Amendment A, the marijuana initiative approved for our vote yesterday by Secretary Barnett, includes one annoying anti-libertarian, pro-corporate provision on growing marijuana. Section 4 Clause 2 allows individuals to grow up to three marijuana plants for personal use. However, it prohibits growing any pot at a private residence “within the jurisdiction of a local government where there is… [a]… licensed retail store where marijuana is available for purchase….”*
That line by itself could be a dealbreaker for me if Section 10 didn’t authorize local governments to allow growing your own pot even if a licensed marijuana dealer sets up shop within your local jurisdiction. But you city council or county commission still has to take action; by default, if some big business moves in and starts peddling pot, you don’t get to grow your own.
That restriction stinks of corporate capture of the marijuana market. Do we ban people from growing tomatoes in their gardens just because Kesslers sells Romas? Do we outlaw homebrew just because our neighbors have paid good money for liquor licenses? The answer to the latter is a remarkable no: under South Dakota law, you can brew up to 200 gallons of malt beverage or wine a year for personal use. (That’s almost four gallons a week; it takes my family almost a full week to get through a gallon of milk.)
The local pre-empt in Section 10 is a relief, but there should be no such blanket restriction favoring big business over regular citizens who want to do a little self-reliant gardening. If Amendment A passes, city councils should get ready for a lot of green-thumbers to come forward asking for permission to grow their own reefer.
Correction 19:55 CST: I originally included the text of condition (c) to Section 4 Clause 2 in total, which says that you can grow your own pot “provided… (c) The private residence is located within the jurisdiction of a local government where there is no licensed retail store where marijuana is available for purchase pursuant to this article.” My original joining of that clause with my original wording about prohibition of private growing misrepresented the effect of the amendment: you can’t grow your own pot if there’s a licensed retail seller in your community unless your local government passes its own ordinance. I apologize for the lack of clarity from that opening paragraph and have amended it to fit the amendment and my subsequent argument.
Your opposition would be akin to rejecting the good because it isn’t the perfect. That type of thinking has ground much of government to a halt.
An Informed Warning: Where would the weed come from that’s going to be sold? Explaining two paradigms. The right way and the California way!
~ All cannabis sold in Colorado must be grown by the seller. It’s highly regulated by a state agency. Each plant is issued a barcode when a seedling and is on continual video surveillance until it’s harvested and eventually sold. A healthy variety of products is the result. The black market has been nearly eliminated except for criminals who grow pot to sell in quantity in other states. The DEA works tirelessly to stop this illegal trade.
~ California sold a dozen middle-man licenses to wholesalers for multi million dollars each. (Think about how Republican Arch Beal controls the Budweiser sales in Sioux Falls.) They have giant factory warehouses where a few generic strains are mass produced. Independent growers must sell to the wholesalers. The growers don’t get paid what their product is worth and the retailers must pay more than the product is worth to the middle-men. The wholesalers (big corporations such as Marlboro, Anheuser-Busch, IBM, etc. have throttled free enterprise to a point that a black market still exists).
Nick’s comment is right on the money. If the main proposal is passed (which seems about as likely as the Minnesota Vikings winning the Superbowl) then a fix in the not to distant future should be relatively easy anyway.
I agree with your comparison, Bear. How many times has this type of ballot proposal already failed? How many times have the Vikes lost the superbowl. I don’t think legal pot in any form is right for SD, but it’s really none of my business either way.
I agree with Porter. Illegal pot has worked just fine in SoDak for 70 years. Why do they want to f**k with the game?
I read the bill, and it actually says that if you are going to grow, you must grow a minimum of 3 plants, and there is no maximum. I thought that was kind of odd, considering most states have a regulation on the maximum number of plants a person can grow.
