Boomer here. I’ve seen what happens when weed is legalized in a state…….NOTHING! Those who use, continue to use. Those who didn’t, don’t. Nothing changes. No increase in traffic accidents, no mad piano playing, no wild sex in the street. A big nothing. What does happen it’s city’s that allow sales get more taxes for road repairs, money for more parks and landscaping, money for more law enforcement, cops won’t be tied up booking kids for one damn joint at a house party. When you cross the Red River, do you feel less safe because the devils weed is legal? If not, then that proves nothing happens when weed is legal. Reefer Madness is not a documentary. And I don’t use weed at all, or even drink.
I think it’s about the freedom of choice. Plus (to my knowledge) Cannabis is the least harmful drug that’s been criminalized. I mean there’s a lot more that’ll do some serious harm (from what I’ve read online).
I was getting ready to yell at you! But you got me.
I completely agree 20 years in the fire service in MN never went on any medical of any significance where cannabis was the cause.
Then 5 in Washington where everyone who wanted to could, lots did, no problem.
Now 2yrs in SD and our state government continues to try to vilify legal med use and criminalizing rec use. Crazy accusations are made against cannabis use. Leaving tremendous taxes on the table neighbor states on both sides are raking in. Montana collected $113,200,670 in taxes over the last two years. https://mtrevenue.gov/cannabis-sales-reports/
How is any of this good for South Dakota?
Don't follow our lead.
Now let’s hope whoever approves how the bill is put on the ballet makes sure it doesn’t say it’s going to cost the state money. What a fucking fail that was last time around.
I’ve all but lost hope for this state passing recreational. Young people don’t vote, boomers vote in droves. The only thing this initiative has going for it, is that fact that it’s an election year. More people vote in general.
It gets a little higher every time. My friends and coworkers voted in the midterm elections for it last time, which isn't something I normally see. My parents vote yes on it now too.
>I’ve all but lost hope for this state passing recreational. Young people don’t vote, boomers vote in droves.
THIS. Millennial here--everyone I know takes part in cannabis consumption. YET... at the same time... none of them can be bothered to show up to vote. Until we get the younger generations to give a shit about voting, this won't pass.
They're not going to care about voting. If they can get it easily and nothing happens. It's not worth their time. Especially now that they can just go across the river
BISMARCK — A measure to legalize marijuana use for adults 21 and over in North Dakota may be decided by voters in the November election.
A group of 27 North Dakotans filed a 2024 ballot measure petition to legalize adult-use cannabis in North Dakota on Tuesday, April 16. The proposal would allow adults 21 and older to possess small amounts of cannabis and purchase products from registered cannabis establishments in the state.
To qualify for the November ballot, 15,582 signatures must be gathered from eligible North Dakota voters by July 8.
A committee called the New Economic Frontier, which is sponsoring the measure, said in a release Tuesday that the measure would help lessen the burden on the criminal justice system and promote economic growth in the state.
“Cannabis legalization is coming, and it’s coming fast. We’ve got a choice here – let out-of-state interests call the shots, or take the lead ourselves," said Steve Bakken, New Economic Frontier chair, former Bismarck mayor and radio host. "We’ve carefully crafted this initiative right here in North Dakota, making sure it fits what our community really needs. Let’s embrace this opportunity the North Dakota way, with common sense and local input guiding the way.”
According to New Economic Frontier, the United States cannabis industry is projecting $38.4 billion in revenue in 2024, and the industry supports 400,000 jobs. The legalized cannabis industry increases tax revenue, providing funding for local schools, organizations and programs, in small and large communities. Legalization also stimulates economic development and diversifies income streams, contributing to long-term prosperity for North Dakota, the committee said.
Proponents of legalizing adult-use cannabis also say legalization allows law enforcement to focus on serious or violent crimes, enhancing public safety and saving taxpayer money.
“As an attorney, former police officer, and lifelong resident of North Dakota, I have seen how criminalizing cannabis drains resources from law enforcement and clogs our courts," said Mark Friese, a Fargo-based criminal defense attorney who is backing the bill. "This measure is a conservative and sensible approach to legalization that I am confident will benefit our state.”
According to the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, unlike other illegal drugs such as heroin or cocaine, "violence associated with cannabis cultivation" is rare.
