So what would happen was that the Klan would go to these illegal bars beat everyone to a bloody pulp and then the probition agent would come in. Also the South banned alcohol in alot of if not all of its states before probition.


kbig22432

I’m reading *The Hot Kid* by Elmore Leonard and I deals with this in a portion of the book. If you’re into Justified I’d recommend.


cklaiber01

True there are some counties today in the south that are still completely dry. Idk if you just can’t but alcohol there or you can’t have it at all.


Beneficial2

It just makes people drive farther to get it. A bad combination.


HereToStirItUp

The Jack Daniel’s factory is in a dry county. Seriously.


badbrotha

....Because Jack Daniel's owns Lynchburg and wants you to only buy Jack Daniel's. Can literally buy JD as a gift in nearly every store. I drive through Lynchburg often.


DragoonDM

Fairly certain you can still have and drink alcohol in dry counties, you just can't sell it.


Succulentmeditator

In TN some dry town restaurants would let you BYOB (no “corking fee” BS either); I’ve seen people bring a cooler full of beer in for dinner and live music while someone passed around moonshine marshino cherries.


translinguistic

In certain Mississippi counties up until the beginning of this year, even possessing it was illegal.


gex80

Gonna need a source specifically saying that possession is illegal. Sales sure. But possession I don't believe


translinguistic

It's wild, but prohibition just officially ended in MS this year. While most counties had already voted to allow possession and form of sale, the state actually [doubled-down in their state codes as of a few years ago](https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-67/chapter-1/section-67-1-3/) regarding prohibition. Jurisdictions have only been able to vote on their own alcohol laws [since 1966.](https://mississippiencyclopedia.org/entries/prohibition/) [https://www.wdam.com/2020/07/03/sen-filliangane-discusses-bill-allowing-alcohol-possession-miss-counties/](https://www.wdam.com/2020/07/03/sen-filliangane-discusses-bill-allowing-alcohol-possession-miss-counties/) Here is a state senator describing the previous situation. [http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2020/pdf/HB/1000-1099/HB1087SG.pdf](http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2020/pdf/HB/1000-1099/HB1087SG.pdf) There's the actual bill that just went into effect. If you see some of those \*\*\*'s and search for the sentence in previous versions of the law, you can see that what was \*\*\*''d out was "possession". "However, from and after January 1, 2021, prohibition is renounced as to the possession of alcoholic beverages. It shall thereafter be lawful to possess alcoholic beverages throughout the state, unless otherwise prohibited in this chapter. Nothing herein shall be construed to make lawful the possession of alcoholic beverages with the intent to sell except as authorized under this chapter." [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/90-years-later-prohibition-officially-ending-in-mississippi/2020/07/02/19f02478-bcb0-11ea-97c1-6cf116ffe26c\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/90-years-later-prohibition-officially-ending-in-mississippi/2020/07/02/19f02478-bcb0-11ea-97c1-6cf116ffe26c_story.html) And a good summary. You can check out the [MS wet/dry map](https://www.dor.ms.gov/sites/default/files/ABC/ABC%20Wet%20Dry%20Map%20Liquor%202021%20Most%20Recent%20July%2027%202021%20(1).png), which is outdated, and look deeper into the laws of those counties that are still dry for \_sales\_; they might still say that possession is illegal but may have already been amended.


BrowalkWinbama

You can't buy it, but you can have it in your possession.


FuzzyBacon

Including the county jack Daniels is made in.


Darryl_Lict

Craziest thing is people drive to the next county to get drunk and then drive home.


Almighty_Sand_Dollar

Have fun being the 3 loser States who refuse tax money and have no weed available when the surrounding 47 others have it


Rac3318

By the South you mean Mississippi which repealed prohibition in 1966. It was the only dry state left in the south after 1939. There are still dry counties still in existence but all dry states repealed their prohibition statutes simultaneously with the federal repeal or relatively shortly after.


WashuOtaku

Or they can ignore federal law like the states that have legalized marijuana.