Well Porter, unfortunately just because a proposed law might be right for the people of South Dakota doesn’t mean that will be passed. In my view this law is both right and long overdue. SD would be much better off if it started reducing its prison and jail population and stopped treating people as criminals for only ingesting, possessing, growing, distibuting or otherwise merely being involved with marijuana, a substance much less harmful to anyone than sugar, cigarettes or alcohol. Good faith civil regulation thoruogh taxation and safety requirements could virtual eliminate most or all of the imagined alleged health risks (such as “second hand smoke”).
Second hand smoke is an imagined health effect?
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm
“There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”
Smoking distributes radionuclides, including those captured by the plant while growing, and those captured by the smoke particles themselves.
BCB’s approach for radionuclides or second-hand smoking….More smoking.
McTaggart’s ilk are a much greater threat to your health than second-hand smoke.
So more smoking is better for your health? Interesting….
Also, more second-hand smoking is better for other people’s health? Sharing is caring?
If it is your choice to smoke, then why should anyone else pay twice for your decision? Once for the extra healthcare costs that occur for smokers (that are shared with everyone else), once more for the health effects of second-hand smoke.
You could choose to pay more for your healthcare, and you could intake marijuana without smoking.
That would really show that McTaggart guy!
And nobody really wants better health through cleaner air. We want more dirty, stinky air…thank you very much.
There are likely health risks with virtually every substance a human being is exposed to or ingests. To clarify, by “imagined” I am referencing those who use their imaginations to exaggrate the risk of second hand marijuana smoke and who fail to acknowledge and consider whether there are potential benefits that might outweigh whatever actual risk exists (instead, it often seems their arguments are based on an implied premise that there are no benefits).
http://www.benefitsofmarijuana.com/benefits.php
Consider in addition the social benefit of not ruining people’s lives by treating them as criminals, reducing the cost of law enforcement and incarceration, and allowing people the privacy to make their own decisions about what to imbibe. Many folks might see these as strong positives that ought to be considered against the cost of second hand smoke.
Indeed, if we outlawed everything with a measurable health risk to humans we would create an even greater health risk, namely, deprivation of risky substances we may need to survive, such as heart medicine and surgery.
And we would eliminate the possibility of of activities that many people argue are beneficial to society, such as the nuclear plants that emit large white clouds from giant smokestakes.
https://www.alamy.com/factory-pipes-with-thick-white-smoke-from-heat-energy-nuclear-plant-polluting-environment-image273458074.html
I have seen arguments only that these nuclear emission risks are rather minimal, but have not seen credible research or claims that these emissions carry absolutely no risk to the public.
And McTaggart continues to attribute positions to DFP commenters, frequently to Porter and above to me (“BCB’s approach for radionuclides or second-hand smoking….More smoking”), that I have never expressed in my comments.
BCB … You have a thousand times more validity commenting on what’s right for SD, than I do. I’ll admit I do have a vested interest in the taxes collected in CO from our neighbor states in all directions. We use those taxes for very important things like fire fighting aircraft for forest fires, ambulances, parks etc.
✯✯✯✯✯ I will posit that SD needs to decriminalize marijuana like the 48 other states have. Locking people up so Dan Lederman and Pat Powers can pay for their big homes and vacations is criminal in itself.
*Being discovered by cops with a small amount of pot should be a misdemeanor with a hundred dollar fine and nothing on your record. No piss tests. No arrest. No bail. Just confiscation so the cops can add your weed to their New Years Eve party favors (like they all do now). Second offense? Same penalty, only a two hundred dollar fine.
So you are advocating for the smoking of LESS marijuana?
Really?
More smoking means more radiation to the public than nuclear power. That radiation from smoking comes from naturally-occurring radioisotopes like Potassium-40 and the Uranium decay series which are dispersed into people and the environment without any regulation. Coal also releases a lot of naturally-occurring radioactivity, but like smoking, that is not regulated either.
Would be interesting if smoking and coal had to abide and pay for the same regulations that nuclear does. And this asymmetric regulatory approach also means that we are generating less clean energy than we could be (particularly by replacing coal with nuclear).