Others have argued legalization helps remove obstacles for veterans and individuals with medical conditions who cannot access medical marijuana. It is also a way to ensure cannabis products are regulated, undergoing thorough testing for potency and screening for contaminants.
“I’ve seen how medical marijuana can help North Dakotans battling things like cancer, anxiety, and chronic pain," Casey Neumann, CEO of local businesses Pure Dakota and Pure Dakota Health said. "This makes it easier for our neighbors to access cannabis for their medicinal needs but it also will benefit our state as a whole through its taxation. The positive economic impact alone is a key reason why all North Dakotans should vote yes. Legalizing cannabis paves the way for a more prosperous future for our state.”
North Dakota has taken steps toward the legalization of cannabis. In 2016, North Dakota voters approved Measure 5, which allows for a medical cannabis program in the state. In 2017, the state Legislature passed changes to Measure 5 and removed a provision that would have allowed medical users to grow marijuana.
In 2019, Gov. Doug Burgum signed legislation that reduced marijuana possession penalties. Ingesting any amount of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by 30 days in jail and a maximum fine of $1,500. Possession of less than a half-ounce of marijuana is a criminal infraction punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.
Previous efforts to legalize recreational marijuana in North Dakota failed in 2018 and 2022, with the proposals garnering 41% and 45% approval, respectively.
In 2023, recreational cannabis became legal in Minnesota, where adults 21 and older are allowed to cultivate, carry, and smoke marijuana flowers.
First off thanks for posting the copy here.
Secondly, I see no mention of anything allowing home cultivation, making this a non-starter for many who would prefer doing that.
How does a state legalize a plant without allowing people to grow it!?... this needs federal legalization through and through to be done with it already. This "states can decide" is just archaic for this type of issue.
Maybe I missed something, or the article doesn't go into those details, but home cultivation has to be included for a lot of people to consider voting for it, even if they're already for legalization...
> Maybe I missed something, or the article doesn't go into those details, but home cultivation has to be included for a lot of people to consider voting for it, even if they're already for legalization...
Oh I agree, It is unfortunate those people don't see the forest for the trees and don't want to support even one step forward in the right direction.
Seems rather silly They prefer no forward movement than at least some movement towards the end goal. I do hope they eventually realize that sometimes you can't complete a project in one step. Sometimes more than one step is needed to reach the end goal.
I'm of the same mindset. I'd like to see home grow allowed, but I'd still vote yes even if that provision wasn't included. Next election there could be a petition to allow home cultivation.
I think the consensus on "maybe next time" is the issue with it though. I've seen this in several other states as well, where people outright refuse to legalize without home grow provisions because they know it will be another "shuffle the rusty can down the road for another decade" issue. It's better to get it all done at once and fine tune from there. I've seen/experienced the process firsthand in Colorado a decade ago.
I agree it needs to be legalized (no debate there at all), and preferably at a federal level. But I also tend to agree that home cultivation has to be a part of it from the start, or corporations will just lobby the hell out of it for a statewide duopoly and no alternatives.
The issue tends to trend toward an all or nothing viewpoint regardless of which state it is, and I can understand why... for that reason alone, I don't think this measure will have a chance of success without home cultivation provisions.
I look at Manitoba and I'd rather have their situation than ours. They could just walk down to their local store since 2018. It sounds like next year they'll allow for home grow. All or nothing is stupid.
Edit: I remember the first time it was on the ballot. It allowed for home grow and it failed.
I know some of the people behind New Economic Frontier (NEF) and they are pure capitalists. There is a reason home grow isn't included. It takes from their profit. They are concerned with the cash grab. I promise you will see the names or associates of NEF members first in line for licenses of grow facilities and dispensaries.
> There is a reason home grow isn't included. It takes from their profit.
Those don't sound like actual capitalists even though they might claim to be capitalists. Real advocates of capitalism believe very strongly in the abstract concept of individual rights and the non-initiation of force principle and oppose any government regulation of economic activity such as forbidding people from growing or producing a legalized product on their own.
What you describe - a law prohibiting people from producing a legal product on their own - is arguably a socialist economic element as it favors certain businesses while banning individuals from entering the market.
