A group is going to try and get the South Dakota Legislature to adopt a bill legalizing medical marijuana.  The following is from Bob Newland about that effort.

-----

South Dakotans for Safe Access will bring an item before the legislature in the 2009 session. We want sick, disabled and dying people to be able to use cannabis to alleviate their conditions. We want the legislature to remove law enforcement, as much as possible, from interfering with doctor/patient relationships, except in cases of real criminality.

Denying effective medication to people who need it is unspeakably cruel. Yet, that is exactly what South Dakota law does. A government acting in this manner can not call itself civilized.

The therapeutic benefits of cannabis are undeniable. The question is: How can South Dakota lawmakers recognize this fact in law while not creating a legal mess worse than the current situation?

The voters want sick, disabled, and dying people to have access to medicine that works for them, even if it is cannabis. Yet federal and South Dakota law proclaim there is “no medical use” for cannabis.

Here are some scientific facts about cannabis:

1. There is no record in medical history of a person dying from ingestion (by any method) of cannabis.

2. There is no record in medical history of a cannabis-only (no tobacco) smoker contracting lung cancer.
The implications of this are enormous. Several studies have shown that THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) shrinks tumors in mice, or averts their incidence. The fact that cannabis-only smokers have a lower lung cancer rate than the general population suggests something. Perhaps further studies are necessary?

3. Four major US government studies have concluded that, at the very least, therapeutic benefit appears to accrue to some people for some afflictions. They recommend further study. Dozens, maybe hundreds, of “minor” medical studies have confirmed the benefits of cannabis for several specific afflictions.

4. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), at the direction of the White House, will not allow scientific study into cannabis therapy, because Congress says cannabis has “no medical value”.

5. For over 20 years, the FDA has sent 300 rolled cannabis cigarettes per month to each of six patients in the United States.  The George H. W. Bush administration instituted the Compassionate
Investigational New Drug Studies, program which administered govt.-grown cannabis to people who applied and were accepted. 22 people were accepted for cannabis studies. Of those, 6 are still alive (Remember, these were nearly all seriously ill people; most lived far beyond their prognoses because of cannabis, their doctors say.)

Clearly, the federal government is of two minds about therapeutic use of cannabis.

South Dakotans pride themselves on their good common sense. Its existence was demonstrated in the 2006 election, when 48% of the voters agreed with us that sick, disabled, and dying people should not be prosecuted for trying to feel better with medicine that works for them.

The quandary, we believe, lies in what some perceive as a conflict between federal and state law if, say, South Dakota were to statutorily allow patients to possess cannabis if their doctor thinks it might help
them (the same standard as for the opiates oxycodone or percocet).
 
Our position is that South Dakota law enforcement is under no obligation to enforce federal laws. If the DEA wants to go to Chamberlain and drag a wheelchair-bound paraplegic to jail for using cannabis to extend his life, there’s probably not much we can do, but we don’t have to assist them. It is cruel to do so. We’d like to make it illegal to do so, thus removing any question from the minds of law enforcement agents.

13 states have now passed legislation allowing patients to possess and use cannabis, if they have a doctor’s recommendation. In fact, the 48%-52% vote in South Dakota in 2006 was the only time medical cannabis has appeared on a ballot in the US without passing.

We propose that the South Dakota legislature discuss and pass a law:

Providing for patients to possess and use cannabis, if their doctor recommends it. The law also needs to provide for either the patient or a caretaker to grow cannabis for the patient. It also needs to provide for
an affirmative defense of medical use for people who use cannabis medically but have not yet acquired a doctor’s recommendation at the time they were accused.

You can see SDSA’s model law at http://www.sodaknorml.org/sdsa_files/081120ProposedBill.htm

This is the language we proposed in the initiative that got 48% of the vote in 2006. We’re willing to work on it.

The Tom Faltynowicz case (see accompanying sheet) illustrates graphically why this needs to be done. It is just wrong to place police officers, prosecutors and judges in the position of having to choose
whether to do the right thing or to treat sick people like the criminals the law says they are.

http://www.sodaknorml.org/Falt/falt.htm#sentence

A respected Rapid City physician said, under oath in a Sturgis courtroom, “Smoked marijuana is essential to Tom Faltynowicz’s therapy.”

The conflicts that arose during the Faltynowicz case are present, to a lesser degree, in many other prosecutions in South Dakota. This is not a good way to administer justice.

We are confident that a majority of South Dakota legislators will agree that it’s not a good way to administer justice, and will act to withdraw South Dakota’s support for the federal government’s war on
sick, disabled, and dying people.

If you support our position, or have any suggestions on how to make our proposed legislation better, please contact us right away.

Very best regards,

Bob Newland
South Dakotans for Safe Access