Pete-PDX

Only because the Fed policy was to turn a blind eye and work with the states See two memos written under the Obama administration [by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden in 2009, provided guidelines for states that had legalized marijuana for medical purposes](https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/memorandum-selected-united-state-attorneys-investigations-and-prosecutions-states) [2013, Deputy Attorney General James Cole published a memo,regarding both medical and recreational marijuana.](https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf) the feds were still raiding "illegal" grows in legal state after these memo were released


Hungry_Pack

Legal to buy. In my state, Maine, we have medical and recreational. Thing is, employment drug tests include THC analytics and you can't own a gun given the federal application.


Underlord_Fox

No, they don’t ignore them exactly. There are just multiple laws that co-exist. For example, in CA, folks who are following State laws will get busted by the Feds if they attract their attention by doing things like growing in national forests or transporting over state boundaries.


g1ngertim

Or entering federal facilities. Went to the passport office in Seattle, and they stopped everyone outside the door, telling them very clearly that possession once inside is a crime, and they will be arrested.


RubberPny

I suspect that SD and Idaho will be the last states to legalize it.


Kondrias

The legislature at least. This was literally a voter passed ammendment by 54%. The populace want it legalized. The legislators do not.


SuddenClearing

Too bad voters are stupid and don’t know what they actually want 🤷‍♀️


LoganJFisher

PA will legalize it but have the dumbest possible laws restricting the sale of it.


NoesHowe2Spel

You're forgetting about Indiana.


NaiveFan537

Add Tennessee to that list our elected officials have already stated it will not be decriminalized or legalized until it is done on a federal level


[deleted]

La considering the Sheriff's association has a major pull and private prisons in Louisiana government.


philrelf

NH would like a word


zzyul

Most red states will keep weed illegal even if the Fed gov’t removes it from their illegal classification. Only way Fed can make states allow it is to either make it a constitutional amendment or possibly try to withhold federal funds for something like roads or education to force states to legalize it.


datank56

I always found the red state position on drugs to be out of sync with their other positions. It's a textbook "nanny state" position, which they're usually against (not always, obviously). All of the "my freedom" arguments support letting people choose for themselves. It tracks along similar lines as the current pandemic debate in some ways. Individual choice (do whatever you want personally) vs public health ("think of the harm your individual actions have on public health, and the vulnerable!") Perhaps the movement to legalize should frame the argument in a way to get most people on board: personal deregulation. Get rid of the many cumbersome rules placed on individual behavior, especially those that have shown no benefit to the public at large. Distribution would still be illegal, but personal consumption would not.


shootemupy2k

Are you expecting some kind of logical consistency from conservatives?


rossimus

>I always found the red state position on drugs to be out of sync with their other positions. >It's a textbook "nanny state" position, which they're usually against The truth of the matter is, no matter what a conservative tells you, everyone like Big Government. Everyone. People just differ in what that Big Government looks like. Wanting the government to regulate child birth is Big Government. Subsidizing agriculture is Big Government. A powerful military is Big Government. Drug prohibition is Big Government. Medicare, social security, state funded college football programs, regulating protests, are all things that are popular in Red States among Conservatives, but are all instances of Big Government.


ryantrw5

Republicans talk about freedom from government control but republicans literally want to restrict people the most. Democrats basically just want laws regarding businesses and money and making sure things are fair. They still kind of suck because politicians are easily bought and what not.


NetworkLlama

Resistance among state Republicans is weakening. In Texas this year, HB441 would have reduced possession of weed up to one ounce to a Class C misdemeanor, which doesn't allow for jail time, and would prohibit arrests for up to one ounce. The bill had three Republican sponsors (and 14 Democrats) and passed the state House 88-40. It didn't get to the floor of the Senate, unfortunately, but that House vote is very different from previous attempts from just a few years ago, where such bills usually didn't even make it out of committee.


Brave_Development_17

Conservative Oklahoma. Weed, Gambling, Liquor, Guns, Meth, and Abortions!


ComfortableProperty9

All brought to you by ballot initiatives, a thing we don’t have in Texas.