At issue is whose definition should we use, exactly? Economists with a variety of philosophical backgrounds, many of which provide no moral underpinning for capitalism or who hold ethical beliefs inconsistent with it?
Let's suppose that a philosopher created an internally consistent philosophical system that grounded a definition of capitalism built on an explicit system of ethics and moral philosophy further deriving from an explicit system of metaphysics and epistemology. Why not use that system's definition as opposed to "definitions" that are not grounded in any way and/or come from people of mixed premises?
See: [Ayn Rand Lexicon - Capitalism](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html) for a small taste of what that might look like. For serious reading see also the chapter "Capitalism" in [Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.](https://objectivismphilosophyaynrand.com/contents/capitalism/)
Personally, I'm merely an advocate of a capitalist-tilting mixed economy, but would be in favor of the Objectivists getting their own nation somewhere so that they can give real capitalism a go.
I didn’t actually read the petition but I read that line in this article from the Bismarck tribune
https://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/elections/recreational-marijuana-pot-ballot-measure-proposed-north-dakota-steve-bakken/article_b45c6b1a-fc36-11ee-877b-ebb860415cc8.html
The measure allows adults 21 and older to use cannabis at home without punishment, and allows up to one ounce of cannabis, four grams of concentrate and 300 milligrams of edibles to be in possession. Not sure what’s up with 300 mg limit on edibles ….
https://news.prairiepublic.org/local-news/2024-04-17/legalization-effort-aims-to-get-ahead-of-marijuana-the-north-dakota-way?_amp=true
Uh, they didn't forget it, lolol. They would use the already established procurement system that they and their friends have their grubby hands in. They are trying gloss right over it like they do everything controversial... Remember when they passed digital land posting??? Every single one of the Senate was like I voted no.... Then when you looked it up, it passed with more than 60% of the vote. The funniest part was one of the senators from the eastern part of the state that voted no said they had been mistaken on how to cast thier vote to support the measure.... Some of them were lying when asked, and no one called em out over it in the media either.
The "good old boys" club will make sure that the wording on the measure makes it sound like the state will lose millions of dollars to make sure no one votes in favor of it, like last time.
It does not matter how many times people will try, the people in power don't want legalized marijuana in North Dakota and will go to any lengths to make sure it never happens.
You can calculate the approximate time based on how conservative a place is. North Dakota The average time expected for legalization was 2032 with all of the US legalizing by about 2035.
Meh. I know some very healthy boomers that likely have twenty years left in them. They'll also vote "no" every time from a weird "Christian" reefer madness standpoint.
It'll honestly be easier to get young people engaged in voting than to wait out old people. They've been saying the boomers will die off and everything will get better since the late 90s.
VOTE and tell your friends and family to VOTE!
My personal view is that marijuana should be legalized similar to how distilled spirits are handled in some states. Higher percentage of D9 THC, and other psychoactive compounds should see a higher tax %, and if people want to grow their own stuff, so be it.
Also we really should have a law that allows home distilling here in North Dakota.
I mean this is effectively what's happening and this is one reason why a lot of younger people are not going to vote for legalization in ND since they can just go across the river
This issue is funny to me because all the hardcore stoners I know who I asked to vote yes last time basically all told me the same thing “I got too high and didn’t go” haha idk I just thought it was silly. I voted yes last time and I’ll try again this year!
Just imagine if it passed in 2016 and what the state budget could have looked like. We wouldn’t have a teacher shortage. We could more than pay for school lunches. We could reclaim Badlands areas destroyed by oil companies. $150 million was requested for the tourism grant last year that legislature only allotted $25 million for, we could’ve given tens of millions more to all the small towns desperate for tourists. We could have cleared out the disaster that is the state crime lab and their obsession with prosecuting marijuana crimes. Even at the city level, Bismarck just cancelled fall clean up week because they can’t afford to do it anymore.
There’s soooooooo much good that we missed out on because of old people and old ideas.
Canadian here,
The only real difference to the public was all the plastic litter it generates from our stupid packaging and labeling rules. Otherwise it's not noticeable at all.
I want this to pass primarily so my mom quits driving to Montana every few weeks to re-supply. She was going to Colorado with her girlfriends every month until Montana’s system got set up.
