South Dakota

[palmspringsbum]

Posted on Tue, May. 02, 2006

Petitions filed on three ballot measures

CHET BROKAW
Associated Press
The Aberdeen News

PIERRE, S.D. - Petitions were filed Tuesday seeking statewide votes on proposed laws that would allow county referendums on large-scale livestock operations, allow use of marijuana for medical purposes and forbid the use of state airplanes for personal and political flights.

The three measures will appear on the November ballot if officials at the secretary of state's office find 16,728 valid signatures on the petitions for each of the proposals.

Tuesday was the deadline for filing petitions seeking to place initiated measures on the ballot. Up to a dozen proposed laws and constitutional amendments could be on the November ballot.

One of the measures filed Tuesday would let people force a vote on a county's decision to allow large-scale feeding operations.

Supporters argue that local citizens should have the right to force county votes on concentrated livestock feeding operations. But opponents contend the measure would hamper family farmers because special elections would be held for nearly every application for a livestock feeding permit.

Opponents have said once a county has set zoning rules, county officials should be allowed to apply those rules and decide whether to approve specific operations.

But those who filed the petition have said voters should be able to force a referendum on a county's decision to issue a conditional use permit or variance for a specific project.

Bob Newland of Hermosa turned in petition signatures for a proposed law that would allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes if a patient and a doctor agreed that the benefits outweigh the risks. The doctor then could sign a recommendation for marijuana therapy.

Supporters contend that marijuana can help people with diseases such as cancer and AIDS, and those who suffer chronic pain, nausea or seizures.

Opponents counter that even if the South Dakota measure is passed, federal law will still outlaw the use of marijuana.

The third measure filed Tuesday would bar personal trips on state aircraft. Economist and activist Reynold Nesiba started the petition after reports that Gov. Mike Rounds uses state-owned planes for personal and political trips. Rounds has said he reimburses the state for such trips.

Two petition efforts failed to turn in documents by Tuesday's deadline. One would have imposed an extra tax on alcohol to help counties pay for law enforcement. The other would have sought to clarify what games could be considered gambling.

[palmspringsbum]

Medical Marijuana: South Dakota Initiative Makes the November Ballot 6/2/06
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/438/sodak.shtml

South Dakota electoral officials Wednesday certified that a petition drive to place a medical marijuana initiative on the November ballot submitted enough signatures to qualify. Sponsored by South Dakotans for Medical Marijuana, the initiative, if successful, would make South Dakota the 12th state to pass a medical marijuana law, and the first in the Midwest.

The group handed in more than 24,000 signatures on May 2. But because it had to use its existing funds to pay for signature gathering, the group is now broke and asking for contributions.

According to organizers, the initiative would: <ul><li>Protect seriously ill patients -- and their caregivers -- who possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana with their doctors' approval from arrest and prosecution by state authorities; </li>

<li>Create registry identification cards, so that law enforcement officials will be able to easily tell who is a qualified patient and who is not, and establish penalties for false statements and fraudulent ID cards; </li>

<li>Protect doctors from being punished for advising their patients that -- in their sincere professional judgment -- the benefits of the medical use of marijuana for the patient would exceed the risks; </li>

<li>Allow patients and their caregivers who are arrested to raise a medical defense in court; and </li>

<li>Prohibit the public use of marijuana and driving under the influence of marijuana, among other restrictions. </li></ul>The South Dakota legislature has refused to act on medical marijuana bills in recent years. Similarly, in the case of Matthew Ducheneaux, a paraplegic Lakota who used marijuana to ease muscle spasms, the South Dakota courts passed on the opportunity to allow the use of a medical necessity defense. Now, the voters will have a chance to have their say.

[Midnight toker]

Lawsuit pending for marijuana measure

By Joe Kafka, Associated Press Writer
The Rapid City Journal
August 2, 2006

PIERRE - A woman who said she smokes marijuana to ease symptoms of her exposure to nerve gas while serving as a U.S. Army medic in Iraq said Tuesday she will sue the state attorney general because of his warning on a ballot measure seeking to legalize medicinal marijuana use in South Dakota.

The measure was approved for the Nov. 7 ballot after supporters gathered more than the necessary 16,728 valid signatures.

Under the proposal, marijuana could be used for medical purposes if patients and their doctors agree that the benefits outweigh the risks. Supporters contend that marijuana helps those with diseases such as cancer and AIDS, and people suffering from chronic pain, nausea or seizures.

But Attorney General Larry Long has written a ballot explanation that says even if the measure is passed, those who possess, use or distribute marijuana for medical reasons can still be prosecuted by federal authorities. The warning adds that doctors may be subject to losing their federal licenses to prescribe legal drugs if they certify that people with debilitating health problems would benefit from marijuana use.

"I struggle with what will actually be accomplished," Long told The Associated Press. "Even if you vote in favor of the measure, it's still going to be a crime under federal law to possess or use marijuana."

Valerie Hannah of Deerfield said exposure to the nerve gas sarin forced her to retire from the military after 10 years. She will file a lawsuit soon seeking to toss out Long's explanation of the ballot measure because it would hamper chances of passage.

Hannah said people with health problems who would be helped by smoking marijuana should not be forced to get it illegally.

"I get it as best I can, and that's one of the things I want to prevent," she said. "I want us to have a safe way to access this so people aren't having to go to criminal elements to get a medicine."

California voters in 1996 made it the first state to legalize medicinal marijuana. Voters in 10 other states have since enacted laws that allow dispensing pot to treat specific medical problems, although the federal government continues to outlaw marijuana.

Montana voters legalized medical marijuana in 2004, and Hannah said the South Dakota ballot proposal is patterned after that law.

Because federal law bans marijuana, none of the states where medical use is allowed have found a way for people to legally, conveniently and safely acquire the drug.

[budman]

Hearing Scheduled On Medical Marijuana Ballot Item

KTIV News Channel 4
August 10, 2006

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) -- A judge will hold a hearing next week on whether the wording of a South Dakota ballot measure seeking to legalize medicinal marijuana should be more neutral.

A Deerfield veteran who says she smokes marijuana to ease symptoms of her exposure to nerve gas filed the case against Attorney General Larry Long and Secretary of State Chris Nelson.

Her lawyer, Ron Volesky, says Long exceeded his authority by stating that possession of marijuana is a federal crime. Volesky says Long should state only what effect a measure would have on state law.

Long has said that even if voters approve the measure, it's still going to be a crime under federal law to possess or use marijuana.

Under the ballot proposal, marijuana could be used for medical purposes if patients and their doctors agree the benefits outweigh the risks.

The court hearing is a week from Friday in Pierre before Circuit Judge Max Gors.

[budman]

Feature: South Dakota Medical Marijuana Patient Sues Attorney General Over Bad Ballot Summary Language

8/11/06
The Drug Policy Alliance

South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long (R) has his hands full this week as roughly half a million bikers cram into the small town of Sturgis for the 66th Annual Black Hills Motorcycle Rally. The normally placid area has already seen two motorcyclist deaths in accidents, one murder, and a shootout between members of the Hell's Angels and Outlaws biker gangs that left five people wounded. And that's with things just getting underway.

But Attorney General Long has another problem this week, and he can't blame this one on the bikers. Medical marijuana patient Valerie Hanna, chief spokesperson for South Dakotans for Medical Marijuana, filed a suit against him Wednesday in the state capital, Pierre. The lawsuit charges that his description of the group's medical marijuana initiative is so unfair and inaccurate that it violates state law.

<table class=posttable align=left width=160><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/marijuanaleaf.jpg></td></tr></table>The tightly written measure, based largely on neighboring Montana's successful 2004 initiative, allows seriously ill patients to possess up to one ounce of usable marijuana and six plants if they have a doctor's recommendation and have registered with the state and obtained an identification card. Patients who comply with those rules would be protected from arrest and prosecution by state authorities. The measure also allows patients to designate a caregiver to grow marijuana for them. It creates protections for doctors who advise their patients that the benefits of using marijuana outweigh the risks, and it imposes restrictions on public use and driving under the influence.

Under South Dakota law, the state attorney general is charged with writing descriptions of all measures appearing on the ballot. Under the law, the ballot description must be an "objective, clear, and simple summary" of the measure. The attorney general's summary is the only description of the initiative voters will see when they cast their ballots in November.