Spoonie_Luv_

Mississippi legalized alcohol in 1966.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ComfortableProperty9

There is a saying in Texas, “thank God for Mississippi”. It’s usually used when stats on things like infant mortality and education are brought up because without Mississippi, Texas would be dead last.


hapithica

Biden could just reschedule it, make it schedule ii


ChromeFlesh

Biden could deschedule it if he wanted


Maxpowr9

Depends if tobacco is big in those red states. Tobacco usage is declining but they could easily switch over to marijuana.


groveborn

The feds will keep it illegal until the Republicans get onboard, so when they organize, so too well the red states.


Lurkingandsearching

Funny enough the libertarian arm of Republicans are pushing to legalize right now with moderate and progressive Democrats, but Biden is against it. We had a few stories about it weeks ago.


groveborn

Bidens entire career hinges on his laws that punished communities that police invaded for small amounts of weed.


Pete-PDX

who is the libertarian arm of the Republican party? Anyhow there was a bill sponsored by Nancy Mace from South Carolina about a week ago. It is not a legalization bill it is a decriminalization bill that would prevent the feds from interfering in states laws concerning legalization. That is what pretty much what we have now with out the law. In addition to that - The bill would levy a 3% federal excise tax on all cannabis products, proceeds from which would go to small businesses, retraining law enforcement and mental health services, among other services. The measure would also expunge nonviolent, cannabis-only related offenses. All of six republican in the house supported the bill and she got huge push back from Republicans in South Carolina You know many libertarians who support a 3% federal tax?


sevargmas

Texan here. I assure you it isn’t going to legal here anytime soon. These mofos will prob enact some state legislation to ban it even if the feds legalize.


TheMagicJankster

I fucking hate iowa


AccordingDimension98

I guess these holdout states don’t like endless tax revenue.


phantom363

Don’t tell that to those gents on Mt Rushmore. They have been stoned for years.


thatoneguy889

>The court sided with those arguments, ruling that the measure would have violated the state’s requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject and would have created broad changes to state government. By that logic, there will never be another constitutional amendment because that argument can be *easily* applied to basically every piece of legislation ever. Edit: Is this requirement part of the state constitution? Because if it is, it would be impossible to remove simply by enforcing its own requirement (i.e. it's self-perpetuating).


bohanmyl

Im pretty sure Nebraska did the same shit to cancel the vote on Medical Marijuana after the people got a petition and enough votes to put it on the ballot.


mouseman420

Yes we did fuck Pete Ricketts and his republican goons in this state.


santha7

Yes. This is exactly what happened. Deep pockets came in a this is exactly how things went down. The minority continues to rule on the one.


YesterdayBeautiful14

My friend recently catered at an event that Ricketts was at, so he spit in his tables lemonade pitcher and rubbed his earwax around the rim of the water pitcher, we take our revenge where we can get it.


slimGinDog

I love your friend; not all heroes wear capes.


MentORPHEUS

No respect for passive-aggressively ADULTERATING FOOD. That crosses a bright line.


dirtyego

Dude SoDak is fucked. A sheriff voted for by the people used tax payer money to defeat an amendment approved by the people. The stupid thing is that the one subject amendment can actually swing either way. You can say that this amendment broadly fits under the one subject of recreational marijuana or you can go the other way and say that since it addresses tax revenue it is no longer only about recreational marijuana. The single subject amendment is just a sneaky way for the SoDak government to shoot down anything they don't like regardless of how the voters feel.