Hell, North Dakota could pass this and be up and running before Minnesota!
I’m from Michigan. Honestly, don’t legalize it.
Or legalize it and then heavily limit it.
It sucks going home to visit and we can’t get away from the stench of weed. It’s disgusting.
I can’t smell Budweiser anywhere.
I’d rather smell cigarettes than pot. Pot smells gross as hell.
But the best solution is to legalize it so people can smoke, I know a lot of people do. But then limit it. Barely any pot shops, no smoking on Main Street or near restaurants, schools, or hospitals.
My home town is opening its fifth pot shop now and crime has been increasing. It’s disgusting to visit because of the stench.
Boomer here. I’ve seen what happens when weed is legalized in a state…….NOTHING! Those who use, continue to use. Those who didn’t, don’t. Nothing changes. No increase in traffic accidents, no mad piano playing, no wild sex in the street. A big nothing. What does happen it’s city’s that allow sales get more taxes for road repairs, money for more parks and landscaping, money for more law enforcement, cops won’t be tied up booking kids for one damn joint at a house party. When you cross the Red River, do you feel less safe because the devils weed is legal? If not, then that proves nothing happens when weed is legal. Reefer Madness is not a documentary. And I don’t use weed at all, or even drink.
Well said ye ole boomer
I think it’s about the freedom of choice. Plus (to my knowledge) Cannabis is the least harmful drug that’s been criminalized. I mean there’s a lot more that’ll do some serious harm (from what I’ve read online).
I was getting ready to yell at you! But you got me. I completely agree 20 years in the fire service in MN never went on any medical of any significance where cannabis was the cause. Then 5 in Washington where everyone who wanted to could, lots did, no problem. Now 2yrs in SD and our state government continues to try to vilify legal med use and criminalizing rec use. Crazy accusations are made against cannabis use. Leaving tremendous taxes on the table neighbor states on both sides are raking in. Montana collected $113,200,670 in taxes over the last two years. https://mtrevenue.gov/cannabis-sales-reports/ How is any of this good for South Dakota? Don't follow our lead.
Hey I'm gonna learn to play the piano mad stoned now just to prove you wrong boomer
They could use the taxes to build that new fangled fargo dome they want
I laughed out loud when I read "no mad piano playing." I tip my hat to a fellow Reefer Madness fan. 😂
THIS TREE HUGGING LIBERAL WILL VOTE YES EVERY GODDAMN TIME IT'S ON THE BALLOT UNTIL IT'S LEGAL HERE.
I also like trees and will vote yes.
Now let’s hope whoever approves how the bill is put on the ballet makes sure it doesn’t say it’s going to cost the state money. What a fucking fail that was last time around.
I’ve all but lost hope for this state passing recreational. Young people don’t vote, boomers vote in droves. The only thing this initiative has going for it, is that fact that it’s an election year. More people vote in general.
For one, I’m glad it keeps getting brought up but yeah the young generation that would vote yes don’t make it a priority to vote in general.
It gets a little higher every time. My friends and coworkers voted in the midterm elections for it last time, which isn't something I normally see. My parents vote yes on it now too.
>I’ve all but lost hope for this state passing recreational. Young people don’t vote, boomers vote in droves. THIS. Millennial here--everyone I know takes part in cannabis consumption. YET... at the same time... none of them can be bothered to show up to vote. Until we get the younger generations to give a shit about voting, this won't pass.
They're not going to care about voting. If they can get it easily and nothing happens. It's not worth their time. Especially now that they can just go across the river
The state won't be ready for another 10 years. Not anything that could really be done about that
Realistically, how much effort does it take to support legalization? Your attitude stinks!
I’ll still vote, as I have every single time, to no avail.