Long didn't get off to a good start. Before he even got to the ballot summary itself, he decided to change the very name of the measure. Known from the beginning and filed with the state as "An act to provide safe access to medical marijuana for certain qualified persons," Long decided it would be better titled as "An Initiative to authorize marijuana use for adults and children with specified medical conditions." The complete text of his ballot explanation is as follows:
<blockquote>
Currently, marijuana possession, use, distribution, or cultivation is a crime under both state and federal law. The proposed law would legalize marijuana use or possession for any adult or child who has one of several listed medical conditions and who is registered with the Department of Health. The proposed law would also provide a defense to persons who cultivate, transport or distribute marijuana solely to registered persons. Even if this initiative passes, possession, use, or distribution of marijuana is still a federal crime. Persons covered by the proposed law would still be subject to federal prosecution for violation of federal drug control laws. Physicians who provide written certifications may be subject to losing their federal license to dispense prescription drugs.
</blockquote>
"This is just wrong," said Hannah. "The attorney general is making it sound like doctors could be prosecuted and children would have access to marijuana. We filed this lawsuit to force him to act within the law and treat this ballot measure fairly," she told Drug War Chronicle.

"The legal brief filed today lays out in chapter and verse how deeply messed up that ballot language is," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Washington, DC-based Marijuana Policy Project, which financed signature-gathering for the initiative and intends to protect its investment. "What the attorney general did in his summary is absolutely illegal. The state law is quite clear that he is supposed to prepare a brief, accurate, factual summary of an initiative, not provide a bunch of speculation and conjecture," he told the Chronicle. "For all practical purposes, this is an editorial against the initiative. That an inaccurate and misleading summary is the last thing voters will see is just outrageous."

The South Dakota Attorney General's office did not return Drug War Chronicle calls asking for an explanation of the ballot language or comment on the lawsuit.

An accurate explanation of the measure will be critical in South Dakota, a socially conservative state dominated by conservative politicians who have never met a drug war they didn't like -- or a medical marijuana claim that they did. Medical marijuana bills have died a lonely, ignominious death in the state legislature, and the state courts passed on an opportunity to allow medical marijuana users to raise a medical necessity defense. South Dakota is a state where people actually are sentenced to jail time for possession of small amounts of marijuana, and it has "internal possession" laws that allow prosecutors to pile yet another charge on anyone they catch.

"For medical marijuana users here, the fear is real," said Harper, a nurse and 10-year veteran of the armed forces who was exposed to nerve gas while serving in the Gulf War and has been using marijuana to alleviate her symptoms for the past six years. "I smoke three times a day, and my body can be used to convict me. It's already happened once. I was pulled over for speeding on the way to the VA hospital and I had enough marijuana for a two-day supply," she related. "They charged me with both possession and internal possession and I had to pay $500. That's how it is for patients around here. You take money from sick patients or you waste money throwing sick patients in jail."

Harper isn't the only medical marijuana patient who is afraid, but, given the repressive atmosphere in South Dakota, it is not surprising that she is one of the few willing to speak out. A Huron resident and cancer patient who is using marijuana to alleviate nausea related to chemotherapy told the Chronicle he would like to speak out, but feared drawing attention to himself. "I've already been busted for this," he said. "I don't want to get raided again."

If that patient is to win the protection that would be afforded by the South Dakota medical marijuana initiative, the least he deserves is a level playing field when it comes to the ballot language. South Dakota Attorney General Long has yet to demonstrate he is willing or able to do that. Now, initiative organizers and medical marijuana patients are looking to the courts to make him do his job.


<center>-- END --</center>

[Midnight toker]

09/29/2006

Initiated Measure 4: High Hopes

Keloland Television

Will South Dakotans legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes? There are some proponents with high hopes.

When you say "legalizing marijuana," some people conjure up thoughts of the long haired Cheech and Chong pot smoking characters from the 1978 movie "Up in Smoke."

But, in fact, today there are some people who say small amounts of marijuana helps them and they want it legalized to ease their pain. That's why they're pushing for Initiated Measure 4.

During the 1991 Gulf War, Vallerie Hannah says she was subjected to sarin gas as a combat medic.

It left her with a degenerative illness similar to multiple sclerosis which causes deep muscle pain. Hannah has tried other prescription pain killers, but says none of them work as well as marijuana.

"As long as you are being proper about your dosage and know your limits you don't get the euphoric stoner high so many people are concerned about," said Hannah.

Hannah says she smokes pot 3 times a day and her doctors have encouraged her to use it as a pain killer.

If South Dakotans pass initiated measure 4, it would become the 12th state in the country, to remove the threat of prosecution for patients using pot for medical purposes.

But those against the measure say there are lots of reason to vote no on Initiated Measure 4. One it's illegal.

"Federal law says it's illegal to possess, smoke or ingest or sell marijuana."

Secondly, it isn't FDA approved.

"While they've done some limited tests with FDA, never have they advanced the full blown testing necessary to get it's approval," said Lincoln County State's Attorney Tom Wollman.

Wollman also feels it would be hard to regulate and other medicines would be better alternatives.

"There are already FDA approved drugs on the market to deal with those illnesses," said Wollman.

"When you or a family member are in that much pain or distress you will try anything," said Hannah.

Initiated Measure 4 would also create registry identification cards, so law enforcement officials will be able to easily tell who is a qualified patient and who is not. But critics say that will only lead to fake i.d's.


Don Jorgensen
© 2006 KELOLAND TV. All Rights Reserved.

[Midnight toker]

Supporters: Med Marijuana Bill Needed

The Yankton Press & Dakotan
September 30, 2006
By: By Nathan Johnson
nathan.johnson@yankton.net


Initiated Measure 4 would allow people, including minors with parental consent, who have debilitating illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and Crohn's disease to be certified to grow up to six marijuana plants or possess up to one ounce of the drug, according to the attorney general's explanation on the general ballot.

Attaining certification will require that patients submit their medical records or a doctor's recommendation to the Department of Health.

If passed, South Dakota would join 11 other states that have passed medical marijuana measures.

"My hope is, if this is passed, I can grow (marijuana) on my own and be assured of the quality of my medicine," Hannah said Friday during a visit with the Press & Dakotan on behalf of South Dakotans for Medical Marijuana (SDMM). "Right now, if I were to do that, they could come in any time and take my house away or take my son away. That's too much to lose. There's no reason we should have to be criminals to seek an herbal remedy after we've exhausted all the other legal drugs."

<table class=posttable align=right width=179><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/hannah_valerie.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcap>Valerie Hannah, a former U.S. Army medic, pauses while telling her story about the use of medical marijuana. Hannah has a medical discharge from the army for exposure to serin gas during the first Gulf war</td></tr></table>Hannah, a resident of Deerfield, was exposed to sarin gas while serving as a combat medic in the Gulf War.

The practice during that war was to clear bunkers and then blow them up, she said.

"We didn't know there were sub-levels that were holding sarin gas," Hannah said. "As a result of that, I have permanent neurological damage that gets worse as I go on. I've gone from being a very active person ... to someone for whom stairs are a challenge."

In 1999, she had to be medically discharged from her job as a nurse with the Veterans' Administration hospital in Hot Springs. Shortly after, Hannah said, she decided to try marijuana as a way to treat her pain.

"The pain that is caused when your nerves degenerate is indescribable," she said. "It's like a deep burning. To get up and dance, for example -- it's just a dream now. The things you get to take for granted, I'm losing every day. If this medicine can help me keep it one extra day, why should I be a criminal because I'm using it?"

Hannah knows what it's like to be considered a criminal.

In 2004 while traveling between Veterans' Affairs hospitals for treatment, she was arrested after law enforcement pulled her over for speeding and discovered a three-day supply of marijuana.

Ultimately, after spending thousands of dollars on legal representation, Hannah said she only paid a fine for a speeding ticket.

She said that experience, coupled with the improved quality of life she's seen the drug provide for other sufferers of chronic illness, has driven her to speak out publicly for the measure.

"It would be much easier to just go on the black market, but I don't want to go there," Hannah said. "I'm a real citizen. I'm not some derelict or whatever people want to associate with this issue. I'm scared every day anyway. This way, by telling my story, maybe the real facts will be out there."

Thomas Griffith, the president of TDG Communications, Inc., in Deadwood and who is doing public relations for SDMM, said the measure is about compassion for people who have exhausted other alternatives to deal with pain.

"There are people suffering every day," he said. "Who are we to tell a patient and a doctor how to treat their illness?"

Griffith points out that more than 170 healthcare professionals in South Dakota have signed a petition supporting the measure.

Critics of the measure, such as Hughes County Sheriff Mike Leidholt, argue that there are FDA-approved drugs that can treat marijuana-users' pain. Because marijuana is unregulated, it can be dangerous to users, Leidholt states in his written opposition to the measure. He goes on to argue that any attempts to legitimize the drug will cause more use and abuse of the drug.

