The results of the 2020 presidential election will still be debated by the reality TV star turned US President.
And while his most ardent supporters as well as his cabal of like-minded devout loyalists will debate the results without factual evidence, the facts, and figures behind cannabis legalization and drug reform’s many successes that Tuesday night that turned into an election lasting five days simply can’t be denied. Spanning the country and in deeply red states that cannabis reform was once thought of as an impossible milestone, measures for either medical usage or full-scale legalization passed with majorities that range in size.
Previously considered by cannabis consumers to likely be one of the last states ever thought of to pass any type of reform, Initiative 190 passed in the state of Montana by about 57 percent. The bill would be far-reaching, establishing everything from a recreational cannabis industry in Montana to opportunities of expungement for Montanans previously convicted of low-level cannabis offenses.
Learn how to become a medical cannabis patient in Texas
With a Legislative branch consisting of 30 Republican senators and 58 representatives of 50 senators and 100 representatives, the fact that a full-scale cannabis legalization bill in a state so historically conservative as Montana shows the undeniable bipartisanship support behind cannabis reform that we were at the Collective strive to continually report on.
In Mississippi, Initiative 65 legalized the medicinal use of cannabis for up to 22 medical conditions. This initiative passing, in particular, was surprising for several reasons, not the least being the fact that Governor Tate Reeves slammed the initiative as a “liberal attempt” at legalizing marijuana and only “being driven by stoners.” Yet, medical cannabis will soon become a reality for the almost three million citizens in The Magnolia State, much to a still strong opposition that claims to support personal freedoms yet doesn’t support individual liberty in deciding which medicines work best for you.
The third domino of extreme “conservative” opposition that fell on that frankly historic Tuesday night was Mount Rushmore State itself, South Dakota. The fifth least populated state and a state long associated with cannabis prohibition on par with Texas and having a governor who believes that “America’s founding principles are under attack” who’s so anti-cannabis that she’s anti-industrial hemp as well, the state made cannabis legalization history as the first American state to legalize cannabis on the medical and recreational levels simultaneously.
Both Measure 26, which legalized medical cannabis and the recreational legalization Amendment A passed by margins of 69.9 percent and 54 percent respectively. As expected, both measures are expected to become legal on July 1, 2021. Despite the state’s long history of solely Republican representatives, recreational cannabis will soon become a reality in one of the most unlikely of places.
And in the same manner of prohibitionist members of law enforcement that seem to hold a disregard for the will of their constituents, certain officials in South Dakota are launching a lawsuit, partially funded by taxpayer dollars, to overturn the results of Amendment A. Two particular members of law enforcement in South Dakota, Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller are seeking to overturn the results and outcomes of Amendment A, and the cited reasons didn’t revolve around any concern for public health, or highway safety, or even any of the “gateway drug” or any similar “think about the children” responses.
Instead, the two law enforcement officers, who are fully aware of the verdicts of Amendment A the fact that the amendment was passed by a 54-46 percent margin, are instead suing surrounding the supposed constitutionality of the amendment in how it relates to South Dakota’s way amending their State Constitution.
According to the Argus Leader, a publication covering events in Sioux Falls, Thom and Miller are wanting to overturn measures voted on by a collective amount of 225,260 voters. The two seasoned law enforcement officers are arguing that because in legalizing recreational cannabis in the state, Amendment A encompasses changes to more than one subject or department of South Dakota’s laws, a constitutional change type apparently banned by voters in 2018. Because the amendment legalizes everything from personal home growing to a full-scale recreational marketplace and even hemp legalization, the two sheriffs argue that the measure is unconstitutional.
“I’ve dedicated my life to defending and upholding the rule of law,” said Sheriff Thom in a press release from November 20th. “The South Dakota Constitution is the foundation for our government and any attempt to modify it should not be taken lightly. I respect the voice of the voters in South Dakota, however in this case I believed the process was flawed and done improperly, due to no fault of the voters.”
The causes of action focus on the unconstitutional drafting and proposal of this issue as a constitutional amendment. First, the causes of action cite this clause in Article XXIII Sec. 1. of the South Dakota Constitution: “A proposed amendment may amend one or more articles and related subject matter in other articles as necessary to accomplish the objectives of the amendment; however, no proposed amendment may embrace more than one subject.” the press release alleges.
Of course, this lawsuit has the wholehearted backing of their openly anti-cannabis governor, who famously vetoed a March 2019 hemp bill passed by the legislature.
“In South Dakota, we respect our Constitution,” Gov. Noem said in a statement. “I look forward to the court addressing the serious constitutional concerns laid out in this lawsuit.”
Read more about Delta-8 in Texas
Noem also supported the quite ironic and unintentionally hilarious “Meth. We’re On It” campaign, a campaign by the Department of Social Services in which they took pictures of South Dakotans of all ages and demographics, from high school football players to elderly farmers, with the slogans “Meth. We’re On It.” or “Meth. I’m On It.” next to them. As the well-meaning campaign to increase awareness surrounding methamphetamine usage in South Dakota cost $500,000 in total and didn’t even use a South Dakotan company to produce all the content, it was lampooned by many on the internet.
Other law officials in South Dakota aren’t so receptive towards this bill that some in the legal profession may view it as frivolous or in direct violation of what South Dakota citizens voted for by an eight percent margin, most notably the highest office of law in the state.
The South Dakota Attorney General’s Office filed a response that the presiding judge in the lawsuit dismiss the case outright, as it’s in direct contrast with what the majority of voters approved.
“The State respectfully requests that Contestants’ Election Contest be denied in all respects and that Contestants’ Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, and judgement be entered in favor of the state,” reads the filing authored by Assistant Attorney General Grant Flynn.
On the subject of Amendment A changing multiple laws of the South Dakota Constitution, Flynn says that’s not entirely true either.
“The State denies that Amendment A includes a ‘multitude’ of different subjects,” Flynn wrote. “The State also denies that these requirements ‘must’ be met for a constitutional change to be considered an ‘amendment’ because the language of Article XXIII is permissive, not obligatory.”
Still, advocates are fighting passionately on the battlefield of legalization. South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws has been raising funds to pay for legal fees in fighting this lawsuit in court.
In an answer to the complaint filed by Thom and Miller, SDBML and their proponents and attorneys “deny each and every factual allegation in the complaint and hold Plaintiffs to their burden of proof on those facts.
The fact alone that a select few stubborn members of law enforcement that preside over only a few parts of the state at best are trying to overturn and dictate their will and viewpoints against the clear will of their constituents prove how deeply held the prohibitionist views of a considerable amount of law enforcement officers will remain as well as how far those members will go to enforce their views, even if a majority of those they serve to disagree with those views.