**Distribution-Free Legalization** Gains Traction in South Dakota as Campaign Navigates Complex Path to Ballot
Bringing South Dakota one step closer to a potential milestone, the attorney general of the state has unveiled a preliminary summary of an initiative aiming to legalize marijuana. Advocates are aiming to place this groundbreaking measure on the ballot for November 2024, but a unique challenge lies in how the proposal is framed. The initiative, driven by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws (SDBML), is in a 10-day public comment period, during which the campaign intends to seek a revision. The present draft suggests that the measure allows for the “distribution” of cannabis, even though the revised initiative intentionally omits a sales component.
This nuanced procedural development underscores the strategic journey of the SDBML’s campaign. The initial plan, submitted in December, intended to permit medical cannabis dispensaries to sell products to adults. However, this aspect was removed to avoid potential legal complications, especially given South Dakota’s requirement for ballot measures to focus narrowly on a single issue.
Attorney General Marty Jackley (R) has labeled the proposed initiative as “An Initiated Measure Legalizing the Possession, Use, and Distribution of Marijuana.” The summary outlines that individuals aged 21 and above can possess, grow, ingest, and distribute marijuana, with specific possession limits. While public areas like schools would remain cannabis-free zones, the initiative maintains that marijuana remains illegal for those under 21 and prohibits driving under its influence.
Nevertheless, the term “distribution” in the draft title has raised significant concerns within the advocacy community. They assert that this term inaccurately implies a regulated sales model, which has been intentionally excluded from the revised initiative. Matthew Schweich, Director of SDBML, emphasizes the need for precision in language, especially given South Dakota’s stringent “single subject rule” for ballot measures.
The initiative’s journey echoes past efforts by the campaign. The pursuit of marijuana legalization via the ballot began in 2020, resulting in voter approval for a constitutional amendment. However, this success was short-lived as the state Supreme Court invalidated the amendment due to a single subject challenge. In 2022, a statutory legalization initiative made it to the ballot but was rejected, attributed to low turnout and limited resources.
The current campaign, poised for signature collection from late September or early October, faces the decisive question of financial support. The campaign’s success depends on securing ample funding to avoid a repeat of 2022’s setbacks. Schweich highlights the critical importance of adequate funding to ensure a robust campaign effort and prevent consecutive defeats.
Critics speculate that the absence of commercial sales provisions might dampen voter motivation for the new initiative. Schweich counters this sentiment, asserting that voters understand the potential for subsequent regulations post-legalization. Despite recent polls suggesting shifting sentiments against the reform, Schweich remains hopeful, pointing to the successful 2020 medical cannabis initiative.
South Dakota’s political landscape continues to evolve. A Republican activist’s recent initiatives seek to repeal the medical cannabis law and prevent the legalization of federally banned substances. South Dakota’s trajectory was influenced by Governor Kristi Noem’s efforts in 2021 to delay the medical cannabis program, which was met with resistance. Subsequent attempts to introduce compromise measures followed, ultimately leading to the renewed pursuit of ballot initiatives by activists.
In 2022, legislative dynamics paved the way for cannabis policy reform discussions, prompting a Marijuana Interim Study Committee’s establishment. This committee recommended legislative consideration of legalization, culminating in a House-defeated bill. The ongoing journey of cannabis reform in South Dakota illustrates the intricate interplay of legal intricacies, public sentiment, and political decision-making.