The biggest obstacle SDMM faces is ignorance, Griffith said.

"We have people who would misconstrue this as a decriminalization issue," he said. "That's not what this is about. It's not about recreational drug use. That's a whole other issue that this does not seek to address."

All of the laws against marijuana will remain in place if the measure passes, Griffith said. Those who violate the provisions of the measure would be subject to penalties under current statute.

Additionally, in the attorney general's explanation, it is noted that people authorized to use medical marijuana cannot drive while under the influence of marijuana. Also, they would not be allowed to smoke marijuana where tobacco smoking is prohibited.

Marijuana possession and use would continue to be illegal under federal law, but since most prosecutions related to the drug are done by state and local authorities, it would virtually eliminate the risk to medical pot users, Griffith added.

"I think South Dakota will embrace this once they understand the essence of the message, and that is one of compassion for people like Valerie," he said.


Click here to return to story:
http://www.yankton.net/stories/093006/c ... 0030.shtml

[palmspringsbum]

<span class=postbold>OPINION </span>

Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Story last updated at 12:18 AM on Oct. 11, 2006

Medical Marijuana Measure Should Pass

The Press & Dakotan

Next month, South Dakota voters have an opportunity to embrace what might be considered an act of compassion by passing Initiated Measure 4, which would provide certain seriously ill individuals with access to marijuana for medical purposes.

The motivation behind the law is not marijuana, but such things as cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis or other maladies -- and, in some cases, the treatment thereof -- that can seriously debilitate individuals.

Reports by the American Public Health Association and the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, indicate that the use of marijuana by some severely ill patients may relieve such symptoms as nausea and vomiting, and generally give some of these people some semblance of a normal life again.

Initiated Measure 4 has been supported by more than 170 health care professionals in the state, as well as such groups as the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Lymphoma Foundation of America.

Certainly, the use of marijuana for purely medical purposes is a a controversial topic, and opponents of the measure fear it will lead to a broader use of the drug.

But Initiated Measure 4 would provide tight controls on the dispensation and use of medical marijuana. The use of marijuana by an individual patient would have to be approved by a physician. Documentation must also be submitted to the state Department of Health. A patient using medical marijuana, which would be acquired by prescription through authorized pharmacists, would not be allowed to drive under the effects of marijuana and may not smoke the substance in any place where tobacco smoking is prohibited. In fact, the measure should be viewed as what the attorney general describes in his ballot explanation as "a defense to criminal prosecution" under state law. Initiated Measure 4 would not repeal any federal laws governing marijuana; in fact, it would add another level of medical verification that should nullify any fears, as stated by some, of rampant increases in marijuana use by the general public.

One argument made against the use of medical marijuana is that numerous other drugs have already been tested and approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration, but marijuana has not undergone such scrutiny.

However, since the aforementioned studies do show the benefits of medical marijuana in offering relief to some suffering patients, it does open the door to a very limited, very scrutinized use of the substance.

Also, fears about the unknown effects and potency of marijuana sidestep the facts that patients often react quite differently -- and sometimes, dramatically -- to drugs already approved for use. Some people respond well, others don't. For some people, the medicine meant to help them can have profound side effects. So there are never any absolute guarantees about the effects of any medication or substance.

Eleven other states, including neighboring Montana, have already approved some form of legislation for the use of medical marijuana in certain circumstances. Obviously, as more states embrace the use of medical marijuana, more definitive studies and assessments might be given to the subject. If we can overcome our knee-jerk, "Reefer Madness" fear of marijuana per se, the passage of Initiated Measure 4 would help provide physical relief for some suffering patients while removing a couple of the legal roadblocks that could turn such an option into a nightmare for those patients. Under the carefully controlled circumstances provided, it is a law worth embracing. And that's what South Dakotans should do Nov. 7.

kmh

[palmspringsbum]

<span class=postbold>OPINION</span>

The Yankton Press & Dakotan

Friday, October 13, 2006
Story last updated at 11:41 PM on Oct. 12, 2006

Medical Marijuana A Pipe Dream

By: John K. Cornette,
Yankton


I've served as South Dakota Elks' Drug Awareness chairman for 25 years. It's been my responsibility to make Elks lodges and communities more aware of the dangers involved in using illegal drugs.

I'm against any kind of legalization of marijuana. I've seen how devastating the use of this drug can be.

Should marijuana be made legal for medicinal use? I could write a considerable amount on why this is a bad idea.

In the states that have such laws, five plants have been allowed to be grown in the homes of those who've received a prescription.

One marijuana plant produces approximately one pound of useable marijuana, which equals approximately 1,176 marijuana cigarettes.

Five pounds of marijuana equals approximately 5,880 marijuana cigarettes ... times four crops a year equals 23,520 marijuana cigarettes per year ... divided by 52 weeks equals 452-plus marijuana cigarettes per week ... divided by 7 days per week equals 64 plus marijuana cigarettes a day per prescription.

Look at this information carefully before you vote

[palmspringsbum]

Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Story last updated at 11:15 PM on Oct. 17, 2006
Medical Marijuana Is Needed

The Yankton Press & Dakotan

By: Trista Okel
Salem, Ore.


I'm responding to John Cornette's letter, "Medical Marijuana A Pipe Dream." (Press & Dakotan, Oct. 13)

He attacks South Dakota's medical ballot measure which would allow sick, suffering people another option to mainstream pharmaceutical medications. As a medical marijuana patient in Oregon, I can tell you how important this ballot measure is. Without medical marijuana, I'd be unable to function due to disabling health conditions.

Mr. Cornette's statements about plant production are wrong. As a licensed medical marijuana patient who grows my own medicine and regularly donates marijuana to AIDS and MS patients, I've never reached my limit of 24 ounces, and I'm allowed to grow six mature plants at any one time. There's never enough medicine to help everyone.

Mr. Cornette's assertions that there will be excess medical marijuana hitting the streets and scores of people will be sitting around as quasi-legal stoners is over the top. Medical marijuana is about easing the suffering of sick and suffering people.

Vote "yes" on Initiated Measure 4.

[palmspringsbum]

I give this short but powerful letter a resounding BRAVO!

Thursday, October 19, 2006
Story last updated at 12:06 AM on Oct. 19, 2006

The Meaning Of Freedom

By: Kirk Muse
Mesa, Ariz.

The Yankton Press & Dakotan


I'm writing about Thomas D. Griffith's thoughtful letter: "Medical marijuana matters" (Press & Dakotan, Oct. 16).

I'd like to add that I support your medical marijuana amendment. However, it should not be necessary. It seems to me that adult citizens of a so-called free country should not need permission from their government to smoke, swallow, snort or inject any substance that they want -- especially in the privacy of their own homes.

If adult citizens are not free to choose for themselves what goes into their own bodies -- even in the privacy of their own homes, then the word freedom is meaningless, empty and hallow.

[palmspringsbum]

Feds, Measure 4 proponents at odds over pot

By Ryan Woodard, Journal Staff Writer
The Rapid City Journal
October 19, 2006

A White house drug official, the state attorney general and local law officials panned a proposed measure to legalize medical marijuana at a news conference Thursday at the Rapid City Police Department.

“This is about asking yourself whether making more drugs available in the state of South Dakota to young people is a good thing,” deputy drug czar Scott Burns said of Initiated Measure 4, which, if passed on Nov. 7, would legalize marijuana for medicinal use.

That would include those with debilitating illness such as cancer and glaucoma.

Burns was joined at the news conference by Pennington County State’s Attorney Glenn Brenner, South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long, Pennington County deputy sheriff Dave Bramblee and State Rep. Don Van Etten, who all spoke out against the measure, saying it would cause medical and legal problems.

Burns, who flew in from the White House where he works as National Drug Policy deputy director, called the measure a “con” to make the drug legal and that, if passed, it would “normalize this endeavor of smoking marijuana” and lead to more access to the drug for young people.

Long denounced the measure, too, saying that the way it is written goes beyond merely helping those who need it.

“If Initiated Measure No. 4 was narrowly tapered to provide relief simply to those people who have serious and terminal medical conditions, I probably wouldn’t be here today,” he said.

He said the law, which would make it legal for people with “debilitating medical conditions,” to use marijuana, would be subject to abuse because chronic pain is included under that distinction and that the term could be interpreted too broadly.

Valerie Hannah, a Deerfield native who has used marijuana to ease ailments stemming from her exposure to sarin gas in the Gulf War, disagreed.

