This interview originally aired on "In the Moment" on SDPB Radio.
Recreational marijuana is on the ballot this year for the third time. Our Dakota Political Junkies take listeners on a journey through past attempts to legalize the drug in the state.
Plus, we remember the life and legacy of U.S. Senator Tim Johnson. He passed away earlier this month.
Jonathan Ellis is co-founder of the independent news journal The Dakota Scout. Tom Dempster is a former South Dakota state senator.
____________________________________________________________
The following transcript was auto-generated and edited for clarity.
Jonathan Ellis:
This was a really fitting tribute to Senator Johnson, I thought. I mean, his two sons spoke at length about what kind of father he was and brought out that personal side. He was a very devoted family man. Stories about how he always went to their events.
Brendan Johnson had a funny line that he never missed family dinners and he never missed church, and he had a rule for the kids that if they were too sick to go to church, they were too sick to watch television. So that was the family side of him.
And there was probably more of that than the policy side on him.
Senator Daschle talked a little bit about that and their friendship over the years. Representative Herseth Sandlin talked about how she'd gone from being an intern to running on the same ticket with him a decade later and just some of the things they got done in Congress.
And I think that when you spend 18 years in Congress, or I should say 28 years in Congress because 10 of that was in the House, and you spend as much time on the Appropriations Committee as he did, the influence that Tim Johnson has had on this state is being felt and will be felt for generations.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah. Senator Dempster, memories of U.S. Senator Tim Johnson?
Tom Dempster:
Well, it's a wonderful thing at your funeral for the introductory prayer to say he holds the people of South Dakota in his heart. Notwithstanding Jonathan's comments about making dinner and always being there for dinner, the dinner that Senator Johnson made his kids would be two pieces of bread and a piece of cheese in the microwave.
Lori Walsh:
That was how he made grilled cheese sandwiches, wasn't it?
Tom Dempster:
And if that was insufficient, then they had Raisin Bran. It's for breakfast, so what's the problem with Raisin Bran for dinner?
Lori Walsh:
Yeah, so they wanted mom to cook is what you're saying, in general. Barb put on a great meal.
Tom Dempster:
I think that would be a requirement. But here's what I saw over, and over, and over again, I saw Tim Johnson as if he were standing in a field in the middle of South Dakota. And here's what Tim Johnson would say, "A blizzard, no problem. A drought, oh, there'll always be next year."
He had a resolve that no matter what came his way, he would take on. Traditionally, of course, he would be a stoic, wouldn't he? He would carry with him a simple acuity that I understand was absolutely extraordinary, that if he knew something, you wouldn't necessarily know that he knew it, but he really knew it and was very, very bright.
What I saw during that entire ceremony was Senator Johnson standing in the field as if he were in a Harvey Dunn painting, a man of indomitable will. Again, the farmer standing in his field. "Oh, I see your roof blew off last night. Oh, well, we can fix that."
But yet, a man where no means no and yes means yes.
The thing that also really hit me is it's an extraordinary thing to have a Senate seat taken away from you.
Larry Pressler lost to Tim Johnson. Larry Pressler was there. It's an extraordinary thing.
For John Thune to lose a Senate race at 6 or 7 in the morning when the results of the election on the Indian Reservations was released and he had won the election before. He now lost the election. John Thune was there.
And that just really impresses me. These are South Dakota politicians. They're men of the soil. They'll take all comers. No means no, yes means yes. It was really impressive.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah, lots to remember about his legacy. People of both parties were there. Governor Kristi Noem was there as well. She worked with him.
So the influence, Jonathan, that he has on people of all parties probably will be remembered for quite some time, even if you didn't agree with his policy, for example.
Jonathan Ellis:
He was a politician who never came across as inauthentic. And I should point out that I pre-wrote an obit, and in our industry, we pre-write obituaries for important people. And so in doing the research for Tim Johnson's eventual obituary, I talked to Joel Dykstra, the person he beat in the 2008 race. Again, just a very respectful guy.
So even his competitors, Larry Pressler, John Thune, who were there, paid their respects to him. He was authentic in a sense.