The large white clouds coming out of a nuclear power plant are made out of something called “steam”. Nuclear power emits water vapor from cooling towers that natural gas and coal use (and they back up renewables today).
That’s seems like a strange point to the law. You have to grow **at least 3** or you can’t grow **more than 3** ? The first is just odd.
You’re all that sure there’s no chance of this initiative passing? Why? Ignorance? Do you think the majority of SD voters still believe the “Reefer Madness” lies? Is there a chance for a strong educational campaign to overcome that? Of course that will require sufficient $ to pay for it.
Good luck Melissa and supporters!
I think so many” SD voters still believe the “Reefer Madness” lies” that I would not be surprised to see “Reefer Madness” and Dinesh D’Souza’s “Trump Is God, Part Deux”* play as double features across the state in late October and early November.
*This may be only the working title of D’Souza’s next labor of love for Trump.
No McTaggart, I am not advocating people smoke either more or less marijuana. That is why you have not seen such a statement in any of my comments. Your suggestion is simply a product of your imagination, apparently fueled by an irrational fear of marijuana.
I am advocating that the State stop arresting and prosecuting people for whatever choice they make regarding marijuana. Using the law to make criminals out of people for being involved with a relatively harmless substance like marijuana is an irrational abuse of state power that, according to credible factual research, does more harm than good.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/marijuana-pot-legalize-cmaj-1.3236904
I’m inclined to agree with you Cory. I’m not so sure I’d throw the baby out with the bath water, though.
As someone that lives in a state where cannabis is legal that is also very rural outside of major population centers I can say it’s absolutely critical to have a grow your own option. I use cannabis to treat a spinal condition. If it weren’t for cannabis my only option for sleep would be opioids and I don’t want anything to do with them. I’m thankful I have the option. (Before McTaggart jumps my case, like most people I use a vape, topical lotions, and cannabis pills to treat my condition; no smoking of anything for this guy.)
Those that live in the rural areas of Oregon (which is essentially the entire state outside of the Willamette River Valley) may or may not be in a legal county. This forces them to make the hours long drive into Portland or their nearest population center to buy their meds in bulk. Certain conditions also take large amounts of cannabis to treat effectively. This creates a scenario where the meds can be difficult to access and not financially viable.
Enter home growing. For dollars a year a person can throw a few plants in their garden and produce enough product to treat their condition for the entire year. Problem solved. Without the option to grow their own medicine many folks cannot afford or access this medicine that is most likely more effective, cheaper, and has none of the side effects you’ll get with big pharma.
It’s mind boggling why the law would require a retail outlet in the same jurisdiction. This seems entirely counter to common sense as if you don’t have a retail outlet that’s all the more reason to grow your own. The reality is that if cannabis is legalized this will probably be a moot point anyway. If it’s anything like here in Oregon once it’s legal the cops don’t have any real incentive to go poking around in people’s back yards on the off chance someone is growing a plant or two more than they’re legally allowed to.
This Utah Law review article on the subject has some important insights about the actual addictive nature of marijuana.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1837&context=facpub&source=post_page—————————
Smoke ’em if ya got ’em Lets pass both
grudznick could get richer!!
Porter, I appreciate your comparison of the Colorado and California models. The Colorado model seems more amenable to local agriculture, self-sufficiency, and biodiversity; California seems to be encouraging pot à la Butz: get big or get out. That’s part of why I rankle at this particular provision: it seems to put the interests of businesses above the interests of private citizens. What justification can there be for preventing individuals from growing a legal crop just because some business is selling that crop/product at a store in the neighborhood? Do we do that with any other products?
Shelaker, tell me which section you read that provides that interpretation.
I’m reading Section 4, which specifies acts that “are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under state law or the laws of any local government….”
Clause 2 in that section gives as one of those un-outlawable activities, “Possessing, planting, cultivating harvesting, drying, processing, or manufacturing not more than three marijuana plants. and possessing the marijuana produced by the plants….” Claus 2 then sets the three conditions for growing 1, 2, or 3 pot plants: that they be kept locked up and out of sight from the public, that “Not more than six plants are kept in or on the grounds of a private residence at one time,” and the no-compete-with-retail clause that sparked this blog post.