“If a physician is upright, and the person is upright, I don’t see it being abused that way,” she said. “Everything can be abused in one sense or another. (Long should) stop politicking and using scare tactics.”

Hannah has a degenerative illness similar to multiple sclerosis. Her illness causes her deep inner-muscle pain, which marijuana has helped alleviate, she said.

“Other drugs put you in more of a stupor,” she added. “(And) there’s never been a case of anyone overdosing (on) marijuana.”

Long also said the measure also includes language that would provide a “get out of jail free card” to medical marijuana users and their caregivers, who would be allowed to posses the drug if the measure to passes.

Section 11 of Initiated Measure 4 reads, “no qualifying patient or caregiver who possesses a registry identification card issued pursuant to this Act may be arrested, prosecuted, or penalized in any manner, or be denied any right or privilege.”

Long said that means either the patient or caregiver of the patient would be immune from any type of arrest if they possess the card, which would be approved by the health department.

One of the sponsors of the initiative, Hermosa resident Bob Newland, said a few words were left out of the bill, leaving it to the broad interpretation Long suggested.

“That read broadly would suggest a patient can commit any crime he wants with impunity,” Newland said. “The word ‘for any act committed pursuant to this act’ should have been put at the end of that sentence.”

He said the courts could fix the problem.

“The courts are allowed to interpret a law based on the intent of the drafter, or in this case of the people who voted for it,” he said. “Obviously, we did not intend to allow somebody with a marijuana department of health registry card to be able to sell marijuana or to be able to commit any other crime.”

Burns said that legalizing marijuana would vastly increase the amount of marijuana smokers, increasing it to “at least” the current numbers of cigarette smokers in the U.S., about 60 million. He estimated the current number at 15 million.

But Newland maintained that the bill is merely a measure to help those who are sick.

“It’s for anyone who needs medical marijuana who isn’t already buying it off the street,” he said.

He said Long should quit “nitpicking.”

“Attorney General Long should be working with doctors and patients to assure that sick, disabled, and dying people have safe access to the medicines they need.”

Contact Ryan Woodard at 394-8412 or ryan.woodard@rapidcityjournal.com

[palmspringsbum]

Friday, October 20, 2006
Story last updated at 11:37 PM on Oct. 19, 2006

Voters To Decide On Medical Marijuana Measure

By: CARSON WALKER
Associated Press Writer
The Yankton Press & Dakotan


SIOUX FALLS -- South Dakota would join 11 other states that allow some medical patients to smoke marijuana to ease their pain and other medical problems if voters approve Initiated Measure 4 on Nov. 7.

Diseases and conditions that would be covered include: cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, severe or chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, severe or persistent muscle spasms and multiple sclerosis. The state Department of Health also could approve other medical conditions.

Though some states permit medical marijuana, residents still can be prosecuted in federal court.

Valerie Hannah of Deerfield said if the measure doesn't pass, she's moving to California, where medical marijuana is allowed -- although she said she already uses limited amounts of it to quell her nerve pain.

"I'm the only person who will admit that they're a medical marijuana patient in South Dakota," she said in a telephone interview.

Hannah said she served in the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s and was exposed to chemical weapons that are basically causing her nerves to dissolve.

"And with that comes extreme, extreme pain," she said.

No prescription drug is as effective as a few hits of pot a few times a day, Hannah said.

"Not a whole joint. It's just a couple of tokes, a couple of hits off a pipe," she said.

Hughes County Sheriff Mike Leidholt said he empathizes with Hannah and others who suffer from chronic pain. But the relief it could offer some people doesn't justify the cost to society, he said.

Among Liedholt's points:
<ul>
<li>It sends a mixed message to children on the use of drugs.</li>

<li>People other than the patient could get a hold of the marijuana, as a lot of teens do now with alcohol.</li>

<li>There have been great advances in prescription medications so it's not necessary to go back to natural remedies such as marijuana.</li>

<li>Law enforcement officers wouldn't be allowed to test if a driver with a prescription is under the influence of marijuana.</li>

<li>The marijuana isn't subject to quality control standards that are a part of Food and Drug Administration approval, so there's no way to know the potency.</li>
</ul>
The law would allow each patient and caregiver up to six plants, which could produce from 2,700 to more than 13,000 joints every year, depending how well the plants are cultivated, he said.

"That's a lot of marijuana," Leidholt said. "If you're not going to use that much, what are you going to do with the rest of it? Are you going to share it with friends?"

Hannah, who no longer is able to work, said the measure is not an attempt to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, and it would not make pot widely available.

"This is not a way to get it into the hands of your children or my children or anybody else's. This is for legitimate people who need this," she said. "Everyone should have the freedom to choose their own medication."

[palmspringsbum]

Friday, October 20, 2006
Story last updated at 11:38 PM on Oct. 19, 2006

Medical Marijuana Studies

By: Clifford Schaffer
Agua Dulce, Calif.

The Yankton Press & Democrat


I am glad to hear of John Cornette's expertise on marijuana and legalization (Press & Dakotan, Oct. 13). Therefore, I have a question for him:

In the past 100 years, there have been numerous government commissions around the world that have studied the marijuana laws and made recommendations for changes. Can you name any such study that supports your point of view?

I have already collected all the ones I could find, and I posted the full text of them at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. The collection includes the largest studies ever done by the governments of the U.S., the UK, Canada, and Australia, just to mention a few.

They all concluded that the marijuana prohibition laws were based on racism, ignorance and nonsense, and should have been repealed long ago because they do more harm than good. If Mr. Cornette knows of any that reached a different conclusion, I would love to hear about it.

[palmspringsbum]

10/20/2006

Law Enforcement Condemns Marijuana Measure

Keloland TV

Election day will determine the fate of legalizing medical marijuana for patients in South Dakota with chronic pain. On Friday, the White House sent its deputy drug czar to Sioux Falls to ask voters to vote "no."

Deputy Drug Czar Scott Burns joined state and local officials to get their message out, that legalizing medical marijuana will make it too easy for anyone to get and hard for law enforcement to monitor.

But those who support the ballot measure say the officials are just trying to scare voters.

Burns says if South Dakota legalizes medical marijuana, it will become much easier for kids to steal from their parents who use it legally, much like stealing beer from their parent's fridge.

"How can anyone think that making more drugs and more marijuana available to young people is a good thing?" he asks.

But Valerie Hannah, who smokes pot to help ease chronic pain says it's far less dangerous than other prescription drugs like Oxycontin, which kids could steal just as easily.

"They're trying to put scare and fear into people and put marijuana in a league with drugs it doesn't belong with," she says.

Burns calls the ballot measure a "con." And law enforcement officials say its language is too vague, making it nothing more than a drug legalization bill.

"This is not a medicinal marijuana," says Minnehaha County State's Attorney Dave Nelson. "This is an opportunity for people who are drug abusers and marijuana abusers to find a more ready source for their drug."

Hannah says because a doctor's recommendation is needed, only the very sick and suffering will get it. And for those who want to abuse it, they'd still have an easier time getting the pot from a drug dealer.

"I think they're giving too much glamour to it," Hannah says. "And I think they're really trying to scare the public into not thinking for themselves."

There are 11 states with legalized medical marijuana. The South Dakota ballot measure is based on Montana's law, which 66-percent of voters there approved two years ago.

Read the measure for youself here. And you can read more about the opposing arguments here.

[palmspringsbum]

Medical marijuana a 'con,' U.S. deputy drug czar says

But supporters of measure say pot offers relief

MEGAN MYERS
memyers@argusleader.com
The Argus Leader
PUBLISHED: October 21, 2006

<table class=posttable align=right width=290><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/burns_scott.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcap>Scott Burns, deputy director of White House National Drug Control Policy, speaks during a Friday news conference at the Law Enforcement Center. Burns spoke against medical marijuana.</td></tr></table>The nation's deputy drug czar on Friday said proponents of the medical marijuana initiative on the Nov. 7 ballot are playing to voters' sympathies to pass a dangerous measure.

"It's a step backwards in South Dakota and a step backwards nationally," said Scott Burns, deputy director of White House National Drug Control Policy, who spoke to reporters Friday. "Do not fall for the con."

If voters approve Initiated Measure 4, South Dakota would join 11 other states that allow some medical patients to grow and smoke marijuana to help ease their medical problems. Residents of those states still can face federal drug charges.

Conditions that could qualify under the measure include cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, severe or chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, severe or persistent muscle spasms and multiple sclerosis. The state's health department also could approve other qualifying medical conditions.