And Michael Card, the USD professor who I have on as one of your guests, one of the people I interviewed for the obituary said he was the last of a dying breed who moved his family to Washington, D.C. They stayed in Washington, D.C. because that was a more collegial atmosphere back then and yet, he still was able to keep that South Dakota authenticity.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah. All right.
Speaking of the politics of the future, let's talk about what's coming up because the election is what, two weeks away? Now we are on the home stretch. Things are going to get ramped up. And in my world, even though we've been doing stories on every ballot question for months, people will now start asking me, so what is amendment what? So to that point, some people are just starting to pay attention and that is okay. Welcome aboard.
Let's talk today about Initiated Measure 29 because this is recreational marijuana.
Jonathan, the last 20 years, according to the Pew Research Center, the public opinion on marijuana, medical and recreational, has shifted a lot. What we don't know is how much it's shifted in South Dakota, but this isn't the first time that people have been asked to show up and speak up about how they feel about marijuana.
What do you want to lay out historically, Jonathan, that you think is relevant for listeners today?
Jonathan Ellis:
Well, third consecutive election that recreational marijuana has been on the ballot. If it doesn't pass this time, the sponsors say, "We're basically done."
To point out how has opinion shifted? 2006 or 2008, I believe there was a medical marijuana initiative on the ballot. It came very close to passing. They did a repeat there and there had not really been a campaign against it. So then the next election, there was a repeat. This time the Medical Association put a ton of money into defeating it and it went down pretty easily. And so that had been now then over a decade before we get that back on the ballot in 2020, and medical marijuana is something that was pretty overwhelmingly supported. So in that decade-plus, I think a lot did shift.
The recreational is a different deal for a lot of people, and I'm shocked that it's gotten as close. It failed last time. It did pass the first time, and that was overturned by the Supreme Court because it violated the one-subject rule and it maybe passed. The argument that the opponents had for taking it to court maybe was because voters were confused. It had hemp, it had medical marijuana, but anyway, that's the history. So no doubt that opinions across the country and even in South Dakota have definitely softened on illegal marijuana. They don't want people put in jail for it. They don't want law enforcement necessarily diverted, resources diverted for that.
Lori Walsh:
Right. All right, Tom, it's a very simple question, really. The regulatory framework of how it'll be regulated would be up to lawmakers?
Tom Dempster:
Eventually.
Lori Walsh:
Eventually, if it passes.
Tom Dempster:
Mm-hmm.
Lori Walsh:
What do you see in this ballot question that you find interesting politically?
Tom Dempster:
Here's what I see in this ballot question that is fascinating politically, every voter needs to know that he or she is making a Faustian choice. He's making a contract with the devil and the devil is this, do I want increased access to marijuana for my children and for my grandchildren, or do I want them exposed to felony charges in South Dakota? Jonathan talks about the marijuana question being in South Dakota for 10 years, and indeed it has been.
And about 10 years ago, I was in Italy at Lake Como. We had a Rotary Youth Exchange student that stayed with us for a year. We fell in love with her and as a result, we went to her wedding at Lake Como and there was a big convention at that hotel and it was a marijuana convention. And the guy that I talked to at that marijuana convention looked at me and he says, "You Americans." He says, "You're just so crazy because 5 years ago, we started looking at this and we're going to take another 5 or 10 years to take a look at it to understand all of the consequences and everything about legalizing marijuana. You Americans, what you do is you just do it." And so what we've done is we now have 24 states in the United States where marijuana is legal. South Dakota is one of four states who has the most extreme penalties, a felony for your children or for your grandchildren.
Lori Walsh:
I'm going to jump in because I'm not sure if people think that marijuana usage is the Hellmouth that Faust is going to get dragged into at the end.
Tom Dempster:
Say that again?
Lori Walsh:
I don't know that moderate legal marijuana use that's regulated, labeled and available in a dispensary is really a deal with the devil. I'm not sure how many people would agree with you on that. Even if they don't want this measure to pass, I'm not sure how many people think it's as extreme as maybe-
Tom Dempster:
As I stated that it is.
