The worst part about the campaign is it is being funded by the mayor of the largest city in South Dakota. The opponents know they need Sioux Falls to vote this down in order to win so they spread the lies.
Rick Steves was the guest on The Dakota Scout podcast this week. He did a marvelous job of explaining decriminalization further and how it will be up to our state legislature to fine tune the law if passed. He called it the ‘Reefer Madness’ propaganda.
Lalley brought up the sticky situation Mayor TenHaken has put himself in;
But Mayor TenHaken made an interesting point. He said that if IM27 does pass, there’s no guarantee that you’ll be able to buy weed in Sioux Falls, other than what’s currently allowed for medical marijuana use.
The mayor brought up Colorado Springs, Colorado, where the city doesn’t allow dispensaries even though it’s legal in that state. Ultimately, it would be up to the South Dakota Legislature to decide how marijuana is regulated, he said.
So I asked him what he would tell lawmakers should that come to pass.
“If I could tell them what to do, I would say we have what’s called home rule in Sioux Falls. I think that is a muscle that we would certainly flex on this. But I can say other vices that we limit. We limit the number of liquor licenses. We’ve limited medical (marijuana) dispensaries. It’s not going to be a cannabis free-fall in Sioux Falls if this would happen and we have to put this here. We need to be pragmatic about if it would pass.”
First off, even with Home Rule, the mayor doesn’t have the power to limit anything, that is up to the city council. I would also find the limitation of casinos, bars, liquor stores as NOT a fair comparison. You can gamble, drink or buy alcohol for home ingestion on any corner in this city. I guess I would ask what limitations he is talking about? By that comparison we could have a dispensary within a half mile of everyone’s house in Sioux Falls.
I don’t care if you are running for office or are advocating for or against a measure. Lying to constituents to get the intended result will always fail in the end. Liars will always be losers no matter what happens on election day.
You watch, IM 27 will fail, but then it will be back on the ballot in ’24 and pass because it’s a presidential year when more voters show-up.
If Republicans can shop for judges (IM 22), then why can’t Democrats shop for the right election year? It’s only fair.
( and Woodstock adds: “What I like to do is lie when pollsters call me, that way the other side gets over confident, and thus, to their detriment”… 🙂 )