South Dakota Considers the Future of Marijuana Laws with IM 29
Next month, South Dakota residents will cast their ballots on the future of marijuana use in the state when they vote on Initiated Measure 29 (IM 29). This proposed legislation aims to legalize the holding, consumption, and sharing — not sales — of up to two ounces of marijuana for those over 21, a currently punishable offense that could result in a year-long jail sentence. Furthermore, IM 29 aims to decriminalize cannabis edibles and concentrates, whose possession under present South Dakota law can lead to a prison sentence of up to five years.
Supporters of IM 29
Supporters of IM 29, like Matthew Schweich from South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, emphasize that the measure does not cover sales, stating that this restriction helps to avoid another potential legal battle. They suggest that if the measure passes, the legislature could consider authorizing sales during their annual legislative session between January and March.
Financial Effects of IM 29
Regarding the financial effects of IM 29, the Legislative Research Council believes that passing the measure could result in an annual saving of $581,556. These savings are linked to the costs of prosecuting, defending, and jailing those in contravention of current misdemeanor marijuana laws. Nevertheless, the financial implication of enforcing present felony laws related to cannabis concentrates has not been referred to.
The Future of Regulation
If IM 29 were to pass, the mechanisms of regulation would be crucial. The House Majority Leader, Republican Rep. Will Mortenson, believes the Legislature would take up this responsibility, stating, “We owe a duty to the people. If they pass Initiated Measure 29, we need to make a genuine effort to establish a regulatory scheme.”
Nevertheless, Mortenson also admits the existence of potential roadblocks in setting up a retail market, particularly from lawmakers who fundamentally disagree with the legalization of cannabis. He also suggests that the upcoming elections could result in even less support for marijuana legislation.
Opposition and Concerns
Opponents of the bill, such as Rhonda Milstead from Protecting South Dakota Kids, share Mortenson’s concerns and query why a largely conservative legislature would encourage a market for something they initially opposed. Milstead also expresses alarm over the reported rise in marijuana potency, increased usage amongst minors in states where it’s legal, and potential ties to crime rates. She posits that any potential tax revenue would be outweighed by increased law enforcement and addiction treatment costs.
Rebuttal from Supporters
Schweich, however, refutes these claims, citing billions of dollars in tax revenues since the state-level legalization of marijuana began more than ten years ago. He underlines the need to choose between continuing a policy of prohibition that has repeatedly failed or adopting a pragmatic approach that regulates existing cannabis use in South Dakota. As Schweich suggests, regardless of whether IM 29 is adopted or not, cannabis is already present in South Dakota. The choice now is whether to persist with a failed prohibition policy or to opt for a pragmatic, regulated approach.