Proponents of the measure say making marijuana available to sick people would keep them from having to go to the black market for their medicine.

"We really need this for patients who are truly ill so they can have another means of release," said Valerie Hannah of Deerfield, who uses marijuana to ease the chronic pain of nerve damage.

Hannah - who served as a combat medic in the first Gulf War - said she is permanently disabled from exposure to nerve gas, and marijuana is the only drug that helps.

"I get a mild euphoria, but nothing like I had when I was on painkillers," Hannah said. "My nerves stop hurting; I don't feel the burning sensations that I get."

Law enforcement officials said Friday that they fear legalizing marijuana for use by medical patients could lead to more of the drug being used illegally in South Dakota.

"The risk far outweighs the benefits," said Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead, who opposes the measure. "There's great concern about how easily this marijuana could fall into the wrong hands."

Burns said the United States has seen a 19 percent decrease in teen marijuana use during the past three years, and legalizing marijuana for medical reasons won't help.

He said state measures such as South Dakota's are a step toward legalizing the drug for everyone, and that's not acceptable, he said.

"Clearly, [drug statistics] can't be helped by making more drugs available," Burns said.

Reach Megan Myers at 331-2257.

[palmspringsbum]

"I have a 17-year-old son," she said. "Contrary to popular belief, him watching me vaporize doesn't make him want to try marijuana.

"He's never stolen my 'stash.' "

That was a big mistake Hannah. Now they'll try to take your son away. Not that I don't think you're right on, you're a great spokesperson, and I admire and respect you...

State will decide on medical marijuana
Opponents predict abuse will result

MEGAN MYERS
memyers@argusleader.com
PUBLISHED: October 23, 2006
The Argus Leader


About three times a day, Valerie Hannah uses the only drug she says gives her relief from constant pain.

But she can't go to the drugstore to get it, because marijuana is illegal. That's why the Deerfield resident is advocating the medical marijuana measure on the Nov. 7 ballot.

"I think what this measure would do would protect people like me," said Hannah, 42.

If voters approve Initiated Measure 4, South Dakota would join 11 other states that allow some patients to grow and smoke marijuana to help ease their medical problems. Residents of those states still can face federal drug charges.

Conditions that could qualify under the measure include cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, severe or chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, severe or persistent muscle spasms and multiple sclerosis. The state's health department also could approve other qualifying medical conditions, and patients and their caregivers could receive certification by submitting medical records or a doctor's recommendation to the state.

The law would allow each patient and caregiver to grow up to six plants, possess not more than one ounce and use "small amounts" of the drug for medical purposes.

Supporters of the measure collected more than 22,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

But law enforcement officials say the push to legalize marijuana for medical purposes is dangerous and a front by groups who want to legalize the drug for all. Halting measures such as South Dakota's can stop that, Scott Burns, the nation's deputy drug czar, said last week.

"It's a ruse," Burns said. "It's a way to normalize this activity."

<b>Benefit debated</b>

Marijuana's risks and benefits for medical use have been debated for years.

A 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine - part of the National Academy of Sciences - found marijuana to be "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."

But that claim was rebutted in a statement by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in April that said "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment."

The South Dakota State Medical Association spoke out against the medical marijuana measure last week.

"The science behind it is not there," said president Dr. Ken Aspaas. "There are many other medications that can be used instead."

But Hannah, who uses marijuana in a vaporized form to ease the chronic pain of nerve damage she suffered as a result of exposure to nerve gas in the first Gulf War, says she's got her own proof of marijuana's benefits.

While a variety of strong painkillers such as morphine are available to her, Hannah said, marijuana is the only drug that eases her pain without making her feel like a "zombie."

"They put you in a stupor," she said. "The quality of my life is zero."

<b>Fear of abuse</b>

State law enforcement officials warn the measure could have effects reaching beyond helping sick people and doesn't justify its potential harm to society.

"If it was honestly and accurately drawn to find pure relief for those people ... I don't think I'd be standing here today," South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long said at a news conference last week denouncing the measure.

Long said the measure also is too broad. He pointed to the measure's language defining "severe or chronic pain" as a qualifying condition. That could open up the allowance to a wide range of people, Long said.

"A 'debilitating medical condition' is much less than it sounds like," Long said.

Sioux Falls police chief Doug Barthel said he fears people would abuse the privilege of having marijuana available and make it available to others.

"From an enforcement aspect, I think it's going to be a nightmare for us," Barthel said.

The measure also sends the wrong message to youths that using marijuana is safe and even healthful, he said.

Hannah said law enforcement officials are using "fear-mongering" to denounce the issue.

"I have a 17-year-old son," she said. "Contrary to popular belief, him watching me vaporize doesn't make him want to try marijuana.

"He's never stolen my 'stash.' "

Reach Megan Myers at 331-2257.

[palmspringsbum]

Letter: Facts On Medical Marijuana


By: Robert Sharpe, MPA, Washington, D.C.
Policy Analyst, Common Sense for Drug Policy
The Yankton Press & Dakotan
October 23, 2006


Regarding your thoughtful editorial on medical marijuana (Press & Dakotan, Oct. 11), if health outcomes determined drug laws instead of cultural norms, marijuana would be legal.

Unlike alcohol, marijuana has never been shown to cause an overdose death, nor does it share the addictive properties of tobacco. Marijuana can be harmful if abused, but jail cells are inappropriate as health interventions and ineffective as deterrents. The first marijuana laws were enacted in response to Mexican migration during the early 1900s, despite opposition from the American Medical Association.

Dire warnings that marijuana inspires homicidal rages have been counterproductive at best. White Americans didn't even begin to smoke pot until a soon-to-be entrenched government bureaucracy began funding reefer madness propaganda. By raiding voter-approved medical marijuana providers in California, the same U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that claims illicit drug use funds terrorism is forcing cancer and AIDS patients into the hands of street dealers. Apparently, marijuana prohibition is more important than protecting the country from terrorism.

[palmspringsbum]

Drug War Chronicle - world’s leading drug policy newsletter

Feature: Nail-Biting Time for South Dakota's Medical Marijuana Initiative

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #459, 10/27/06

With election day little more than a week away, proponents of South Dakota's medical marijuana initiative are increasingly nervous about the measure's prospects in the face of a coordinated onslaught by the state's Republican political establishment, state and local law enforcement, and even the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP -- the drug czar's office). Given South Dakota's social conservatism and a number of hot-button other issues on the ballot, including abortion and gay marriage, the assault by law enforcement only makes voter approval of the measure more difficult. But with no polling on the issue in the state since 2002 (when it got 64% approval), it is hard to gauge exactly where the vote is likely to go.

Known on the ballot as Initiated Measure 4, the medical marijuana measure would allow patients who suffer from specified medical conditions, have the okay of their doctor, and register with the state to use marijuana to alleviate their conditions. The measure also allows registered patients or their caregivers to grow up to six marijuana plants. If the measure passes, South Dakota would become the 12th state to legalize marijuana. If the measure fails, South Dakota would become the first state where voters explicitly rejected medical marijuana.

Beginning late last week, the organized opposition began fighting in earnest with a series of press conferences featuring Attorney General Larry Long (whom organizers were forced to successfully sue over biased ballot language), local law enforcement officials, and deputy drug czar Scott Burns. Burns called medical marijuana "a con" and accused initiative supporters of playing on the sympathies of voters to advance a dangerous agenda.

"It's a step backwards in South Dakota and a step backwards nationally," said Burns at a Sioux Falls press conference last Friday. "Do not fall for the con."

"The risk far outweighs the benefits," said Minnehaha County (Sioux Falls) Sheriff Mike Milstead at the same widely televised and reported press conference. "There's great concern about how easily this marijuana could fall into the wrong hands."

Some South Dakota law enforcement officials have gone further in their arguments against the measure. In a conversation with Drug War Chronicle Thursday, Hughes County (Pierre) Sheriff Mike Leidholt complained that initiative language barring registered patients from being prosecuted as drugged drivers because of residual metabolites in their systems would result in them being able to get away with driving while intoxicated. "If we can't test for the metabolite, how are we to enforce the law, or is that a free pass?" he asked.

Leidholt also expressed concern that marijuana grown for registered patients would escape into the larger market. "This measure allows any patient or caregiver to have up to six marijuana plants," he said. "One marijuana plant can produce up to 13,000 joints. If you have that much, what happens to the rest of it?"

[Editor's Note: We report, you decide. Assuming a joint weighs between one-half gram and one gram, that comes to somewhere between 15 and 30 pounds of smokeable bud. By our calculations, it would take a marijuana plant the size of a full-grown oak tree to produce that many joints.]

