In commentary on a post below, TF says:
The argument shouldn’t be whether or not medical marijuana should be legalized; the argument should be whether or not marijuana should be legalized. That’s clearly the endgame, and that’s what I keep in mind when pondering how to vote on the issue in November.
That statement is too cryptic for me. It needs a bumper sticker for context. Is TF's statement an endorsement of something or a denouncement of something? Even so, I think I see reflected a congealing question on the part of perhaps a significant portion of voters. So, I'll try to address the questions I think TF implies.
During the past eighteen months there has been more discussion on all aspects of managing the oncoming legitimized cannabis market than I saw in the previous forty years. Things are still shaking into position, but legitimized cannabis is a done deal.The shaking out part is still marked by the savagery on the part of the morons who think they can control folks' appetites for life, liberty and happiness,
First things first. The immediate issue is whether sick, disabled and dying South Dakotans will have the right to use the most benign therapeutic substance known--and probably the most effective over a wide range of adverse conditions--with the assent of their physicians. South Dakota voters have a chance to weigh in directly on that question in November. Let's get those whose needs are most urgent out of the line of fire of the terrorists who have whimsically ruined many of our lives over the past 70 years.
If you're inclined to help in the effort to make South Dakota's laws a little less cruel, take a look at the Safe Access Act website.