BISMARCK — A measure to legalize marijuana use for adults 21 and over in North Dakota may be decided by voters in the November election. A group of 27 North Dakotans filed a 2024 ballot measure petition to legalize adult-use cannabis in North Dakota on Tuesday, April 16. The proposal would allow adults 21 and older to possess small amounts of cannabis and purchase products from registered cannabis establishments in the state. To qualify for the November ballot, 15,582 signatures must be gathered from eligible North Dakota voters by July 8. A committee called the New Economic Frontier, which is sponsoring the measure, said in a release Tuesday that the measure would help lessen the burden on the criminal justice system and promote economic growth in the state. “Cannabis legalization is coming, and it’s coming fast. We’ve got a choice here – let out-of-state interests call the shots, or take the lead ourselves," said Steve Bakken, New Economic Frontier chair, former Bismarck mayor and radio host. "We’ve carefully crafted this initiative right here in North Dakota, making sure it fits what our community really needs. Let’s embrace this opportunity the North Dakota way, with common sense and local input guiding the way.” According to New Economic Frontier, the United States cannabis industry is projecting $38.4 billion in revenue in 2024, and the industry supports 400,000 jobs. The legalized cannabis industry increases tax revenue, providing funding for local schools, organizations and programs, in small and large communities. Legalization also stimulates economic development and diversifies income streams, contributing to long-term prosperity for North Dakota, the committee said. Proponents of legalizing adult-use cannabis also say legalization allows law enforcement to focus on serious or violent crimes, enhancing public safety and saving taxpayer money. “As an attorney, former police officer, and lifelong resident of North Dakota, I have seen how criminalizing cannabis drains resources from law enforcement and clogs our courts," said Mark Friese, a Fargo-based criminal defense attorney who is backing the bill. "This measure is a conservative and sensible approach to legalization that I am confident will benefit our state.” According to the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, unlike other illegal drugs such as heroin or cocaine, "violence associated with cannabis cultivation" is rare. Others have argued legalization helps remove obstacles for veterans and individuals with medical conditions who cannot access medical marijuana. It is also a way to ensure cannabis products are regulated, undergoing thorough testing for potency and screening for contaminants. “I’ve seen how medical marijuana can help North Dakotans battling things like cancer, anxiety, and chronic pain," Casey Neumann, CEO of local businesses Pure Dakota and Pure Dakota Health said. "This makes it easier for our neighbors to access cannabis for their medicinal needs but it also will benefit our state as a whole through its taxation. The positive economic impact alone is a key reason why all North Dakotans should vote yes. Legalizing cannabis paves the way for a more prosperous future for our state.” North Dakota has taken steps toward the legalization of cannabis. In 2016, North Dakota voters approved Measure 5, which allows for a medical cannabis program in the state. In 2017, the state Legislature passed changes to Measure 5 and removed a provision that would have allowed medical users to grow marijuana. In 2019, Gov. Doug Burgum signed legislation that reduced marijuana possession penalties. Ingesting any amount of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by 30 days in jail and a maximum fine of $1,500. Possession of less than a half-ounce of marijuana is a criminal infraction punishable by a fine of up to $1,000. Previous efforts to legalize recreational marijuana in North Dakota failed in 2018 and 2022, with the proposals garnering 41% and 45% approval, respectively. In 2023, recreational cannabis became legal in Minnesota, where adults 21 and older are allowed to cultivate, carry, and smoke marijuana flowers.
First off thanks for posting the copy here. Secondly, I see no mention of anything allowing home cultivation, making this a non-starter for many who would prefer doing that. How does a state legalize a plant without allowing people to grow it!?... this needs federal legalization through and through to be done with it already. This "states can decide" is just archaic for this type of issue. Maybe I missed something, or the article doesn't go into those details, but home cultivation has to be included for a lot of people to consider voting for it, even if they're already for legalization...
> Maybe I missed something, or the article doesn't go into those details, but home cultivation has to be included for a lot of people to consider voting for it, even if they're already for legalization... Oh I agree, It is unfortunate those people don't see the forest for the trees and don't want to support even one step forward in the right direction. Seems rather silly They prefer no forward movement than at least some movement towards the end goal. I do hope they eventually realize that sometimes you can't complete a project in one step. Sometimes more than one step is needed to reach the end goal.
I'm of the same mindset. I'd like to see home grow allowed, but I'd still vote yes even if that provision wasn't included. Next election there could be a petition to allow home cultivation.
