I’d love to see Frito-Lay put some huge money into ousting her in the primaries!
7 Likes
I don’t find it that amazing. Personal revenue is what they’re after.
Here’s the interesting part to me: the loophole they used was itself an Amendment approved in 2018. Seems like it pretty much exists to kill anything they don’t like, as any meaningful amendments would have more than one subject.
8 Likes
well, see, the problem is: they’re not allowed to plant anything let alone harvest and sell it.
( and, ill see myself out… )
2* of whom are senators. 
can democrats get on that dc statehood thing already?
( * actually, given the size of south daktoa’s state government and their lobbies - a significant percentage of sd’s residents are probably directly employed in, by, or for the government. something something republican projection im sure )
8 Likes
ruling that the measure violated the “single subject” rule for constitutional amendments.
Doesn’t “single subject” seem to be the better way to introduce legislature or am I missing something?
1 Like
Not until they pay the people doing the actual work a living wage, and provide reasonable working conditions.
3 Likes
10 Likes
It can be abused to mean anything, and ignored at will:
Does your supposedly single subject proposal (that the governor doesn’t like) for a constitutional amendment allow improved basic human rights for both men, AND women? Woah, slow down there! Those are separate subjects, and should be on separate amendments - Blocked!
What, this sweeping bill that allows my handlers/bribery providers to dodge taxes, ignore pollution regulations, AND hire their own private excessively armed militia? That’s fine.
Go into too much needed detail on how things will be handled, and the Governor can axe it on a whim. Go into not enough detail in order to not fall under “multiple subjects”? Badly crafted, stop wasting our time. Submit a pile of amendments to cover each of the details? Nope! Too many amendments, you can only do X number of amendments in a single year don’t you know?
And properly formed legislation will include the details of how the changed situation will be handled - taxation, law enforcement, licensing, which departments of government are affected, and so on, which the governor has declared to be “separate subjects” - thus any properly formed legislation that they don’t like can be killed.
10 Likes
I am in complete agreement that a well written legislation will include impact, penalties, etc. I had thought single subject may have meant that it would help eliminate pork slid into the text where the two don’t go hand in hand. “This bill will help children somehow but we’re adding a rider that the bill will also allow for a popcorn butter slurry pipeline on indigenous land.”
4 Likes
Next time just vote on whether it may be used recreationally. Your doctor can still have you take it, like a vitamin.
1 Like
It’s be interesting to see who donates to her election campaigns, whether it’s prison management companies or alcohol companies (that I suspect probably want to be the only game in town).
7 Likes
Of course she did. It’s a gateway drug.
Yes, but you have to wash it a couple of times first, preferably through your business connections who land the government contracts, so the public can’t see the stains.
5 Likes
So, isn’t South Dakota one of the money laundering states where you can easily hide your ill-gotten gains? Is this legalization bill gonna somehow mess with their other scams?
5 Likes
I can imagine a scenario where a large number of cannabis corps owned by wealthy donors are domiciled there for tax purposes. If the bill legalizing it suddenly subjected them to state taxation then the resulting clamor of pissed off richies could explain why it got axed.
1 Like
That can’t be it. Weed money cannot currently be legally transferred out of the revenue generating state because it would constitute interstate commerce subject to Federal law, wherein the growing, processing, possession and/or sale of marijuana or any of its derivatives is quite illegal due to weed sitting on Schedule 1 for no factual reason.
[e] We’re grappling with the piles of cash legal weed generates in Michigan. Can’t put it in a bank that operates, even via an ATM network, anywhere outside of the state. We’re not the only state, obviously, but this cash conundrum might explain why Republicans in Congress might be convinced to decriminalize.
11 Likes
Legalization would cut into her personal money-making business – campaign “contributions” from the private prison and alcoholic beverage lobbies.
2 Likes
I’d be willing to bet that’s how they sold the “Single subject” amendment in the first place. But as we can see in this case, it’s not used that way in practice. As per one of the articles originally linked: “Plaintiffs alleged that the measure concerns five subjects: legalizing marijuana; regulating, licensing, and taxing marijuana; licensing and regulating marijuana by political subdivisions; regulating medical marijuana; and regulation of hemp”. Sensible people can see this is nothing more than comprehensive legislation, covering most if not all the bases. Bad actors looking to twist the words of the law to their own ends see this as five different things which they’ll argue should each be their own amendment… until of course someone were to actually submit them as separate amendments. I’m sure there’s other rules in place to prevent that.
8 Likes
Single-subject laws should be thrown out because they have two subjects: “single” and “subject”. They are ridiculously vague.
2 Likes
FIFY.
2 Likes
