Politics
South Dakota Police File Lawsuit To Overturn Voter-Passed Marijuana Measure
Two law enforcement officials in South Dakota are asking a judge to throw out a marijuana legalization measure that state voters approved this month, filing a court challenge that appears to have the backing of Gov. Kristi Noem (R) and is being paid for at least partially with state funds.
Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and state Highway Patrol Superintendent Col. Rick Miller sued on Friday. The lawsuit seeks to declare all ballots cast for or against Amendment A null and void and invalidate the changes it makes to the state Constitution.
“I’ve dedicated my life to defending and upholding the rule of law,” Thom said in a press release. “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 believe the process was flawed and done improperly, due to no fault of the voters.”
The challenge, filed in state’s Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, attempts to overturn Amendment A, which won just over 54 percent of the vote on Election Day, on what some might see as a technicality. It claims that because the marijuana legalization question, a constitutional amendment, covers multiple issues—including the legalization and regulation of marijuana for adults 21 and older, as well as the regulation of medical cannabis and hemp—it violates a 2018 requirement that “no proposed amendment may embrace more than one subject.”
In all, the challenge claims the constitutional amendment contains at least five distinct subjects involving the legalization and regulation of various forms of cannabis. Rather than package those subjects into a single proposed amendment, the challenge argues, organizers needed to split them into separate questions on the ballot.
“A major purpose of the one-subject rule is to avoid requiring voters to accept part of a proposed amendment that they opposed in order to obtain a change in the Constitution that they support,” the complaint says, “resulting in votes that do not accurately reflect the electorate’s approval of the proposed amendment.”
A challenge along similar lines removed a medical marijuana legalization measure from Nebraska’s ballot in September, when the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the proposed constitutional amendment violated that state’s single-issue rule.
South Dakota has had the single-subject requirement in place since voters passed a 2018 constitutional amendment on the issue.
“Our constitutional amendment procedure is very straightforward,” said Miller of the South Dakota Highway Patrol. “In this case, the group bringing Amendment A unconstitutionally abused the initiative process. We’re confident that the courts will safeguard the South Dakota Constitution and the rule of law.”
The law enforcement officials’ complaint also argues that the legalization measure was not properly constitutionally ratified. “The proponents of Amendment A failed to follow that basic textual requirement,” their press release says.
The group behind the South Dakota legalization measure said over the weekend that its legal team is reviewing the lawsuit and developing a strategy that it will share soon.
“We are prepared to defend Amendment A against this lawsuit,” South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws said in a statement. “Our opponents should accept defeat instead of trying to overturn the will of the people. Amendment A was carefully drafted, fully vetted, and approved by a strong majority of South Dakota voters this year.”
The group said it will be moving to formally intervene in the lawsuit this week, which it said was “filed incorrectly under South Dakota law, as a ‘contest’ to an election.”
“The complaint has nothing to do with the manner in which the election was conducted and only relates to the text of Amendment A,” the pro-legalization organization said of the single-subject dispute. “But anyone who reads Amendment A can see that every word relates to the cannabis plant.”
The police lawsuit’s claims on procedural grounds are a “manufactured distinction” that is “unsupported in the law and is utterly insufficient as a basis for overturning a constitutional amendment approved by voters,” South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws said.
State money is funding an unspecified portion of the lawsuit, the Rapid City Journal reported on Friday, citing a spokesperson for Noem. “The governor approved this because she took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. This is part of her duty as governor,” Ian Fury told the paper.
Private lawyers are representing the officials.
In the days after the election, the governor said she “was personally opposed to these measures and firmly believe they’re the wrong choice for South Dakota’s communities.”
“We need to be finding ways to strengthen our families,” Noem said, “and I think we’re taking a step backward in that effort.”
In a statement to the Rapid City Journal on Friday, she said she’s eager to see the challenge go to court.
“In South Dakota we respect our Constitution,” Noem said. “I look forward to the court addressing the serious constitutional concerns laid out in this lawsuit.”
The case doesn’t seek to challenge the separate statutory medical cannabis ballot measure that voters also approved this month.
A handful of other legal challenges are in the works across the U.S. after voters approved every major marijuana and drug reform measure on state ballots on Election Day.
In Mississippi, where voters legalized marijuana for medical use, the mayor of the city of Madison asked the state Supreme Court to invalidate the measure on procedural grounds, arguing it was improperly put before voters. But unlike in South Dakota, Mississippi state officials are siding with voters.
“Even if their interpretative argument is correct, petitioners’ action is woefully untimely,” says a filing made earlier this month by the secretary of state and attorney general, who are defending the law in court. “They could have asserted their so-called ‘procedural’ challenge years ago.”