WallaWallaPGH

>A sheriff voted for by the people used tax payer money to defeat an amendment approved by the people. Followed by praising the Court for "upholding the will of the people". >Thom, who is the sheriff in the state’s second-most populated county, pointed out that the ruling actually upheld a previous constitutional amendment, passed by voters in 2018, that requires constitutional amendments contain a single subject. >"It is critically important to defend our state constitution, and I appreciate the High Court clarifying these issues,” he said in a statement. “**I am pleased the Court sided with me in upholding the will of the voters.”**. No doubt the Sheriff sees zero irony in this.


thisispoopoopeepee

Then get rid of everything doing with taxes and simply legalize it. Figure out taxes later.


dirtyego

I get the feeling if the next amendment was simply "Recreational marijuana will be legal on December 25, 2022." they would throw it out for some reason. Saying the amendment was impossible to implement due to missing details. The fact of the matter is the current SoDak government will not allow citizens to legalize marijuana as a ballot measure. From sheriffs to state representatives to judges to the governor, GOP runs this state.


mces97

Just contact the same people, get the signatures needed, and only say, we want marijuana to be legal. Done. I know still an uphill battle but the people do want this.


dirtyego

this is what they did. they drafted up new bills that to get on the ballot for this year, but I haven't heard anything about them. it could have been because this one was in limbo so they didn't want to risk introducing more bills that would possibly jeopardize the original one. Either way, seeing the first attempt struck down certainly disenfranchised some people.


MelaniasHand

It’s a huge expensive effort to collect signatures, and they don’t record who signed. It’s a big setback, especially since some previous volunteers will feel disheartened and not repeat the effort.


BishmillahPlease

That’s the point, I think.


fafalone

You know they're going to be extremely selective in interpreting single subject. If it's something far right conservatives support, it can change as many things as it wants. It's like the commerce clause. Courts pick an outcome, then adjust the explanation. They want one outcome, there's a high bar for direct interstate action. They want another outcome, they can use the *Wickard/Raich* chaos theory of interstate effect where something you grow on your own land for your own use is interstate because otherwise you might have bought it from someone else who might have been involved in an interstate market and thus you're impacting that market. Under the latter analysis level, literally everything is interstate commerce. But that kind of extreme indirect theoretical effect is only used for things like upholding pot prohibition, otherwise conservatives use a definition that actually makes sense. So too for this single subject rule.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FrankTank3

And this is why lawyers have been called spineless sophists since the word sophist was invented to describe lawyers.


BasroilII

Dude, having 15 things in a bill that have NOTHING to do with its main subject is practically an American tradition. Them using this as an excuse is just pathetic. Of course, what's hilarious is the people of this state voted on this, and their governor overturned them. Wanna bet they re-elect him next term?


Copyright-Bot

The point is to erode democracy and the will of the people. We are, and have been, in the era of the ruling class for a while now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


valleyman02

The few control the many


arealhumannotabot

It *is* funny how politics will get in the way, but then at some point, just vanish. There was this big deal made in the media at one point about how Canada legalizing cannabis would violate treaties. For a minute, it seemed like there was this giant obstacle and it might severely delay the process. Then it just stopped being an issue.


[deleted]

[удалено]


angiosperms-

It's ridiculously dumb that "weed is banned" is even in their constitution and requires an amendment lmao, wtf?


ThreadbareAdjustment

There's no constitutional ban on weed. They're just trying this route because they'll never get it legalized via the legislature.


I-Am-Uncreative

Seriously, where was this logic with their victim's "rights" amendment? I'm tired of judges picking and choosing how broad a law is.


CaptZurn

Unless it deals with firearms, cuz everyone needs to carry at least 2 on themselves when they go out for milk and bread. At least that’s what republicans tell me.


HolyMolyitsMichael

Well you need one to kill the cow to get the milk, and the 2nd to knead the dough when you make bread it's simple food science once you get a hold of it


DreamsAndSchemes

> knead the dough like....do you shoot it or do you place the stock in the dough and knead with recoil because i'm trying to work this out


pokeybill

Rubber bullets, three round burst, repeat every 10s for 5 minutes. Remove rubber and bake until golden brown.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gotham77

Yeah there’s a whole bunch of ignorance and stupidity in the comments here. The people who wrote the ballot question fucked up. Those who challenged it in court might have been motivated by a desire to keep cannabis illegal, but the fault here lies with those who wrote the ballot question for not properly doing their homework and writing it carefully to prevent this. Once it was in front of the court the outcome was practically guaranteed. It happened in my state on a very popular ballot initiative, too. The proponents tried again a year later and got it successfully passed by being a lot more careful about how they wrote it this time.