Lori Walsh:
I don't know.
Tom Dempster:
It's fascinating because the New York Times just had an in-depth article in talking about the consequences of increased marijuana use in the United States. And in Aurora, Colorado, for example, almost daily they say, "Here comes another one." THC levels in today's marijuana is 99%, as opposed to 5% of what it used to be. Those people, according to the New York Times article, who use marijuana in excess are all going to have some problems with psychosis and schizophrenia, so on and so forth. So the question is, is the same thing true with alcohol, use it, don't abuse it, or do you want to face a felony charge?
Lori Walsh:
Jonathan, what would you add to this?
Jonathan Ellis:
Well, it's an interesting commerce. For one thing, I didn't read the New York Times story. There's a lot of competing studies in this area, and the caveat is that they're funded by groups who absolutely oppose marijuana and they're looking for anything they can. Or they're funded by pro-marijuana groups. It's really hard to find good studies that you can trust. I have seen studies that suggest that youth use actually went down in Colorado after. Again, and I am from Colorado.
Lori Walsh:
I found that study too, so it is mixed results, and I agree with you. As I'm looking, and looking, and looking, it is-
Jonathan Ellis:
It's just hard to-
Lori Walsh:
It's one of the muddier places because it's fairly new because it's hard to put a ton of money into researching. How are you going to research marijuana use upon kids in a peer-reviewed journal? I mean, right?
Jonathan Ellis:
Right.
Lori Walsh:
There's some ethical barriers too, and there's been some societal stigma to researching it. So a lot of the research is difficult to sort through, is what I'm saying. It's kind of hard.
Jonathan Ellis:
This is a result-
Lori Walsh:
Nobody says it's good for you.
Jonathan Ellis:
Right. I don't think it is.
Lori Walsh:
Nobody says excess use is good for you. No one's arguing that, to be clear.
Jonathan Ellis:
This is a result though of our frankly insane federal drug laws for decades, that you couldn't do research. I mean, it was very tightly controlled by the DEA, any type of research. That even included the medical field, too.
So yes, to your point, Tom, about Europeans saying you're crazy, there was no way to really study this stuff. But let's go back to the policy side of this really quick because I was having some communications with an elected official today about a story I wrote about a property tax ballot measure being approved for circulation. And my point of the story was that there's a property tax revolt coming if lawmakers don't figure something out. And it's not unusual for our system of governments, I said this on X today, to not actually deal with problems. They get so out of control that something else comes along.
And let me give you an example. Republicans had an opportunity during the 2000s to deal with spiraling health care premium costs. They did not do a thing, even though there were ample warnings that this is going to blow up on you and, thus, it does with the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Because they didn't deal with it, something else big happens. This is going to happen with property taxes.
Now, going back to marijuana, the proponents here will say, "Yeah, 24 states and not one of them wants to go back." You are not hearing, "Let's go back," and I'm going back to Colorado. I haven't looked at the data recently, but I will say that legalization did provide a lot of money for schools. So if you're looking at property taxes, you're looking at perhaps giving counties some consumption taxability with alcohol sales. You're not going to get some of these things without a broader tax package, and that probably would include property taxes. If you throw cannabis taxation in there, I mean, you're talking about probably some pretty decent revenue.
Lori Walsh:
We don't know.
Jonathan Ellis:
This would be up to the Legislature.
Lori Walsh:
Right. This is going to be up to the Legislature because right now, we do not know if this could be taxed.
Jonathan Ellis:
It'd be the Legislature. I mean, look, we've talked. We interviewed the framers of this and they intentionally want it taxed, and they've intentionally tried to make this as simple as possible so to give the Legislature a lot of latitude to color in the dots there.
Lori Walsh:
Which Legislature, Tom? Because it is not going to be the seated Legislature right now. Let's say that the consumables tax repeal passes and recreational marijuana passes, then that's going to be decided by the people who take office in January.
Tom Dempster:
Indeed.
Lori Walsh:
Will there be a special session where the governor would say, "No, I want the legislators from last session to make decisions." Will there be pressure for that? Any political gamesmanship that happens after the Election Day before January with our current governor and the current makeup of the State House?