State officials said the high court “should deny petitioners’ requested relief and dismiss their petition.”
In Montana, meanwhile, the group Wrong for Montana is suing to overturn a cannabis legalization measure passed by 56.9 percent of state voters. In that suit, plaintiffs argue the measure unconstitutionally involved the appropriation of state funds.
Separately, some Montana lawmakers had planned to undo the legalization law through a bill in the state legislature, but the leader of that effort, Rep. Derek Skees (R) backed away from that plan after noting the measure’s wide margin of victory.
“The only branch of government in this state dumb enough to overturn citizens’ initiative is the [state] Supreme Court, which has done it repeatedly,” he said.
Read the full lawsuit against South Dakota’s marijuana legalization law below:
South Dakota Marijuana Lawsuit by Marijuana Moment
Teen Marijuana Treatment Admissions Fell Sharply In States That Legalized, Federal Report Shows
Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan
Politics
Minnesota Marijuana Legalization Bill Clears 12th And Final House Committee, Advancing To The Floor
A bill to legalize marijuana in Minnesota has been approved by its final House committee and will now advance to the floor.
The road to get to this position has been long and winding, with 12 panels hearing and voting on the measure since it was introduced in February.
House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler (D), Speaker Melissa Hortman (D) and other lawmakers filed the proposal, which would allow adults 21 and older to purchase and possess up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis and cultivate up to eight plants, four of which could be mature.
Members of the House Ways & Means Committee approved the legislation in a 16-10 vote on Friday.
Winkler previously said that he expects a floor vote this month, though that has yet to be scheduled. The legislature is slated to adjourn on May 17.
The bill “helps to correct wrongs that have been done for too long in Minnesota to communities who’ve been over-policed who have been targeted for cannabis enforcement to further a prohibition of cannabis that does not work,” the majority leader said in opening remarks.
Winkler said that “legalizing and creating a safe marketplace by taxing cannabis and using the proceeds from those taxes to pay for cannabis regulation to help invest in a cannabis industry” would reflect “the values of Minnesotans and help to address the harm that is caused by cannabis prohibition on our black and brown communities.”
The panel adopted an amendment from Winkler that expands the definition of social equity applicants to include those from communities disproportionately impacted by prohibition and makes changes to how regulators would address rules violations by businesses. It would also revise the amount of funding for various state agencies, including a reduction in appropriations for the Department of Corrections.
A proposal to require that the label on marijuana products include information about the maximum dose that is considered safe within a 24-hour period was also approved.
An additional amendment that would have required marijuana products to be labeled with a warning that cannabis remains illegal under federal law was rejected.
Prior to taking up the legalization bill, members adopted an amendment to separate budget legislation that would provide funding for the implementation of the cannabis program for the first biennium, after which time marijuana tax revenue would more than cover costs.
It the measure does clear the full House chamber, it’s still expected to face a significant challenge in the Republican-controlled Senate, where lawmakers have signaled that they’re more interested in revising the state’s existing medical cannabis program than enacting legalization of adult use.
That said, a GOP member of the Taxes Committee, which approved the legalization bill on Wednesday, indicated that he felt an amendment he introduced and that was adopted could bolster Republican support.
That revision from Rep. Pat Garofolo (R) directs remaining cannabis revenue to a tax relief account after implementation costs are covered and substance misuse treatment and prevention programs are funded.
“The adoption of this amendment is a gamechanger,” Garofalo said in a press release. “The Democrat majority accepting this amendment means that if signed into law, this bill will result in lowering taxes Minnesotans are FORCED to pay, financed with the revenue generated from taxes that people are CHOOSING to pay.”
Before the Taxes Committee, the bill passed the Health Finance and Policy Committee, Public Safety and Criminal Justice Reform Finance and Policy Committee, Education Finance Committee, State Government Finance and Elections Committee, Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee, Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee, Agriculture Finance and Policy Committee, Workforce and Business Development Finance and Policy Committee, Labor, Industry, Veterans and Military Affairs Finance and Policy Committee and Commerce Finance and Policy Committee.
It’s official: for the first time in Minnesota history, the full House will vote on cannabis legalization & expungement.
The House *will* pass this bill — but we’re going to need all of you to get it through the full #mnleg.https://t.co/ZZ80kBvee0
— Ryan Winkler (@_RyanWinkler) May 7, 2021
“At the beginning of the year, a House committee had never passed a legalization bill. Now, we’re on the verge of passing a bill off the House floor,” Winkler said in an email to supporters on Friday. “We have the ability to change laws in a way that improves people’s lives, whether it’s expunging cannabis-related records, targeting economic opportunity for those impacted most by the war on drugs, providing relief for veterans suffering from PTSD and serious health conditions, and more.”