SCirish843

"We're a lawless tax haven...no not like that"


superwalrus80

By the people, for the people, and of the people doesn't seem to apply here.


vanishplusxzone

See also: when Ohio voters passed a law to curb gerrymandering by a massive margin and it was fought and then sabotaged by Republicans.


dougiefresh22

That shit just happened in Utah as well. The people voted for an independent commission to create a new voting district map. However, the bill was worded so that the legislature could still overrule the independent commission, which they just did in favor of a heavily gerrymandered map they created themselves. The governor refused to veto it. They fucked around with marijuana legalization the same way. The people voted in favor, but the legislature decided they knew better and gutted what was actually voted for. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people seems to be not so popular nowadays.


TouchAltruistic

The government is only "by" the people who vote and who permit it to continue as is. But it is only "of" the people who hold office. The issue of whether or not the government is for the people is undecided at this time.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bushwhack227

The people also voted in these judges. They also voted for the governor who initiated the lawsuit. Maybe they should vote more carefully next time.


BasroilII

It's for the rich people.


bionix90

The government is definitely for the people. But only a certain type of people. The people with corporate personhood.


badasscdub

Absolutely absurd, just completely ignoring the will of the people. Total bullshit.


zzyul

The people voted for Republicans who have always been anti weed. They can’t get upset that the people they voted into office are continuing to govern the way they said they would during campaigns. To voters in SD stopping Dems and their agenda is more important than legal weed so that is what they are getting.


badasscdub

well let the SD board of tourism know I won't be visiting anytime soon.


Dpentoney

As if they have a board of tourism lol. (Joking, obviously they do… probably)


MinnesotaPower

The dominant culture in places like SD is like this. Even though opponents have literally nothing to lose from legalization, they gave it 5 seconds of thought and decided to stop it because it doesn't benefit them directly. Watch, it will get voted on next year, and they'll pull the same stunt: "Well, the voters didn't specify whether danks or mids should be legalized. Technically two different things, guess it's invalid! Better luck next year."


nsfwuseraccnt

The next time they put it to a vote it should just be to make it completely legal without all of the bullshit regulations attached. Just make it as legal as lettuce for anyone over 18.


PaxNova

> legal as lettuce Tightly controlled under recall potential from the FDA, with regular samples sent for government testing.


serpentrepents

Sounds like a good plan to me!


Homura_Dawg

Sounds... Ideal...?


nsfwuseraccnt

That sounds great. It should be treated almost the same as any other agricultural product.


Spetznazx

I would assume any new substance consumption laws will have an age starting at 21 since that is what cigarettes are at now too.


ThreadbareAdjustment

That won't pass. North Dakota voted down such a law because it was really open and would've led to the most lax marijuana laws in the country. They'll probably vote for it with a better written ballot measure next year though.


Fuzzy_darkman

Yes how dare we enact something that the people voted for.....seriously SD, get your shit together. You're losing out on potential billions, along with having a strong alternative to opioids.


TheMagicJankster

That's incredibly undemocratic of them


oasisjason1

Absolutely no drugs here in South Dakota! Wait, are we still hosting that huge meth/coke/heroin/booze filled month long biker rally?


BitterFuture

Well. That's some crazy-ass nonsense. And just more proof that the conservatives who scream about "activist judges" actually love them.


Morley10

We in Iowa are in the same boat. The medical marijuana law is a joke. You gotta pay for authorization after you are okayed by a doctor. People are driving to Illinois to get it and risk prosecution if you bring it back to Iowa.


Justarandom_Joe

And there’s about a 100% chance the people of South Dakota will vote for the exact same people(Republicans) who took this to court to keep it illicit the next time. There will be zero repercussions for the elected Republicans who challenged this ballot initiative in court based on implementing state religion. What’s left of the United States is an absolute sham of democracy.


Ice_Inside

Absolutely. In 2016 the people passed a constitutional amendment to end lobbying in the state. It's documented through political contributions that the Koch brothers dumped a ton of money into the state trying to get people to vote against it. It overwhelmingly passed, but then the state legislatures held an emergency session to overturn the amendment. Of course the voters put the same people back in office the next election cycle.


