Supporters, opponents of recreational marijuana, Medicaid expansion square off at Mitchell Tech – Mitchell Republic

MITCHELL — Arguments from supporters and opponents of Initiated Measure 27 and Constitutional Amendment D were on full display Thursday evening as panelists exchanged opinions on the two ballot issues that will appear on statewide South Dakota ballots during the 2022 general election.

The event, sponsored by the Mitchell Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee, took place at the Muth Electric Technology Center on the campus of Mitchell Technical College.

The forum presented a chance for the public to hear from the panelists addressing the ballot issues as well as to hear candidates for the District 3 seat on the Davison County Commission lay out their platforms prior to the election.

Following the forum for the county commission candidates, panelists on the ballot issue forum, including Initiated Measure 27 proponents Ned Horsted and opponent Jim Kinyon and Constitutional Amendment D proponent Kim Malsam-Rysdon and opponent Lisa Nolen, responded to questions about their position on the proposed issues.

Ned Horsted, with South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, spoke in favor of Initiated Measure 27, while Jim Kinyon, with the organization Protecting South Dakota Kids, offered his opinion against the measure.

Kinyon said illegal drugs have traditionally led to problems throughout history.

“Drug dealers of all types throughout history have all sold the same thing when they sell drugs. That is a promise that they are going to make us happy, free and healthy. They never ask the basic question: when in the history of the world has the sale of an illegal drug made people happy, free or healthy,” Kinyon said.

Horsted said approval of Initiated Measure 27 would allow the criminal justice system to concentrate on more serious issues while allowing the healthcare industry access to a potential treatment for various conditions.

“Criminalization of cannabis is a waste of time and resources for law enforcement. Legalization allows police, investigators and the courts to focus on serious crime,” Horsted said. “And for veterans with PTSD, epilepsy, MS patients, cancer patients. Cannabis is the only medicine that relieves their pain and suffering without debilitating side effects.”

When it comes to how employers that require drug testing should deal with legalized cannabis, Horsted said it should be up to the employer to make their own determination.

“I think that it’s ultimately up to an employer how they want to handle that within their own internal policies. That’s typically how businesses have handled it elsewhere,” Horsted said.

Kinyon said legalization could lead to individuals using it on the job, or lead to increased absenteeism.

“Having a police officer smoking dope, walking around with guns? Or people driving cement trucks while smoking marijuana? This is a really unhealthy drug and it is very destructive, and it increases the rate of no-show for frequent users,” Kinyon said.

On whether either would support a cap on the potency of cannabis, both said it was a complicated issue.

“I don’t know how under an adult use program that works, and the legislature is going to have a lot of leeway. Ultimately, that will be up to the legislature to decide,” Horsted said.

Kinyon said lawmakers would likely bend to the will of the industry should the measure pass.

“The industry always refuses to allow limitations. The reality is that the industry will make those decisions. The legislature, if this bill passes, will simply let them have everything they want,” Kinyon said.

In the end, Kinyon said legal cannabis would degenerate the quality of life for youth in South Dakota.

“We have this kind of vision for our kids: strong, capable, competent women and men, who are capable with clear minds, clear vision, a solid environment and a community behind them to make the best possible person they can be,” Kinyon said.

Horsted noted that legalization is a pathway to less drug abuse, both by adults and children. Regulating the product would offer greater legal control of where it’s used, how it’s used and by whom.

“When you buy alcohol, you get carded. (Unregulated) drug dealers don’t care. They don’t card. If you bring this into a regulated system, it will actually drive down abuse,” Horsted said. “To continue to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate adults for a plant is obscene.”

Initiated Measure 27 would legalize the possession, use and distribution of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia by people 21 years of age and older and allows for the private growing of marijuana under certain circumstances.

The measure was brought forth by legalization proponents after voters approved Amendment A, which would have effectively done the same thing, during the 2020 election. Amendment A was later struck down by the South Dakota Supreme Court after a lawsuit was filed against it.

The forum on Constitutional Amendment D, the expansion of Medicaid, featured Kim Malsam-Rysdon, vice president of public policy for Avera Health arguing support for the amendment, and Lisa Nolen, coalition director for Americans for Prosperity in South Dakota, offered the opposing position.

Malsam-Rysdon said the overall most important reason to support Medicaid expansion is the generally improved health it will cultivate for South Dakotans.

“The biggest reason we are for expansion is because people have better health as a result of it. We know people who got Medicaid expansion get more preventative care, use the ER less for regular care and they have better management of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease, and get cancer screenings at a higher rate,” Malsam-Rysdon said.

Nolen said one of the problems with Medicaid expansion is it takes the focus of the program off the ones it was originally designed to help.

“(Do) you want to prioritize able-bodied individuals or prioritize those that it was intended for — the disabled, the elderly and small children,” Nolen said.

Malsam-Rysdon encouraged voters to support the expansion.

“I hope you’ll agree it’s the right choice for South Dakota. Thirty-eight other states have expanded, and not one state has reversed that decision, and we have not seen the catastrophe that some of the opponents would say we were in for if we were to expand,” Malsam-Rysdon said.

Nolen said she would encourage voters to consider the opposition to the amendment in order to ensure the care that is already provided is not watered down for those who really need it, as well as supporting more personal choice in health care through other means outside of Medicaid expansion, such as through programs offered by organizations like the Farm Bureau.

“I’d encourage the personal option and talk about more choice and control for families in South Dakota for their own health care coverage,” Nolen said. “We have options available, and we would encourage you not to choose expanding Medicaid. We want to protect what’s already in place. Let’s protect the safety net that’s already there.”

Constitutional Amendment D would expand Medicaid eligibility. It requires the state to provide eligibility to anyone over the age of 18 and under 65 whose income is at or below the 133% the federal poverty level, plus 5% of the federal poverty level for the applicable family size, as provided in federal law.

Medicaid program funded by the state and federal government that provides medical coverage for low-income people who are in certain designated categories.

Both ballot measures will appear on the 2022 general election ballot. The election is scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 8. The deadline for voter registration is Monday, Oct. 24.