I don’t see any provisions setting any minimum plant amounts for licensed growers; that appears to be left to the rule-making process.
Cory wonders, “ What justification can there be for preventing individuals from growing a legal crop just because some business is selling that crop/product at a store.”
The justification is as you say. To allow big businesses to monopolize the market. That’s why I noted what happened in CA and how it began with rules like this one. Before anyone caught the intentions of greedy law writers it was too late to reverse course and make CA a grass roots market like Colorado. Imagine if you couldn’t make your own wine in California from grapes you’ve grown. Good catch, Cory. You may have just saved the future integrity of any attempt at an honest SD cannabis industry. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 At this point it’s probably not helpful to accuse anyone of being deceptive but it certainly shows how much these people must be watched!
Could it be that this provision is in the amendment not to appease corporate interests, but rather to placate those who might oppose the measure for fear of every Tom, Dick, and Harry having a pot garden in their basement?
No, Neal. That could not be. Who cares what people do legally in the privacy of their home? Do you?
*In legal cannabis states, landlords have full rights to forbid marijuana growing in their rentals. Full rights to periodic inspections of the property and full rights to forbid smoking of any substance within and outside of the buildings they own.
Were you in the room with the drafters of Amendment A, Porter? If not, what’s your basis for presuming to know their intent with respect to this section?
Neal. My basis is the results. Intent, as I noted, isn’t at this time the issue.
BCB,
Your approach is very much like people saying they want wind and solar to generate carbon-free energy, but then we are left with burning natural gas to make up the difference. They don’t say that more carbon will be emitted, but we all know that more natural gas will be consumed.
You know that more smoking will occur as a result if recreational marijuana is approved without any restrictions, and that will impact other people besides the smoker.
We will never find Trump saying the exact words “quid pro quo” either in any relevant transcript or e-mail or phone call…so I don’t see this approach as a good line of argument.
You could be advocating for the personal use of marijuana that is not smoked, but that is not what is going on here. This will benefit corporate marijuana interests who have an interest in more smoking.
You could argue for no smoking in public spaces so that people may exercise their right to enjoy those spaces without smoke. That isn’t happening either.
There was just data released that lung cancer and breast cancer rates have decreased. There is a high degree of correlation with reductions in smoking over the last 20 years. Sorry, but you have not convinced me why a pro-smoking agenda — if not an agenda that is a de facto pro-smoking agenda — will reduce those rates further.
Nonwithstanding the pro and cons of pot, what’s next ? Prohibit making beer or wine at home if a town has a liquor store ???
McTaggart asserts without valid references … “Your approach is very much like people saying they want wind and solar to generate carbon-free energy.” Who says that, Dr. Blah Blah?
FYI … Since marijuana has been legal, teenage use and experimentation has declined.
The statement that “more smoking will occur as a result if recreational marijuana is approved without any restrictions” is factually misleading in at least two ways:
(1) To the best of my knowledge no state has approved recreational marijuana “with no restrictions,” and no mainstream supporter of legalization is advocating “no restrictions.”
(2) Such a claim is inconsistent with the findings in a published research from the Canadian Medical Association (among numerous and readily accessible other credible sources) that “cannabis prohibition has shown to have no effect on rates of use in developed countries.” (link in above comment at 2020-01-07 at 17:37).
When opponents of legalization or decriminalization have to rely on false statements to support their opposition, I would suspect that is evidence of the alternative addiction problem also identified above, namely, “some people become psychologically . . . addicted to drug laws.”
I suspect that by making misleading or factual representations inconsistent with modern research in a misguided effort to defend such laws, “The psychologically addicted . . . attain the ‘good’—their ‘high’—they perceive that drug laws produce.” (link in above comment at 2020-01-07 at 17:49).