Justarandom_Joe

This is a demonstrable real world case of an electorate actually voting against their own self interest when it involves a direct issue that they voted in favor of, being sued out of existence by the same government they elected to represent the will of the people. This is a sham democracy.


djarvis77

>“We do things right — and how we do things — matters just as much as what we are doing.” Apparently they can't put the question to the people in a proper fucking format though. I mean, did anyone look at the ballots before sending them out and say "Hey, this Marijuana question would be struck down."? Obviously not, because the question ended up on the ballot. Who even writes the questions for the ballots? And who determines if they are just pulling a bait and switch on the people? Seems like the buck stops with Noem. Seems like she fucked up. She looked at the ballot question and thought, "ok they'll pass that and i'll sue"...instead of "i'll make sure the question is put the proper way". So no, they don't do things right, and it seems as if it doesn't really matter to Noem that they don't.


BitterFuture

>So no, they don't do things right, and it seems as if it doesn't really matter to Noem that they don't. She is, after all a Republican. Of course she doesn't engage in good governance. That would be antithetical to her entire purpose.


TommyTuttle

The court’s logic is simple: ballot measures can only deal with a single issue, and legalizing marijuana is three issues. One substance: weed. One action: legalize it. They count three issues. Since “Marijuana shouldn’t be illegal” is 3 separate issues you need three ballot measures 🤷‍♂️ Their rationale: Medicinal vs recreational reasons for smoking it, same substance, same action, slightly different reasons, “make it legal” can’t be applied to both, it’s totally separate issues requiring separate ballots. I wish I were kidding. That is literally their rationale.


drawkbox

Pass [the MORE Act](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617). Don't elect anyone that won't. This isn't a side issue. This is a major issue as striking down something from the Controlled Substances Act will begin the end of the Drug Dark Age.


ChrisBabaganoosh

You'd think red states, that historically get more federal aid than they produce in taxes, would be chomping at the bit for legal dispensaries that could be taxed. Oh, wait, they want the life-altering fines and free prison labor for weed offenses more.


LowestKey

Gotta keep the US slave trade alive and well.


Godmirra

I’m sure no one at Sturges ever smokes pot.


darthshaver

God, if anybody in the world needs some weed, it's the poor souls who have to live in South Dakota.


Midwest_Dutch_Dude

Lol, it’s really not too bad. Except our awful government


VaderH8er

We got a live one!


jackassjimmy

That’s cause they don’t want anything to cut into opioid and meth sales…🙄


luvgun21

Congratulations South Dakota. Your state government officially doesn’t give a shit what you vote for.


Frozenwood1776

I thought South Dakota believed in freedom and stuff ?


BobNoxious211

Somehow medical hemp, recreational hemp, and industrial hemp are three completely different things. So much horseshit. Rich old white people just refuse to give up ANY control at all. Fuck the Will of the People.


crazybluegoose

Industrial hemp *is* very different. It cannot be used as a recreational drug as it is extremely low in THC. Recreational and Medicinal are typically from the same plants (purchased at the same locations), but do have very specific use cases. Even children can potentially be prescribed THC as a medical treatment. Yes, some people who have the ability to purchase for medical reasons do also use it recreationally, and some who want to use it recreationally find a doctor who will write them an Rx. There are ultimately big differences in the way it is used.


Notlookingsohot

So while you aren't technically wrong, its more nuanced in practice. What is referred to as "industrial hemp" is any Cannabis Sativa plant possessing less than .3% THC. What is referred to as "marijuana", is any Cannabis Sativa possessing more than .3%. So its the same plant, but different cultivars. No reason to justify the hypocrisy of course, but there is a technical difference. --- For anyone thinking this is somehow an unknown loophole federally legalizing indicas, unfortunately no. The full name of indica is Cannabis Sativa var Indica, so its still covered. Also neat tidbit sativas aren't just Cannabis Sativa, they are Cannabis Sativa var Sativa.


