South Dakota
Recreational marijuana backers try to overcome rocky history in South Dakota
Advocates of legalizing recreational marijuana in South Dakota, a mission with a rocky history, submitted thousands of signatures to election officials on Tuesday in the hopes of once again getting the issue on the conservative state’s November ballot.
Supporters of the initiative turned in about 29,000 signatures to Secretary of State Monae Johnson’s office. They need 17,508 valid signatures to make the November ballot. Johnson’s office has until Aug. 13 to validate the signatures.
Twenty-four states have legalized recreational marijuana, including as recently as November 2023 in Ohio, but “no state has as interesting or rocky or turbulent a story than South Dakota,” said South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws Campaign Director Matthew Schweich.
Florida voters will decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana this fall. Similar measure efforts are underway in other states, including North Dakota.
In 2020, South Dakota voters approved a medical marijuana initiative and also passed a measure that would have legalized recreational marijuana. But the latter was ultimately struck down when the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld a judge’s ruling that it violated a single-subject rule for constitutional amendments — a challenge begun by Gov. Kristi Noem. Measure backers tried again in 2022, but voters defeated the proposal. In 2021, Noem sought to delay legalization of medical marijuana by a year, a proposal that died in the Republican-led Legislature.
Schweich cites several reasons to support the measure, including that it would allow law enforcement resources to be directed elsewhere, increase access for people who have difficulty getting medical marijuana patient cards, and generate new tax revenue and jobs.
“I think for me, the strongest reason at its core is that if we’re going to allow alcohol to be legal in our society, then it makes absolutely no sense to punish people for using cannabis because alcohol is more harmful to the individual and to society than cannabis,” Schweich said.
Protecting South Dakota Kids, a nonprofit group that opposes legalizing marijuana in the state, fought against the 2022 effort. The Associated Press left a phone message seeking comment on the 2024 initiative with the organization’s chairman, Jim Kinyon. In a pamphlet issued in opposition to the 2022 measure, he wrote that legalization “would swing the door wide open for higher crime rates, increased suicide rates, traffic fatalities, workplace injuries, and mental health problems.”
The ballot initiative would legalize recreational marijuana for people 21 and older. The proposal has possession limits of 2 ounces of marijuana in a form other than concentrated cannabis or cannabis products, as well as 16 grams of the former and 1,600 mg of THC contained in the latter. The measure also allows cultivation of plants, with restrictions.
The measure doesn’t include business licensing, taxation or other regulations. Schweich said the single-subject rule at the heart of the 2021 court ruling tied his hands “in terms of writing the type of comprehensive policy I would have liked to write.”
“We’re taking a conservative approach in response to this ruling and not taking any chances,” he said.
Measure backers, if successful, plan to work with the Legislature next year to pass implementation legislation “that will spell out those missing pieces,” he said.
South Dakota outlaws marijuana possession, distribution and possession with intent to distribute, with varying misdemeanor and felony penalties according to factors such as amount and second or subsequent convictions.
The federal government has proposed reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a move Schweich said might help to normalize the issue for certain voters.
Schweich said the unique circumstances of the issue in South Dakota justify the third attempt. He thinks the initiative has a better chance this year, when voters are likely to turn out in bigger numbers to vote for president, and possibly to weigh in on an abortion rights initiative that others hope to get on the ballot.
South Dakota
Obituary for Robert DeVries at Miller Funeral Home & On-Site Crematory
South Dakota
Obituary for Lorraine Weimer at Osheim & Schmidt Funeral Home
South Dakota
Federal government approves 20-year mining ban in part of SD’s Black Hills • North Dakota Monitor
The federal government approved a 20-year ban Thursday on new mining-related activity in a portion of South Dakota’s Black Hills.
The ban covers 32 square miles of federally owned land located about 20 miles west of Rapid City. The boundaries encompass the Pactola Reservoir and areas upstream that drain into the reservoir via Rapid Creek.
Lilias Jarding, executive director of the Black Hills Clean Water Alliance, hailed the action as “an expression of the will of the people.”
“It definitely shows that when people get active in their communities that we can influence what happens,” Jarding said.
Advocates for the ban rallied against a proposal from Minneapolis-based F3 Gold to conduct exploratory drilling. The project’s location is in the Jenney Gulch area of the Black Hills National Forest, within a mile of Pactola Reservoir. The man-made mountain lake is the largest and deepest reservoir in the Black Hills. It’s also a popular recreation destination and a drinking-water source for Rapid City and Ellsworth Air Force Base.