—
Marijuana Moment is already tracking more than 1,100 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.
Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—
The litany of committees the bill has gone through makes it perhaps the most thoroughly vetted legalization measure to move through a state legislature—and it means that a solid portion of the House has already had the chance to review, propose amendments to and vote on the legislation it as it advances to the floor, presumably increasing its chances of passage in the chamber.
The majority leader’s bill as introduced was identical to a proposal he filed last year, with some minor technical changes. Winkler, who led a statewide listening to gather public input ahead of the measure’s introduction, called it the “best legalization bill in the country” at the time. It did not advance in that session, however.
Under the legislation, social equity would be prioritized, in part by ensuring diverse licensing and preventing the market from being monopolized by corporate players. Prior marijuana records would also be automatically expunged.
On-site consumption and cannabis delivery services would be permitted under the bill. And unlike in many legal states, local municipalities would be banned from prohibiting marijuana businesses from operating in their areas.
Retail cannabis sales would be taxed at 10 percent. Part of that revenue would fund a grant program designed to promote economic development and community stability.
The bill calls for the establishment of a seven-person Cannabis Management Board, which would be responsible for regulating the market and issuing cannabis business licenses. It was amended in committee month to add members to that board who have a social justice background.
People living in low-income neighborhoods and military veterans who lost honorable status due to a cannabis-related offense would be considered social equity applicants eligible for priority licensing.
Cannabis retails sales would launch on December 31, 2022.
Gov. Tim Walz (D) is also in favor of ending marijuana prohibition, and in January he called on lawmakers to pursue the reform as a means to boost the economy and promote racial justice. He did not include a request to legalize through his budget proposal, however.
Walz did say in 2019 that he was directing state agencies to prepare to implement reform in anticipation of legalization passing.
Winkler, meanwhile, said in December that if Senate Republicans don’t go along with the policy change legislatively, he said he hopes they will at least let voters decide on cannabis as a 2022 ballot measure.
Heading into the 2020 election, Democrats believed they had a shot of taking control of the Senate, but that didn’t happen. The result appears to be partly due to the fact that candidates from marijuana-focused parties in the state earned a sizable share of votes that may have otherwise gone to Democrats, perhaps inadvertently hurting the chances of reform passing.
In December, the Minnesota House Select Committee On Racial Justice adopted a report that broadly details race-based disparities in criminal enforcement and recommends a series of policy changes, including marijuana decriminalization and expungements.
Wisconsin Governor’s Marijuana Legalization Proposal Stripped From Budget By GOP-Led Committee
Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.
Politics
Feds Announce New Standard THC Dose To Be Used In Marijuana Research, Effective Immediately
A top federal health agency announced on Friday that it has determined the standard dose of THC that should be used for marijuana studies moving forward.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) said in a notice to researchers that there is a “new requirement to measure and report results using a standard THC unit in all applicable human subjects’ research,” which is effective immediately. That standard unit is five milligrams of THC.
NIDA said that inconsistencies in measuring and reporting THC exposure “has been a major limitation in studies of cannabis use, making it difficult to compare findings among studies.” Therefore, a “standardized measure of THC in cannabis products is necessary to advance research by providing greater comparability across studies of both its adverse effects and potential medical uses.”
The agency recognized, however, that “the same quantity of THC may have different effects based on route of administration, other product constituents, an individual’s genetic make-up and metabolic factors, prior exposure to cannabis, and other factors.”
But by creating a standard THC dose, it will nonetheless be easier to compare studies that involve THC exposure, which is a “high priority” of NIDA and the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse.
“It is not the intent of this Notice to prescribe the quantity of THC that is permissible for use in research projects. Indeed, investigators are free to use more or less than 5mg of THC as appropriate for their study,” the notice states. “However, for applicable studies, investigators will be required to report the quantity of THC using the standard unit. Investigators may also report the quantity of THC in other units (e.g., milligrams) as appropriate.”
This comes one year after NIDA, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, first solicited feedback on a proposal to standardize THC content in cannabis research.
The agency said that it carried out “extensive stakeholder input,” along with “consultation with experts in the field,” to arrive at the decision to set the standard unit at 5 mg.
“This guidance will apply to applications where THC is a focus of the research,” the new notice continues. “Applicants are responsible for determining whether use of this standard unit is applicable to their research and for determining best approach to applying it in their research applications. A justification should be provided for research that does not propose to use the standard unit.”
