South Dakota Legislature Destroys Medical Cannabis Program Proposed Elimination by State Authorities | MEDCAN24

South Dakota Public Broadcasting reports that South Dakota’s medical marijuana program narrowly survived a legislative challenge that threatened to change or even roll back voter-approved system, according to South Dakota Public Broadcasting.
Rep. Travis Ismay of Newell, a Republican representative who introduced this bill failed on a 7-6 vote at House Health and Human Services Committee following strong opposition from medical marijuana supporters and criminal justice experts, according to media reports.
Ismay asserted the current medical program amounts to de facto legalization. She advised committee members: “We need to educate ourselves about what differentiates medical and recreational marijuana.”
Establishment of legal cannabis industries hasn’t always gone smoothly in Arizona. Voters approved both medical and recreational marijuana initiatives by almost 70% margin in 2020; however, the recreational measure was ultimately overturned on technical grounds by the Supreme Court and subsequent ballot initiatives failed at ballot box in 2022 and 2024.
South Dakota operators saw nearly 70% permit renewal fees rise – to $9,000 – under legislation signed into law by Governor Kristi Noem last year.
Terra Larson of the South Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers warned committee members about possible impacts to South Dakota’s prison system.
Larson told SDPB there has been much discussion surrounding when and if this prison opens its doors it will likely reach 90% occupancy and accommodate 11,000 additional felons – where will these criminals reside?
Medical marijuana advocates refuted assertions by those supporting SB 420 that state law mandated every community host a dispensary; according to SDPB reports, current law simply mandates willingness for communities to offer licenses without mandating physical presence of dispensaries in every community.
Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt of Sioux Falls cited voter mandate in her opposition. “This bill is too extreme,” Rehfeldt noted before suggesting lawmakers work through the state IM 26 oversight committee which has implemented program modifications previously.