Richies11Shelby

Yah keep opioids legal that kill and make a plant that grows naturally in nature illegal. [email protected] Red States and their Stone Age grip on power. Uneducated fools. SD is a shithole state anyway.


AtheismTooStronk

Lmao dude where do you think opium comes from?


CoolLordL21

Great Britain?


fafalone

Technically opioids are only legal for medical use, and SD does have medical marijuana. And the opium poppy is a naturally occurring plant too. Yes few people use raw opium but THC extracts are popular too. Morphine is as natural as THC. Cocaine too. Natural doesn't really mean anything.


BasroilII

Sure, let's tweak the phrasing a bit then, shall we? "Continue to support pharma companies that push excessive and chemically addictive medications onto a population in the name of profit, but make a statistically less harmful recreational product illegal."


Scottie3Hottie

I fully support cannabis legalization and vape a lot of weed, however just because something is natural, doesn't make it automatically good. Just wanted to chime in.


Richies11Shelby

I 100% agree with you. I never said it was good for you. My point is that it is much safer as a pain killer than opiates. There is this Stigma over the use with some people because of the years of propaganda with misinformation. The Government knows this but what we have for Government today is a shiftless bloated carcass of old men and women that have had a grip on power for way to long. Term limits will solve that problem. 2 terms in the Senate 12 yrs 5 terms max in Congress 10 yrs. that will cleanse a lot of these mooching bums out of a job.


Scottie3Hottie

100 percent agree


foreskinfive

\*naturally in nature


Richies11Shelby

Ty Mr Foreskin


[deleted]

[удалено]


Dekion1

Yeah well South Dakota sucks anyway... Source: used to live in Wyoming


Midwest_Dutch_Dude

Ehh it’s really not bad. Plenty of good paying jobs, very affordable to live here, west river is pretty dope, and Sioux Falls isn’t bad. But fuck kristi noem


VerySuperGenius

Surely the legislature will see that a majority of their constituents want legal marijuana and they will draft legislation to make it so?


Ronaldo_Frumpalini

Bunch of scumbags, but apparently you need to call them each a scumbag in an individual comment or it doesn't count.


jpminj

Yet alcohol is legal across all states lol.


Arnumor

What, South Dakota doesn't like money?


stilhere

Oh, they LOVE money. SD is the biggest tax haven in the U.S.


GibbyDat

Minnesota here. Our state officials are against that they just shut it down and won't even let us vote on it because they know it will pass. Democracy is site cool


phatstopher

Fuck We The People and voters... authoritarianism is where it's at


RandomDarkNes

Get rid of South Dakota form one big Dakota and bring Puerto Rico in to keep the 50 states. Problem solved.


darkwingduck487

And to think, that's the type of government some people want running the whole country.


WilderKat

Maybe the people of SD should rethink who they elect.


Bedbouncer

Guess I bought the domain BluntKushmore.com for nothing.


drawkbox

Better yet sell that in other states and SD can just look sad in the corner as others frolic in money and new markets.


ShakeMyHeadSadly

So much for the "will of the people".


toosinbeymen

SoDak, where I was born. Tg I left and never returned. What a woeful place.


Notlookingsohot

"ruling that the measure would have violated the state’s requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject" Same bullshit loophole Florida used in 2020 to keep recreational marijuana off the ballot... Glad the dominos are falling, but fuck just once could we not drag our feet on something?


CouleursCPA

Shithole state doing shithole state things


[deleted]

[удалено]


ThreadbareAdjustment

Kristi Noem is not a man and is not particularly old.


nau5

Well this was started by their 40 year old female governor but sure


Turbobaker4

There's no way that lady is 40. If she is, that's a rough 40.


nau5

She turns 50 in 6 days excuse me


TestDummy987

Need something to put people in jail for. Land of the free.


gotham77

> The high court sided with those arguments in a 4-1 decision, ruling that the measure — Amendment A — would have violated the state’s requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject. Something similar happened in my state where a ballot initiative that looked very popular and was almost certainly going to pass was struck off the ballot for the same reason: it dealt with two questions together when the state constitution clearly prohibits that. It fucking sucks but it’s a legal error by the people who wrote the ballot question the people voted on. But the good news is you can try again, just be sure you write it carefully to comply with the ruling.