Leidholt conceded that marijuana may help a small number of seriously ill people in the state, but argued that that does not outweigh the need to keep marijuana off the streets. "I feel bad for those people, but the dangers are too great," he said.

That argument wasn't flying with Valerie Hannah of Deerfield, a combat medic in the Gulf War who know suffers chronic pain from nerve damage and who is serving as the primary spokesperson for South Dakotans for Medical Marijuana, the group behind the initiative. "We really need this for patients who are truly ill so they can have another means of release," she told the Chronicle.

Hannah and former Denver police officer Tony Ryan, who now lives in Sioux Falls, are the group's public face. Both are appearing in TV commercials airing around the state -- when they can squeeze in among all the abortion, gay marriage, tobacco tax, elected office, and other campaign commercials that are cluttering the airwaves.

"What law enforcement is doing is a real disappointment, but my biggest disappointment is Larry Long bringing in the national deputy drug czar to propagandize at press conferences," she said. "They're really starting to pull out the drug war money and going to town with it."

Hannah is in a lonely fight. No other medical marijuana patient in the state has yet stood up to be counted alongside her. But that is not surprising in a state where anyone who admits to marijuana use could be served with a search warrant and ordered to submit to a drug test, then prosecuted for "unlawful ingestion" of marijuana.

"People are scared here," Hannah said. "Not only are they scared to come out, some people who use medical marijuana have even told me they voted against it because they were afraid law enforcement would look at their ballots and somehow persecute them. It is past time for people to get over their fears and realize this is really all about sick and dying people."

While Hannah other initiative supporters are working frantically to secure victory on November 7, the outcome is "kind of iffy," she said. "Faced with all these false claims from law enforcement and the fear in the air in this state, I don't know how this will come out."

Hannah held out some hope though, citing surprising support among farmers and ranchers in the sparsely-populated, libertarian-leaning northwest part of the state. "That is good, but most of the votes are in the East, especially in Sioux Falls," she noted. With some 177,000 residents in the metro area, Sioux Falls accounts for about one-quarter of the state's population.

"Western South Dakota is a place where outlaws went to hide from the law -- and they stayed -- so it may be fertile ground for medical marijuana even if just for the tax money. But if they lose in Sioux Falls, they lose the entire state," said University of South Dakota political science Professor David Vick. "The city has been growing rapidly, and the small towns around there have become suburbs, and they vote like suburbs," he told the Chronicle.

Vick had a hard time imagining that the measure would succeed. "My opinion is that it will probably not pass," he said. "On the East side of the state, you tend to have values voters who vote along religious lines and conservative political lines. The only way I see this passing is if people vote for it in a backlash against government intrusion or fiscal conservatism. Of course, there are people who have found assistance from medical marijuana or know someone who has, and they could vote for it."

It now looks like an uphill battle in South Dakota, but we will not really know until the votes are counted.

<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: South Dakota's abortion ban only one issue on a crowded ballot

[palmspringsbum]

South Dakota's abortion ban only one issue on a crowded ballot

Ten other initiatives are vying for the electorate's attention, a near-record even by South Dakota standards.

Bob Von Sternberg, Star Tribune
October 31, 2006

When voters in South Dakota troop to the polls Tuesday, they will decide whether to radically reshape the state's law books.
No, we're not just talking about abortion.

A vote on whether to uphold or overturn the state's near-total ban on abortions has loomed over this election, and has put South Dakota in the national spotlight.

But that has overshadowed 10 other issues on the ballot, proposals ranging from forbidding same-sex marriage to jailing judges to restricting the use of state-owned airplanes.

The near-record number of initiatives, referred laws and constitutional amendments -- second only to the 14 voted on in 1916 -- "is pretty unusual, even though South Dakotans have a great tradition and pride in our practice of direct democracy," said Bob Burns, who runs the political science department at South Dakota State University.

Burns said there's no single explanation for the explosion in ballot initiatives, except that it's relatively easy to get one on the ballot.

And, it mirrors an upsurge nationwide. About 207 propositions in 37 states will be on the ballot Tuesday, a 27 percent increase since 2004, according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California.

An analysis of ballot trends by the institute found that the numbers have increased nationwide since 1978, when California's voters slashed their taxes by approving Proposition 13. More recently, it concluded, the growing popularity of ballot measures is a leading indicator of generalized voter dissatisfaction with their elected officials.

South Dakota is no latecomer to this party, having been the first state to hand the powers of initiative and referendum directly to voters in 1898.

Changing state laws via the ballot is generally an uphill battle, Burns said, "because if a voter doesn't know much about the measure, he either won't vote on it at all or [will] vote no to preserve the status quo."

That most likely won't be the case for the hot-button "values" issues, which include the bans on abortion and same-sex marriage (also on the ballot in seven other states), legalizing the medical use of marijuana and repealing the state's video lottery.

The marijuana proposal, similar to laws that have legalized pot for medicinal use in 11 other states, has been directly attacked by the Bush administration. Scott Burns, the White House's deputy drug czar, recently called it "a con" that will inevitably lead to drug abuse.

"The Christian right seems to be winning the war of the yard signs, but the polls have been showing that most of the general public isn't going along," Burns said.

A proposed constitutional amendment, informally known as "Jail 4 Judges," would remove legal immunity from judges and other public officials and expose them to fines or imprisonment, based on a review of their decisions by special 13-member grand juries.

That proposal has attracted widespread opposition from across the political spectrum, including a blistering condemnation from retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Rounding out the ballot issues are proposals to increase the tax on tobacco, repeal a tax on cellphone services, prohibit schools from starting before Aug. 31, require that the state's airplanes be used only for official state business, and update several outdated provisions of the state constitution.


The Associated Press contributed to this report. Bob von Sternberg • 612-673-7184 • vonste@startribune.com

[palmspringsbum]

It will soon be in the voters' hands


By Tom Lawrence, Black Hills Pioneer October 31, 2006


RAPID CITY - After just a few more days, the decisions will be in your hands.

Until Tuesday, Nov. 7, voters will have to deal with politicians at the door or on the phone, and with a deluge of TV, radio and newspaper ads, as well as reports and analysis from "experts." But then it will be their call.

Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday. Voters are asked to bring a valid photo ID to the polls, but they may sign an affidavit that would allow them to cast a ballot.

There is much at stake in the election: a governor's race, the state's sole U.S. House seat, every state Senate and House seat and county and local offices as well as judicial races. Gov. Mike Rounds and Rep. Stephanie Herseth have big leads in the polls; will the voters agree with those assessments?

The Republicans have controlled both chambers of the Legislature for more than a decade, but Democrats hope to gain votes in the House and wrest control of the Senate.

Perhaps the hottest part of the ballot will be the 11 ballot questions. Voters will be asked to decide the fate of abortion in South Dakota, same-sex marriage, video lottery (for the fourth time), the JAIL proposal to crack down on supposed inept or corrupt judges, medical marijuana as well as other issues.

State and local officials are estimating that more than 70 percent of eligible voters will go to the polls. They have been urging people to vote absentee to prevent long lines from forming on Election Day.

But with hundreds of thousands of South Dakotans eager to get to the polls and make their views known, such lines and delays are inevitable. It's sure to be an interesting, and long, night.

If you're not sure where you are supposed to vote, go to http://www.rcgov-gis.org/website/voting/viewer.htm.

To follow the news on Election Day, with updated photos, reports and results, go to http://www.rcweeklynews.com.



<small>©The Black Hills Pioneer, Newspapers, South Dakota, SD 2006</small>

[palmspringsbum]

10/31/2006

Compare SD Medical Pot Measure To Montana's

Keloland Television

<img src=/bin/icon_video.gif> Video

In one week, South Dakotans will decide whether to legalize marijuana for medical uses. And if history is any indication, the measure could very well pass. Nationally, medical marijuana has never been voted-down as a ballot measure.

Voters supported it in the eight states: California, Montana, Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Maine, Washington, Nevada.

And legislators made it legal in three states: Vermont, Hawaii, Rhode Island.

And one of the laws is nearly identical to the one on the South Dakota ballot. In Montana, 62 percent of voters supported a law to legalize medical marijuana in 2004.

Since South Dakota law enforcement has some serious concerns about what would happen if the same measure passes here, we did some checking to find out what kind of impact it's had in Montana.

South Dakota Law enforcement leaders believe the medical marijuana measure would make it too easy for anyone to get their hands on pot.

"It is written in the interest of those truly suffering but also to allow open access to anyone who says they suffer from chronic pain," says Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead.