And it seems likely that such an addiction can become so powerful that some otherwise rational thinkers consciously or unconsciously will summarily dismiss credible evidence of the actual negative effects and costs of prohibition so they can continue experiencing the “high” from the imagined “good” of prohibition.
Porter, my question was about intent, and you answered it unequivocally. Now you say intent isn’t the issue. If that’s the case you shouldn’t have responded to my question. Sometimes I think you write things just to hear yourself talk.
BCB:
-Your presentation of research into the psychological addiction of drug laws is fascinating. I spent time recalling so many instances of it in South Dakota.
-Just on this thread alone, we see Neal and Bob McTaggart dismissing credible evidence to feed their need to “get high on drug laws”.
-Maybe it stems from a feeling of perceived protection but I’d be more inclined to believe it comes from a desire to “tell others what to do”.
-That’s been explained and agreed with by psychologists for a long time as resulting from low self esteem issues.
-Neal is only Neal (probably Tapio) but McTaggart is a state employed college professor. His continual attempts at making his points by inventing scenarios aka lies and attributing them to you and others is a habit that shouldn’t be tolerated by SDSU. Stop it Bob! Your position is in jeopardy.
*We also can’t ignore Dan Lederman and Pat Powers who stroke the drug law addiction to build their fortunes. Both are powerful law makers and political influencers who are highly responsible for SD not decriminalizing marijuana when 48 other states done so. Lederman and Powers bail bond income hinges directly on not doing the right thing.
Neal. Your question wasn’t about intent. Your question was about my presumption, which was addressed in my response to Cory’s discovery of this Amendment A information not known to the public.
Now, Neal I’ve answered your question and it’s time for you to answer mine. “Do you care what people legally do in the privacy of their homes?”
I am so deeply, frustratingly disappointed that the drafters of this amendment opted to not include language expunging marijuana convictions or a provision ensuring that the folks who have carried the heaviest burden of drug prohibition – those with records – can participate in the marijuana economy through license ownership. It’s a missed opportunity for true justice for the sake of political expediency.
Porter, I don’t even know what presumption you are talking about. My question about the intent of this provision was one made in good faith. I don’t think you know what that means. If you do, you certainly don’t know how to demonstrate it.
Speaking of presumptions, you have used a couple of simple questions here to presume that I am “dismissing credible evidence” to feed some imaginary need to “tell others what to do.” You have also incorrectly presumed my identity. Truth be told, you and I agree on the substance of this issue, but I’m more interested in the paranoid conclusions you leap to based on entirely insufficient information about my position.
To answer your question: I care not what you do in your home. I think you should be able to grow and smoke marijuana in your home regardless of where you live or whether or not there is a dispensary in your region. See, we agree. Now can you stop acting so childish and address the questions that are asked, rather than the ones you imagine were asked?
You’re lost, Neal. Start over. Ask me a question. Then I’ll ask you a question. (It takes me longer than other’s to respond because these posts don’t ever show up in my email.)
LS1 … I think that expungement of prior marijuana convictions would need to be a separate amendment or law. There’s a single subject law in SD when asking voters to approve of deny a new law. But, I agree that it’s vital. Every state has done it. Illinois just removed hundreds of thousands of prior convictions and records.
Porter, the author of the Utah Law Review article describes a second basis for an anti-marijuana law addiction that would apply to some folks like bail bondmen who financially benefit from criminalization.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1837&context=facpub&source=post_page—————————
As for the motivations of Lederman or Powers, I really can’t form an opinion since I have never engaged in any discussion with either about marijuana laws nor read their positions regarding the harms or benefits caused by such laws.
This has the bones of my next crime novel. Fascinating insights. We can’t overlook just plain old selfish greed, either. From what I’ve read from Lederman and Powers that seems appropriate. Su vasto conocimiento solo es superado por su disposición a compartir. Muchas gracias.
Porter, tú eres demasiado amable, pero de todas formas, ¡no hay de que amigo!