NIDA Director Nora Volkow discussed the importance of establishing a standard THC unit in commentary published in the journal Addiction last year.
Citing research that calls for a five milligram THC standard, Volkow said she agreed with the study’s conclusion despite complicating factors. Those factors include potential issues related to the effect of having cannabis products with the same THC level but different concentrations of other cannabinoids such as CBD.
The complexities in research beyond having a standardized measure of THC “hardly negate the value” of setting one, Volkow said in her commentary. “In fact, having and using such a standard is a prerequisite for comparing the effects of various cannabis products on THC bioavailability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects, which is knowledge fundamental to studies pertaining to medical use of cannabis.”
“Although cannabis remains an illicit substance in the United States, the expanded legalization by states requires us to develop the knowledge base that can help states develop policies to minimize risk from cannabis exposures, such as limits on the THC content of cannabis products,” she said.
Volkow has been vocal about the importance of streamlining and improving research into cannabis, and she’s laid partial blame for the the lack of studies on marijuana’s restrictive federal classification.
Kansas Senate Running Out Of Time To Pass Medical Marijuana Legalization Bill That Cleared House
Politics
Kansas Senate Running Out Of Time To Pass Medical Marijuana Legalization Bill That Cleared House
As advocates applaud the passage of a medical marijuana legalization bill in the Kansas House of Representatives, anxieties remain high over its prospects in the GOP-controlled Senate.
The chamber has days left being the end of the legislative veto session, and Senate leadership has signaled that they do not view the reform legislation as a priority.
“The Senate is not real high on the issue at this point” Senate President Ty Masterson (R) told an Associated Press reporter in a pun-filled text message on Thursday, adding that “we may roll it into a joint committee and see if we can weed out the issues.”
A texted statement from @sentymasterson: "The Senate is not real high on the issue (medical marijuana) at this point iun the session, we may roll it into a joint committee and see if we can weed out the issues." #ksleg pic.twitter.com/2Ruu5VYtxC
— John Hanna (@APjdhanna) May 7, 2021
Whether he was serious about the joint committee or simply making an attempt at cannabis-related humor is unclear. A spokesperson for his office separately said that the chamber is focused on passing a budget bill and a school funding measure in the final days of the session.
“I can’t imagine we’d take the subject matter up this year,” Masterson said earlier this week ahead of the House vote.
If the Senate doesn’t take up the medical marijuana bill by May 11, it would still be alive for the second half of the legislative biennium that starts early in 2022 and could be acted upon then.
But even if senators do make time to establish a bicameral conference committee to consider the proposal, there are still serious doubts about whether the body would approve the resulting negotiated legislation. And defeat in the Senate this year would mean lawmakers would have to start the process all over again if they wanted to pursue the reform again next year.
Getting the bill to this stage alone has proved challenging.
It moved through the House Federal and State Affairs Committee after a series of hearings and onto the floor in March, but then it was rereferred to the panel for further consideration. Members then adopted several additional amendments before sending it back on the floor.
The legislation would establish a medical marijuana program for qualified patients. It lists about two dozen conditions that make a person eligible for cannabis, including Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, Crohn’s disease, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.
—
Marijuana Moment is already tracking more than 1,100 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.
Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—
Smoking and vaping products would be prohibited. The bill would also not provide for home growing.
The state would license medical cannabis growers, testing labs, processors distributors and retailers, and counties would be able to opt out of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their jurisdiction.
Patients would be able to purchase up to a 90 day supply of cannabis from licensed dispensaries, which would be regulated by the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). That department would also be renamed the Division of Alcohol and Cannabis Control.
The secretary of the Department of Health and Environment would have to develop regulations to administer the medical cannabis program by July 1, 2023.
Gov. Laura Kelly (D), for her part, supports medical cannabis and would be expected to sign a bill if it arrived on her desk.
She pushed a separate proposal that would legalize medical cannabis and use the resulting revenue to support Medicaid expansion, with Rep. Brandon Woodard (D) filing the measure on the governor’s behalf.
Kelly has she said she wants voters to put pressure on their representatives to get the reform passed. And with the small timeline before the session’s end, the time to apply that pressure would be now.
While both pieces of legislation would make it so Kansas would join the vast majority of states that have legal medical marijuana markets, advocates view them as restrictive, particularly as it concerns the limited methods of consumption that would be permitted.
A separate medical cannabis legalization bill was introduced by the Senate Commerce Commerce in February, though it has not seen action beyond being referred to another panel.
Alabama Governor Will Give Medical Marijuana Bill A ‘Thorough’ Review, Spokesperson Says
Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.