But in Montana, where the same law with the same wording has already been in effect for 2 years, only 260 people are registered to use it. And Roy Kemp, the man in charge of the registry, says people without serious illness don't abuse the law because a doctor has to sign off on their medical records.

"Generally speaking, that does not occur. So no, it hasn't been a problem," says Kemp, the licensing bureau chief for Montana's Department of Public Health and Human Services.

South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long sees the wording differently. He thinks it's vague enough that people with minor injuries could just send in medical records and get the immunity to use marijuana.

Kemp says it's as simple as making sure the doctor recommends the pot. "If there is no statement such as that in the medical record, then I cannot consider the medical record as a basis for qualifying a patient," Kemp says. "I don't think the landscape has changed because of this act."

Milstead doesn't think it's worth the risk.

"Let the proponents introduce a law that is truly medical marijuana that uses a prescription from a physician," Milstead says.

It's important to note this bill does not create "prescriptions" for marijuana, because it is against federal law to prescribe marijuana. But it makes it legal for people with a doctor's recommendation to have it. They have to grow themselves or find their own way to get it and that's the biggest problem they're having in Montana.

<span class=postbigbold>One Case of Abuse</span>

In the last two years, only one man has broken the law then used medical marijuana as his defense. But the jury didn't buy it.

58-year-old Gary Ashley was convicted last month of having drugs and planning to dealing them.

Police arrested Ashley in Butte, Montana, last Dember after finding more than four pounds of marijuana in his house. Ashley was registered in California to use medical marijuana, and the Montana law honors other states' registration cards.

But the Montana law (like the proposed South Dakota law) only allows one ounce or six plants of the drug. So the jury decided Ashley violated the law by having too much pot.

Ashley faces up to 20 years in prison.

[palmspringsbum]

Bill pits attorney general against medical-marijuana proponents


By Ryan Woodard, Journal Staff Writer
The Rapid City Journal
November 1, 2006


<span class=postbold>Editor’s note:</span> <i>This is another in a series of stories on ballot issues and candidates facing South Dakota voters in the Nov. 7 general election.</i>

Voters will decide next week whether South Dakota citizens should legally be allowed to use medical marijuana to treat symptoms caused by certain medical conditions.

The controversial Initiated Measure 4 would allow people with “debilitating” medical conditions to grow, possess and use small amounts of medical marijuana.

Proponents say the bill would enable those who have painful conditions to legally ease their pain.

“I think it’s very important for all the sick people who want to have choices in the way they treat their medical conditions,” said Valerie Hannah, a Deerfield resident who has used marijuana to ease pain resulting from her exposure to sarin gas during the Gulf War.

Rapid City resident Cynthia Siragusa, a multiple-sclerosis sufferer, agreed.

“I’m a decent person, and I don’t want to be a criminal because I use this to alleviate my pain,” she said.

But opponents of the bill say that it is too broad and would increase the overall use of marijuana.

“My problem with this bill is, this isn’t about just getting marijuana to people who have a serious medical condition,” Attorney General Larry Long said. “This is about getting marijuana to a lot of other people, too.”

“This bill is big enough you can drive a truck through it,” he said.

A primary argument Long has with the bill is section 11, which he has called a “get-out-of-jail-free card.”

The wording in that section states “no qualifying patient or caregiver who possesses a registry identification card issued pursuant to this act may be arrested, prosecuted or penalized in any manner, or be denied any right or privilege.”

The wording, which is designed to protect those who medically use marijuana and those who care for them, allows the holder of the card immunity for any crime, Long said.

Hannah said wording problems with the bill could be fixed after it passes.

“Anything that we have in the disagreement with Mr. Long can be settled by proper channels in the Legislature,” she said.

She said Long could help South Dakotans for Medical Marijuana instead of badmouthing the bill.

“If he would only sit down with our organization and talk about this wording with us … but he hasn’t done that,” she said. “But he’s been very successful in using the wording to scare South Dakotans into thinking his way.”

One of the sponsors of the bill, Hermosa resident Bob Newland, said wording was inadvertently left out.

“The word ‘for any act committed pursuant to this act’ should have been put at the end of that sentence,” Newland said.

Long said he is not interested in fixing the bill in the legislature, especially since the fix couldn’t be done until next summer, when the session closes.

“What are we going to do between November and July?” he asked.

He doesn’t believe that a mistake was made in drafting the bill.

“I’m not willing to give them the benefit of saying that they over drafted it by accident,” Long said. “I think it was carefully drafted by someone who knew exactly what they were doing to make it look like this was a tightly controlled, regulated system that would allow people with serious medical conditions to use marijuana.”

Other points of controversy in the bill have included the severity of illnesses covered under the bill.

“You’re supposed to have a debilitating medical condition,” Long said. “They list a lot of serious ones. But it says any condition that causes chronic pain.”

Long said chronic pain is too broad.

“How many people are going to take advantage of that?” he asked.

Hannah said stipulations in the bill prevent it from being taken advantage of.

“First off, you’ve got to understand the definition of chronic pain,” she said. “You’ve got to be debilitated for over two years and have to have an underlying cause that’s not really curable.”

“So, if a doctor’s being true to himself, he’s not going to write the person with a sprained ankle or a backache a recommendation for this or a certificate for this,” she said.

Siragusa says that M.S. causes her pain on a daily basis — pain that prescription drugs don’t help.

“As far as the symptoms, there really isn’t as much for medicines,” she said.

She said marijuana loosens her up when she wakes up in the morning.

“When I wake up, I’m so stiff, I’m almost paralyzed,” she said.

Medical marijuana bills have been passed in 11 other states, Hannah said.

Long said he has been told Initiated Measure 4 was crafted after those bills, which he has not read and compared with the South Dakota measure.

Initiated Measure 4 would permit the patient and caregiver alike to possess not more than six marijuana plants and 1 ounce of “usable” marijuana.

Contact Ryan Woodard at 394-8412 or ryan.woodard@rapidcityjournal.com

[palmspringsbum]

Students lose shirts off their backs for Initiated Measure 4


By Mary Garrigan, Journal Staff Writer
The Rapid City Journal
November 3, 2006

RAPID CITY — Two Stevens High School seniors who wore T-shirts to school advocating the passage of Initiated Measure 4, the medical marijuana ballot issue, say their rights to political free speech were violated when the school principal confiscated the shirts, which were decorated with the image of a marijuana leaf.

David Valenzuela, 17, and Chris Fuentes, 18, were told by a Stevens security guard to remove the shirts as they entered their first-period class Oct. 20. Principal Katie Bray confiscated the shirts a short time later.

Rapid City superintendent of schools Peter Wharton said Thursday that the incident was a violation of school policy, not political rights.

School policy forbids clothing that displays images of alcohol, drugs or tobacco products on school grounds. That policy is clearly communicated to all students, and it is not affected by what issues may or may not be on the ballot in an election year, Wharton said.

“Unequivocally, no. It had nothing to do with political speech,” he said.

Students are allowed to wear political T-shirts and other campaign-related items for candidates and issues, as long as they are appropriate, as determined by school administrators, Wharton said. This fall, numerous Stevens students have worn T-shirts with an image of a human fetus and the message “Save a Life, Vote Yes on Referred Law 6.”

“We had been seeing all these abortion shirts at school, and we thought, OK, I guess we can get political,” Valenzuela said of his decision to wear the shirt to school.

Valenzuela’s green, tie-dyed shirt features a white, stylized image of a marijuana leaf, along with the hand-lettered message, “Vote Yes on Initiated Measure 4.”

The wording is allowed, Wharton said, but the image is not. Any student is welcome to advocate for the passage of a law legalizing medical marijuana, as long as they don’t use drug insignia in the process. “Advocate to your heart’s content, but don’t use a marijuana leaf to do it. It’s against school policy.”

“We were told that because the marijuana leaf was drug-related, we weren’t allowed to wear it,” Valenzuela said. “I think it’s very unfair. We’re trying to get our viewpoint out and tell people what it (Initiated Measure 4) is, and we can’t. We’re just trying to spread Measure 4.”

Valenzuela, who is not old enough to vote, argues that the picture of marijuana should be protected as political speech. He was campaigning for a ballot issue, not promoting the use of an illegal drug, he said.

“That’s absurd,” Wharton said. “I’m not even going to dignify that argument with a response.” A ballot initiative does not change the enforcement or the interpretation of a school dress-code regulation, he said.

Bray, who returned the shirts at the end of the school day, threatened the students with suspension from school if they wore the shirts to class again, Valenzuela said.