I think the consensus on "maybe next time" is the issue with it though. I've seen this in several other states as well, where people outright refuse to legalize without home grow provisions because they know it will be another "shuffle the rusty can down the road for another decade" issue. It's better to get it all done at once and fine tune from there. I've seen/experienced the process firsthand in Colorado a decade ago. I agree it needs to be legalized (no debate there at all), and preferably at a federal level. But I also tend to agree that home cultivation has to be a part of it from the start, or corporations will just lobby the hell out of it for a statewide duopoly and no alternatives. The issue tends to trend toward an all or nothing viewpoint regardless of which state it is, and I can understand why... for that reason alone, I don't think this measure will have a chance of success without home cultivation provisions.
I look at Manitoba and I'd rather have their situation than ours. They could just walk down to their local store since 2018. It sounds like next year they'll allow for home grow. All or nothing is stupid. Edit: I remember the first time it was on the ballot. It allowed for home grow and it failed.
I know some of the people behind New Economic Frontier (NEF) and they are pure capitalists. There is a reason home grow isn't included. It takes from their profit. They are concerned with the cash grab. I promise you will see the names or associates of NEF members first in line for licenses of grow facilities and dispensaries.
I wonder if they have thier hands in Epic Entertainment too lol. State is full of carpet bagger politicians.
If they get the ball rolling thats fine by me. There's always room for improvement on version 2.
> There is a reason home grow isn't included. It takes from their profit. Those don't sound like actual capitalists even though they might claim to be capitalists. Real advocates of capitalism believe very strongly in the abstract concept of individual rights and the non-initiation of force principle and oppose any government regulation of economic activity such as forbidding people from growing or producing a legalized product on their own. What you describe - a law prohibiting people from producing a legal product on their own - is arguably a socialist economic element as it favors certain businesses while banning individuals from entering the market.
There are facts and definitions and then there are opinions.
At issue is whose definition should we use, exactly? Economists with a variety of philosophical backgrounds, many of which provide no moral underpinning for capitalism or who hold ethical beliefs inconsistent with it? Let's suppose that a philosopher created an internally consistent philosophical system that grounded a definition of capitalism built on an explicit system of ethics and moral philosophy further deriving from an explicit system of metaphysics and epistemology. Why not use that system's definition as opposed to "definitions" that are not grounded in any way and/or come from people of mixed premises? See: [Ayn Rand Lexicon - Capitalism](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html) for a small taste of what that might look like. For serious reading see also the chapter "Capitalism" in [Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.](https://objectivismphilosophyaynrand.com/contents/capitalism/) Personally, I'm merely an advocate of a capitalist-tilting mixed economy, but would be in favor of the Objectivists getting their own nation somewhere so that they can give real capitalism a go.
Ty for your addition to the conversation. I appreciate your perspective and will definitely check out those suggested reads.
It also allows the ability to grow three plants per person over age 21, with a maximum of six plants per household.
If so, great! But where did you find that info?
I didn’t actually read the petition but I read that line in this article from the Bismarck tribune https://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/elections/recreational-marijuana-pot-ballot-measure-proposed-north-dakota-steve-bakken/article_b45c6b1a-fc36-11ee-877b-ebb860415cc8.html
The measure allows adults 21 and older to use cannabis at home without punishment, and allows up to one ounce of cannabis, four grams of concentrate and 300 milligrams of edibles to be in possession. Not sure what’s up with 300 mg limit on edibles …. https://news.prairiepublic.org/local-news/2024-04-17/legalization-effort-aims-to-get-ahead-of-marijuana-the-north-dakota-way?_amp=true
Uh, they didn't forget it, lolol. They would use the already established procurement system that they and their friends have their grubby hands in. They are trying gloss right over it like they do everything controversial... Remember when they passed digital land posting??? Every single one of the Senate was like I voted no.... Then when you looked it up, it passed with more than 60% of the vote. The funniest part was one of the senators from the eastern part of the state that voted no said they had been mistaken on how to cast thier vote to support the measure.... Some of them were lying when asked, and no one called em out over it in the media either.
The "good old boys" club will make sure that the wording on the measure makes it sound like the state will lose millions of dollars to make sure no one votes in favor of it, like last time. It does not matter how many times people will try, the people in power don't want legalized marijuana in North Dakota and will go to any lengths to make sure it never happens.
Well I’ll counted your gloomy outlook and think that they can do it!