Tom Dempster:
So we don't yet know on the consumables tax, whether that's a $128 million deficit or a $650 million deficit. We have no idea what a 1%, 2% or 10% tax on marijuana use would generate. It certainly isn't going to be any number between 128 and 600 some million dollars. It's going to be a very, very difficult legislative session, if the sales tax passes or consumable taxes pass, it's going to be a very difficult legislative session and it's going to require some really, really smart, capable people.
Lori Walsh:
To Jonathan's point, many of the ballot questions that we see are things that lawmakers have had an opportunity. Even the abortion amendment, I anticipated that we would see abortion legislation, some kind of compromise that would come out of peer ahead of the public vote to try to get ahead of, "This is what we think a good South Dakota solution is to this question," that did not happen. I was wrong about that and it's on the ballot now, and voters will decide based on how that particular ballot question was worded.
So I think your point is really clear right now that there's a way to do it from Pierre, and there's a way to do it on the ballot and those two things can clash, but there are questions that have to go to lawmakers then in January.
Tom Dempster:
Meaning that if you don't take care of these issues during the legislative session, the people won't take care of these issues in initiated measures.
Lori Walsh:
Or if people don't like how you took care of it, they will refer it.
Tom Dempster:
They will refer it.
Lori Walsh:
People will have their say.
Tom Dempster:
Yep.
Lori Walsh:
Should we leave it there?
Tom Dempster:
It's a wonderful thing that they do and that they will.
Lori Walsh:
Right. It's a wonderful thing that they do and that they will.
Jonathan Ellis:
Yeah, I would just say there are too many lawmakers, and this goes not just state politics but back to the federal level, that haven't dealt with immigration issues for decades. They don't deal with these things. They don't want to pay the political consequences for it. You got too many people who are just too wedded to those jobs and they're not willing to make the tough decisions because they don't want somebody to run against them on it. You know what I mean? So this is a weakness of our democracy.
Lori Walsh:
And the strength of our democracy?
Tom Dempster:
Which is a weakness of our primary system.
Jonathan Ellis:
Hard pivot!
Tom Dempster:
Excuse me very much. Thank you very much for that opportunity.
Lori Walsh:
I'll open the door for Amendment H before we go. We should tell listeners, if they don't already know, that you are very pro-Amendment H.
How would the primary system address what we were just outlying here with people not making solutions because they won't get primaried in the same way?
Tom Dempster:
Sure. Because that's the reason that people are frozen, in fact, and can't do anything because they've got to go back to their constituency, which in South Dakota would be 17% of the voters, and they have to make it through that thicket of extremely ideological people in order to be re-elected and make it through the primary. That's wrong. Seventeen percent of the people should not make the decision on who gets elected to office. The 70% of people who vote in the general election should. That gives us the capacity to really solve some problems.
Lori Walsh:
Let's wrap up with the new polling numbers. None of us have been able to dive into it super deeply, but is there anything from the South Dakota News Watch and the Chiesman Center for Democracy and Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy? Anything from those numbers that you're seeing at first blush, Jonathan, that surprises you or that confirms something that you were already thinking about how the electorate is feeling two weeks ahead of the election?
Jonathan Ellis:
Well, regard to the numbers of IM 29, which is what we were focusing on here, the numbers have switched, I think. What is it? They have 51% no versus 44% yes. Those numbers have switched from an earlier poll that was done in August, September. An internal poll that I was privy to had it passing. But that is before a really hard negative campaign came out against that. So I would submit that the campaign against legalized marijuana is working for the opponents.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah. Anything that stands out to you, Tom, that you want to leave us with from these polling numbers?
Tom Dempster:
I think surprises all around, and we'll see what happens in the end.
Lori Walsh:
All right. Some of them are too close to call. So two weeks, we keep pushing toward the Election Day.
Tom Dempster:
Let the people vote.
Lori Walsh:
Let the people vote.
Jonathan Ellis:
We've got a lot of races that are too close to call all across the country.
