Weekly Recap - Final Week of the Legislative session
2021 District 6 Legislators - Representative Aaron Aylward, Senator Herman Otten, Representative Ernie Otten
Last week saw the end of this year's Legislative session, and outside of Monday, most of that time was spent on the budget and HB 1100. This week I'm going to talk about HB 1100.
HB 1100 was one of the more controversial bills this year as it pertained to Initiated Measure 26 approved by the voters last November. There had been and still is a lot of consternation over what to do with the approved measure since there was such a short timeline to get all of the rules, statutes, and regulations in order. The measure takes effect on July 1, 2021, and there are as many opinions on the best way to handle this as there are Legislators. The House passed what they thought was their best idea, and the Senate amended the bill into the version the Senate thought was the best.
The Senate changes that caused the biggest concerns with the House and the Governor's office were sections 13, 14, and 15. These sections decriminalized the possession of one ounce of marijuana or eight grams of marijuana derivative. Both versions of the bill suspended parts of the implementation of IM 26 and would have created an interim marijuana committee to put together a package of bills for next year to correctly implement IM 26.
Sections 13 through 16 detail the changes pertaining to the decriminalization.
Section 13. That a NEW SECTION be added:
22-42-5.2. Possession of a certain amount of marijuana concentrate not a criminal offense under certain circumstances.
For any person twenty-one years of age or older, it is not a violation of § 22-42-5 to possess eight grams of marijuana concentrate or less.
Section 14. That § 22-42-6 be AMENDED.
22-42-6. Possession of marijuana prohibited--Degrees according to amount.
Except as provided in § 22-42-6.1, no person may knowingly possess marijuana. It is a Class 1 misdemeanor to possess two ounces of marijuana or less. It is a Class 6 felony to possess more than two ounces of marijuana but less than one-half pound of marijuana. It is a Class 5 felony to possess one-half pound but less than one pound of marijuana. It is a Class 4 felony to possess one to ten pounds of marijuana. It is a Class 3 felony to possess more than ten pounds of marijuana. A civil penalty may be imposed, in addition to any criminal penalty, upon a conviction of a violation of this section not to exceed ten thousand dollars.
Section 15. That a NEW SECTION be added:
22-42-6.1. Possession of certain amount of marijuana not a criminal offense under certain circumstances.
For any person twenty-one years of age or older, it is not a violation of § 22-42-6 to possess one ounce or less of marijuana.
Section 16. That a NEW SECTION be added:
22-42-7.1. Open and public use of marijuana or marijuana concentrate--Civil penalty.
No person may openly consume or display one ounce or less of marijuana or eight grams or less of marijuana concentrate in a public place other than an area licensed for such activity under the laws of this state. The court may impose a civil penalty for a violation of this section not to exceed one hundred dollars. Any civil penalty collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the state general fund.
HB 1100 was sent to the conference committee, where the committee tried to hammer out a compromise, but at the end of the day, there was no compromise to be found, and the bill died.
I voted to support the amendment to the bill, but I voted against the bill. I supported the amendment because it was the second-best option, and I voted against the bill because it delayed the implementation of IM 26, which goes against the vote of the people. The citizens of South Dakota voted for the medical use of marijuana by close to 70% approval. My vote against the bill was cast to meet the full intent of the people to have the measure take effect on July 1, 2021. Yes, it would be tough for the different state agencies and Department of Public Safety to deal with, but it's what the voters wanted.
The part about the decriminalization of 1 oz or less or 8 grams of a marijuana derivative was included because of the citizens' vote to support the legalization of marijuana but is under the review of the State Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Which I feel has a very good chance to be thrown out because it is unconstitutional.
I don't approve of the use of marijuana for recreational use, but not wanting to against the will of the voters, I supported the amendment anyways but was able to vote against the bill. Sometimes a Legislator will vote for an amendment to make the best bill possible if it passes but votes against the bill because they still don't fully support what the bill does.
Please contact me with your comments and concerns at herman.otten@sdlegislature.gov