The boundaries of a ban on new mining-related activity encompassing the Pactola Reservoir and part of the Rapid Creek watershed. (Courtesy of U.S. Forest Service)
F3 won draft approval of its drilling plan from local Forest Service officials in 2022. Then, last year, the national offices of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management announced they were considering a ban on new mining-related activity in the Pactola area.
Federal officials conducted a meeting about the proposed ban last year in Rapid City, where public sentiment was overwhelmingly against the drilling project and in favor of the ban. The Black Hills Clean Water Alliance said more than 1,900 people filed written comments on the ban, with 98% in support of it.
The ban is formally known as a “mineral withdrawal,” because it withdraws the area from eligibility for new mineral exploration and development. A 20-year ban is the maximum allowed by federal law, although the ban could be renewed after that. Only Congress can enact a permanent ban.
Decision comes from Interior Department
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland was the decision-maker on the mineral withdrawal, because the department’s Bureau of Land Management administers mining claims on federal land.
“I’m proud to take action today to withdraw this area for the next 20 years, to help protect clean drinking water and ensure this special place is protected for future generations,” Haaland said in a statement.
She also mentioned the area’s clean air, its recreational and ecological benefits, and the Black Hills’ sacred status in the traditional spiritual beliefs of many Great Plains Native American tribes. Haaland is a member of the Pueblo and Laguna tribes in New Mexico.
Tom Vilsack, secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which includes the Forest Service, issued a statement praising Haaland’s decision.
“The Pactola Reservoir–Rapid Creek Watershed provides so many benefits to the people and communities we serve, from clean water to world-class recreation, from livestock grazing to the spaces our Tribal communities consider sacred,” Vilsack said.
F3 Gold did not immediately return a message from South Dakota Searchlight. Jarding said F3’s Pactola project is negated by the 20-year ban on new activities.
“The only exception to that is if someone has already proved there is a mineral reserve, and without drilling, there’s no proving there’s a mineral resource,” Jarding said.
The company has another exploratory drilling project near Custer, outside of the Pactola ban area. The Custer project has final approval from the Forest Service.
Interest in Black Hills gold dates to its 1874 discovery by Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer’s Black Hills Expedition. The discovery set off a gold rush that ultimately led to the development of the Homestake Mine near Lead, which was the largest and deepest gold mine in North America prior to its closure in 2001. Today, the only active, large-scale gold mine in the region is the Wharf Mine, also near Lead. There’s a large abandoned gold mine in the Lead area, the Gilt Edge Mine, that is undergoing a massive cleanup and water-treatment project supported by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund.
Mining industry responds
Larry Mann, a retired South Dakota lobbyist who formerly represented F3, said the company’s project was treated unfairly. He said exploratory drilling would not damage the Pactola watershed, and that if drilling results justified developing a mine, the proposal would go through a rigorous permitting process that would probably take 10 to 15 years.
“F3 was willing to go through a lot of different things to accommodate concerns,” Mann said.
Mann wonders if the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump could seek to alter Haaland’s decision. Whether or not the new administration could do that, Mann expects Trump’s pick for secretary of the Interior Department — Republican former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum — to be more supportive of mining on federal land.
“I think that there’s a possibility now with a change of leadership that the pendulum could start swinging the other way,” Mann said.
An official working for Burgum’s transition team did not immediately return a message from Searchlight. A spokesperson for the Bureau of Land Management responded by email to Searchlight, saying only that “we’re not going to speculate about decisions of a next Administration.”
F3 Gold is not a member of the South Dakota Mineral Industries Association, but the association issued a statement Thursday in response to Searchlight questions about the Pactola ban. The statement describes the ban as “federal overreach.” The association also alleged that the decision conflicts with federal mineral laws and policies and fails to recognize the significance of critical minerals — such as antimony, used in batteries — that the association said are present in the area covered by the ban.
“The secretary’s rushed decision on the withdrawal of over 20,000 acres proves this administration is desperate to complete executive actions before the new administration takes over on January 20th,” the association’s statement said, in part.
-
Technology6 days ago
Google’s counteroffer to the government trying to break it up is unbundling Android apps
-
News1 week ago
Novo Nordisk shares tumble as weight-loss drug trial data disappoints
-
Politics1 week ago
Illegal immigrant sexually abused child in the U.S. after being removed from the country five times
-
Entertainment1 week ago
'It's a little holiday gift': Inside the Weeknd's free Santa Monica show for his biggest fans
-
Lifestyle1 week ago
Think you can't dance? Get up and try these tips in our comic. We dare you!
-
Technology3 days ago
There’s a reason Metaphor: ReFantanzio’s battle music sounds as cool as it does
-
Technology1 week ago
Fox News AI Newsletter: OpenAI responds to Elon Musk's lawsuit
-
News4 days ago
France’s new premier selects Eric Lombard as finance minister