We’ll get there eventually! Hopefully it’s sooner rather than later!
10 yrs
Wouldn’t surprise me if it took another 10-15 years!
You can calculate the approximate time based on how conservative a place is. North Dakota The average time expected for legalization was 2032 with all of the US legalizing by about 2035.
Tell your friends and family to do you a favor and vote yes. I did. It didn’t work.. but try try try again! cmon people
I asked like 20 people to vote yes I think only 2 made it there. I’ll take it over nothing I guess?
I share your skepticism but this is backed by a former mayor and bigshot attorney so maybe they have secured the bag for the good old boys to cash in.
Another 5-10 yrs most of those boomers will be gone, and we can finally live like normal people in a normal state
Meh. I know some very healthy boomers that likely have twenty years left in them. They'll also vote "no" every time from a weird "Christian" reefer madness standpoint. It'll honestly be easier to get young people engaged in voting than to wait out old people. They've been saying the boomers will die off and everything will get better since the late 90s. VOTE and tell your friends and family to VOTE!
It will take 10 yrs
And you will run out of money!
If alcohol is legal (a drug you can overdose on) Weed should be legal (a drug you can't overdose on)
But... But... Gateway drug!
More than likely, our small government GOP base are going to fuck this one, too.
We share borders with 3 legal places its time we legalized
My personal view is that marijuana should be legalized similar to how distilled spirits are handled in some states. Higher percentage of D9 THC, and other psychoactive compounds should see a higher tax %, and if people want to grow their own stuff, so be it. Also we really should have a law that allows home distilling here in North Dakota.
Nobody has any right to tell any other productive member of society what they can or can't put in their body.
Here we go, again.
Good luck
How many times has this failed? Just come over to Minnesota eh?
You sound like someone who wants their state to have the tax revenue that we are bypassing.
I like a whole lotta pot in my brownies, and not a lotta pot holes in my roads
I mean this is effectively what's happening and this is one reason why a lot of younger people are not going to vote for legalization in ND since they can just go across the river
This issue is funny to me because all the hardcore stoners I know who I asked to vote yes last time basically all told me the same thing “I got too high and didn’t go” haha idk I just thought it was silly. I voted yes last time and I’ll try again this year!
The actual incentive to vote for legalization in much of the state is pretty low, especially when you can get it legally across the river
About time ! Where do we sign ?
Just imagine if it passed in 2016 and what the state budget could have looked like. We wouldn’t have a teacher shortage. We could more than pay for school lunches. We could reclaim Badlands areas destroyed by oil companies. $150 million was requested for the tourism grant last year that legislature only allotted $25 million for, we could’ve given tens of millions more to all the small towns desperate for tourists. We could have cleared out the disaster that is the state crime lab and their obsession with prosecuting marijuana crimes. Even at the city level, Bismarck just cancelled fall clean up week because they can’t afford to do it anymore. There’s soooooooo much good that we missed out on because of old people and old ideas.
I've voted yes the last 2 times. I will keep voting yes
Canadian here, The only real difference to the public was all the plastic litter it generates from our stupid packaging and labeling rules. Otherwise it's not noticeable at all.
I want this to pass primarily so my mom quits driving to Montana every few weeks to re-supply. She was going to Colorado with her girlfriends every month until Montana’s system got set up. Hell, North Dakota could pass this and be up and running before Minnesota!
Gen X here and a non smoker of weed, but you’ve got my vote and my dead relatives votes. Where do we sign to get it on the ballot?
Legalize it, NOW!
I’m from Michigan. Honestly, don’t legalize it. Or legalize it and then heavily limit it. It sucks going home to visit and we can’t get away from the stench of weed. It’s disgusting.
Give me the smell of Pineapple Express over Budweiser
I can’t smell Budweiser anywhere. I’d rather smell cigarettes than pot. Pot smells gross as hell. But the best solution is to legalize it so people can smoke, I know a lot of people do. But then limit it. Barely any pot shops, no smoking on Main Street or near restaurants, schools, or hospitals. My home town is opening its fifth pot shop now and crime has been increasing. It’s disgusting to visit because of the stench.
They have a bunch of flavored cannabis to compete with vaping, and it smells miles better than tobacco
Better than cigarette smoke