Dpentoney

It is absolutely insane to me that I can go buy an ounce from the dispensary a block away from me, but someone a few states away can go to jail carrying that much. (Possible hyperbole, I don’t know SDakota laws)


kingSliver187

Voters will nah fuck that


PubliusDeLaMancha

The world's richest banana republic


7788audrey

How old are those who object to the idea that Voter's don't know what they signed or voted for? How much money is wasted on court trials and imprisonment over pot sales / consumption. SIGH


AgentLiquidMike

Buncha squares I tell ya. Even their state is pretty squarish....


NUMBERSUSED11

So 4 people over ruled the vote of the community- it’s time to remove those people who do not uphold the communities decision.


SeveralAfternoon

South Dakota is a shithole full of cranky people.


[deleted]

Good, because who tf wants to stay in such a shitty place. We should invade, find WMDs, and install a democracy


k_manweiss

South Dakota, where the Governor, Legislators, and Supreme Court continually work to oppose the will of the voters in their own state. The voters in South Dakota hate big government. They hate government overreach. They hate being told what they can and can't do. But they continue to vote for Republicans that continue to overturn the will of the people. The best part is each time they overturn something, they do it by telling everyone that the voters were too dumb to understand what they were voting for.


shaving99

Holy shit the Midwest is backwards as fuck To all my north Dakota homies, we need to vote it in


YungEazy

Red states are so fucking goofy, bunch of fucking losers.


ShadowChicken032

Fam, how do people live in SD without weed. There isn't anything there. With people being able to work remotely now. If they legalized weed, they'd probably get a lot more people moving there, and SD can bring in bundles of more tax money. And the voters voted to legalized it? lol, and Republicans laughed when the Euro thinktank said America was sliding away from democracy.


Aurion7

Have the people of South Dakota ever considered, yknow, *not* electing the Kristi Noems of the world? No? Huh. Well, there's not a lot the rest of us can do about it then. Sound government? Deep red state? Heh. Yeah, no, that's not happening.


Destructicore

Overthrow the state government.


SuperDangerDong69

Boycott South Dakota! This is a direct aversion of Democracy. Their supreme court are bootlickers to the prison industrial complex and are never going to allow any changes to be made unless the rest of the country puts a ton of pressure on them.


DarthBrooks69420

What do you expect? The GOP to actually carry out the will of the people? This would require them to let go of one of their central fuck-you-over-with-no-recourse-whatsoever powers.


Lkmoneysmith

Your allowed to vote in South Dakota? Heh. Who knew.


PlayedUOonBaja

You can vote, but apparently the outcome doesn't really matter.


PhebeSandifer

try harder next time! it will happen anyway one day.


BaconCat42

I'll shove my ballot in the box with a little more force next time. Maybe that'll help.


OppositeFerret9043

If theres 1 place that needs pot right now its south dakota


[deleted]

The People spoke... your government doesn't care what you say. thats messed up.


desantoos

Court document: https://ujs.sd.gov/uploads/sc/opinions/2954698e671a.pdf This ruling's logic requires more contortions than playing Twister at an orgy. Holy fuck. Because it's a thoughtful, comprehensive measure, people might be confused? Are these judges high?


reverielagoon1208

That’s what those dumb hicks in South Dakota get for voting in these cunts (judges are appointed by the governor who the voters elect). Hope they rot


AFX626

That area is full of Republicans who love weed. I bet some of them will become single-issue voters next time around


W_AS-SA_W

They don’t even know that overruling the voters goes against the rule of law. Voters need to get those conservatives out of all state government before it’s too late, before South Dakota turns into Texas.


Method__Man

There are two Dakotas?


ryckae

Surprise surprise, the most boring state.


forcedintothis-

What a bunch of squares.