Marijuana Federalism Can Work in South Dakota Too

Trevor Burrus andStacy HansonIn November 2020, 54 percent of South Dakotans approved Amendment A, legalizing the adult use of marijuana. Opposing the outcome of the amendment, state officials initiated a lawsuit arguing that Amendment A violates the South Dakota Constitution ’s single‐​subject rule, which restricts amendments to being about only a single subject. A South Dakota circuit judge agreed, striking down the amendment. Now before the South Dakota Supreme Court, supporters of the amendment are seeking to protect the will of the voters.Over the past half century, states have increasingly rejected federal marijuana policies, recognizing marijuana ’s medicinal benefits and the disastrous consequences of criminalizing a plant ‐​based substance with no known potential for fatal overdose. And while marijuana legalization may be new territory for South Dakota, the state would not be navigating the transition blindly. Since 1996, states across the country have advanced marijuana reforms nearly every year providing an abu ndance of examples on how to successfully implement legalization.That is, of course, how federalism is supposed to work. The Framers of the Constitution created a system where the powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated while the residual powers of the states are much more broad. The Framers understood that the United States was, even then, a vast and diverse country that should not be central...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs