Would recreational Marijuana raise significant taxes for SD?

Damn right it would! And I suspect most of that tax revenue would come from out of state. Think about it. If South Dakota legalizes Recreational, we would be surrounded by 6 states that do not have it legalized. I actually think the state could easily raise $30-40 million in tax revenue in the first year. Of course our closed minded legislators (mostly Republican) don’t have a clue, just read this ridiculous quote from our Speaker of the House;

“Never. Absolutely not,” said South Dakota House Speaker Mark Mickelson, R-Sioux Falls. “Tax yourself for something you need, don’t tax someone else for their path to destruction.”

So I’m guessing next year Mr. Mickelson will be proposing removing taxes from alcohol, or even better yet making us a dry state to end it’s ‘destruction’ of our state. Hey, go a step further and get rid of video lottery also. Only Republicans think that it is okay to tax food, clothes and energy costs instead of a cash cow like REC marijuana. I think if this makes the ballot, it will pass by 56%. As a person who follows politics, I will say that REC marijuana is used by all stripes, Dems, Indies and Republicans. I also think that it HAS to pass by a good margin, otherwise our legislature will be making moves to overturn it. Just look at IM22. It’s time South Dakota moves into the 21st century and approves this important measure, that would improve education and save tax payers millions in legal costs.



12 comments ↓

#1 Reliable Voter on 04.04.17 at 7:27 pm

Mark’s father, then Governor George Mickelson stood on the steps of the Capitol to display and play South Dakota’s first scratch lotto ticket. He touted sports betting as a logical next step – but the legislature balked. The family knows something about government supported self destruction.

#2 The D@ily Spin on 04.04.17 at 7:43 pm

Some form of marijuana is legal in 23 states. It costs to much to enforce. It makes sense to legalize medical use.

#3 Emoluments Clause on 04.04.17 at 9:01 pm

“Tax yourself for something you need, don’t tax someone else for their path to destruction.”

That quote could also be used against video lottery too, which was introduced to the people of South Dakota under the gubernatorial leadership of Marks late father……(?)

#4 scott on 04.04.17 at 9:33 pm

whatever happened to mark’s party boy brother?

#5 Southpaw on 04.04.17 at 11:43 pm

Loaders, stoners and losers are all in line for this one. Colorado is a freaking mess after the MJ lobby wrote their law. Hopefully SD won’t take fall for that load.

#6 anonymous on 04.05.17 at 5:59 am

Now let’s talk about the problems legalized marijuana has caused Colorado.

#7 l3wis on 04.05.17 at 8:51 am

You mean like the $54 million it added to their tax rolls last year alone? Ironically, the biggest problem with legalization is that the state could take in even more in taxes if the business owners in the industry could deposit their earnings in a bank and expand the industry. If I had a choice between VL and MJ legalization, I would pick the one that would earn us more tax revenue and isn’t really addictive, and that’s not MJ.

#8 ToDeterminedBe on 04.05.17 at 8:57 am

“Tax yourself for something you need, don’t tax someone else for their path to destruction.”

It seems like every time we need to build something there’s some form of new tourism tax. My issue with the tax is they are trying to associate it with teacher pay in the article. We all know that it would only be a matter of time before those funds become redirected just like VL.

Personally I wish we would go down the road of Hemp as a crop for other uses. Hemp is superior to many other crops in many ways (i.e. clothing, paper, ethanol)

#9 The D@ily Spin on 04.05.17 at 10:26 am

#8 makes a good point. Hemp has muliple uses. It’s more than like for corn and grain. It grows practically wild without fertilizer and cultivation. Farmers like cutting grass and WEED from ditches because it makes cows happy and hungry.

#10 Reliable Voter on 04.05.17 at 1:13 pm

Scott: euphemistically called the “mansion incident”.

Still a contender for worst statement from a SD spox: “Asked whether David was traveling with either parent on Nov. 28, Mickelson press secretary Gretchen Lord Anderson replied, “We don’t feel that where David was is relevant.”

Story headline: Probe of Rape at Governor’s Mansion in South Dakota.
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-14/news/mn-603_1_governor-s-mansion

And Special Prosecutor Craig Kennedy is now a State Senator.

#11 Warren Phear on 04.05.17 at 1:13 pm

All in with post #8. We’ve all heard more than enough lies about taxes and teacher pay.

#12 Emoluments Clause on 04.05.17 at 3:25 pm

“We don’t feel that where David was is relevant,” is very Spiceronian.

Back when this story broke even Inside Editon, with Bill O’Reilly, did a piece on it…. How ironic now…..