“We were afraid of being expelled,” he said.

“Then, I would have gotten involved,” said Christine Horan, Valenzuela’s mother, who supported her son’s decision to wear the shirt but made him wear another shirt underneath it, just in case.

“I see it as an issue of free speech. If students are allowed to wear clothing promoting one ballot issue, then all ballot issues should be allowed on shirts,” Horan said.

Valenzuela and Fuentes say they will take Wharton up on his invitation to continue their medical marijuana T-shirt campaign, sans image, in the days leading up to Tuesday’s election.

Contact Mary Garrigan at 394-8410 or mary.garrigan@rapidcityjournal.com

<span class=postbold>Related:</span> Provided by The First Amendment Center, November 7, 2006.<ul class=postlist><li> Court sides with school on student's T-shirt
But in ruling school had right to make student cover images of drugs and booze, judge also says words are protected and that disciplinary action should be removed from student's record. 12.28.04 </li>

<li> 9th Circuit backs teen's right to display 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' banner
Unanimous three-judge panel overturns lower court ruling, finds Alaska school officials violated Joseph Frederick's free-speech rights. 03.13.06 </li>

<li> 9th Circuit: High school can bar anti-gay T-shirt — for now
Panel majority says teen's First Amendment claims will likely fail in lower court; Judge Alex Kozinski writes blistering dissent. 04.21.06 </li>

<li> Court dresses down Vt. school over censorship of boy's T-shirt
2nd Circuit panel rules 3-0 that Zachary Guiles' First Amendment rights were violated when he was ordered to cover parts of anti-Bush shirt. 08.31.06 </li>

<li> Meaning of 'plainly offensive' speech anything but clear</li>
<b>By David L. Hudson Jr.</b> Federal circuits are split over how to apply 1986 Supreme Court decision on student expression. 09.20.06</li>

<li> Clothing, dress codes & uniforms</li></ul>

[palmspringsbum]

Billion Cites Lack Of Economic Growth

By: Nathan Johnson
nathan.johnson@yankton.net

The Yankton Press &amp; Democrat
November 3, 2006

<table class=posttable align=right width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg width=300 src=bin/billion_jack.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcap>Mark Maxon/P&amp;D Gubernatorial candidate Jack Billion visits with Josephine Kabambi and her fellow YHS Young Democrats at the Riverfront Events Center in Yankton on Thursday afternoon. Billion laid out some of his policy plans, including his plans to increase education spending. </td></tr></table>When asked about how to convince young people to stay in South Dakota, Billion said it is a question of expanding economic opportunities within the state so they can afford to stay. Currently, South Dakota expends too many of its resources recruiting low-paying jobs like call centers, he said.

"We have to grow the economy ... to create jobs that will keep them here," Billion said.

The state has to become more creative in encouraging growth in areas like wind energy, computer technology and light industry -- or any other sector that pays its employees wages that will give them financial security, according to Billion.

"We haven't paid attention to how we do that," he said. "But that's the only way we can succeed."

Billion also said that in the future, the young people of today will have to deal with the state's tax structure.

"We need to talk about our taxes and where we're going to go," Billion said. "I'm concerned about our dependence on video lottery."

He said that he doesn't favor getting rid of video lottery now, but the state should be looking at other revenue options. A serious discussion should include at least consideration of an income tax, Billion said, noting that it could be set up so that people wouldn't have to pay into it until they had earned $40,000 or $50,000 annually.

Responding to a question about the medical marijuana measure on South Dakota's ballot, the retired surgeon said he thinks patients should be provided the medication that is most effective in dealing with their illness, even if it is marijuana.

"If it's in the best interest of the patient, the doctor should be able to provide it," Billion said.

In a conversation before the meeting with Young Democrats, Billion said he's been traveling to cities in the eastern half of the state recently and will team up with Rep. Stephanie Herseth and Sen. Tim Johnson, both Democrats, on the campaign trail in the next few days.

Billion said he will continue to talk about his plans for economic development, school funding and health care to rally citizens to vote for him Tuesday.

He said the campaign hasn't created some of the productive conversations he would have liked.

"Gov. Rounds has been hard to engage, because he doesn't necessarily want to debate," Billion said. "He can spend $2 million on television ads while sitting in Pierre and avoid a real discussion. That's the advantage of incumbency."

Instead of dealing with issues that would impact South Dakotans, Billion said the Rounds administration has spent its time promoting divisive issues like the abortion ban, a stem-cell research ban and an alleged bias against conservative views on college campuses.

Despite polls showing Billion trailing Rounds in the double digits, the Democratic candidate remained optimistic about his chances Tuesday and the chances of Democrats around the state.

"I think we're going to see Democrats being elected to the House and Senate," he said. "We're going to see Democrats have more of a say in state government. I think the people of South Dakota want two-party government. They've seen what one-party government has done nationally over the last six years, and it's been a disaster."

[budman]

Federal Official Criticizes Medical Marijuana Issue


By: DENNIS GALE
Associated Press Writer
The Yankton Press & Democrat


SIOUX FALLS -- A medical marijuana ballot issue in South Dakota is being supported by people who want to legalize drugs, a top federal drug official said Friday.

John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy in Washington, said people who have been trying to legalize marijuana are exploiting the suffering of genuinely sick people to further their political ends.

South Dakota would join 11 other states that allow some medical patients to smoke marijuana to ease their pain and other medical problems if voters approve Initiated Measure 4 on Tuesday.

Diseases and conditions that would be covered include: cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, severe or chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, severe or persistent muscle spasms and multiple sclerosis. The state Department of Health also could approve other medical conditions.

Valerie Hannah of Deerfield, who smokes marijuana to help ease chronic pain, said Walters' comments are without merit and amount to last-minute scare tactics.

"I'm one of those people who have been trying to get this drug legalized for those sick people," said Hannah, who served in the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s and was exposed to chemical weapons that are basically causing her nerves to dissolve.

She called marijuana "an innocuous and harmless weed" and that drug officials' statements about the ballot issue have "just gotten really silly."

In a release, Walters said the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society do not support the smoked form of marijuana as medicine.

Walters said there are more teenagers in treatment for marijuana dependence than for all other illegal drugs combined. The Office of National Drug Control Policy release did not provide figures on teenage treatment.

"Marijuana is a much more harmful drug than many Americans realize," he said.

But Hannah said in the 11 states that have legalized the substance, marijuana use among teens has gone down 15 percent to 45 percent, depending on the state. She said that in Rhode Island, where the Legislature approved medical marijuana, only one incident of abuse was reported among 136 people who registered for the substance in a year.

That person was prosecuted, just as what would happen in South Dakota if anything went wrong, she said.

[palmspringsbum]

11/04/2006
KELO TV Poll: Medical Marijuana

Keloland TV

<img src=/bin/icon_video.gif> <a href=http://www.keloland.com/videoarchive/index.cfm?VideoFile=110506measure4 target=_blank>Video</a>

This Tuesday, South Dakotans will vote whether or not to make marijuana legal in the state for medicinal purposes.

Smoking marijuana is a crime under both state and federal law, but if Initiated Measure four passes on Tuesday, it would be legal for adults and children to use it for one of several listed medical conditions which are registered with the department of health.

But according to our KELO TV poll, Initiated Measure 4 is going up in smoke. 60% oppose medical marijuana, 35% are in favor of it, 5% are undecided.

"I'm comforted by the fact, it looks like more and more South Dakotans are aware of what this bill really is," said Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead.

"If it's true, it makes me very sad that the people of South Dakota will believe lies and smear tactics that they paid for with their tax dollars," said Valerie Hannah.

Hannah has chronic joint pain from the first Gulf War. She's been trying to legalize medical marijuana for five years.

"I encourage South Dakota to really look at this law it's about sick and dying people it's not about recreational use," said Hannah.

Milstead also wants people to read the law before they vote on Tuesday.

"This is a flawed initiative, it's poorly written and it's a disaster for public safety based on the fact that this is a get out of jail free card ," said Milstead.

Our poll has a margin of error plus or minus four percent

[palmspringsbum]

November 6, 2006

Letter: Say No To Medical Marijuana



By: James L. "Jim" Van Osdel, Yankton
The Yankton Press & Democrat

Cancer patients don't need weed, they need glyconutritionals.

One of our family members was slated for chemo and radiation for cancer. He cautioned his family that he would be too sick to have children and grandchildren around while undergoing such harsh therapy.

Our family member began using glyconutritionals some time after diagnosis. His hair didn't fall out, he did not become sick to his stomach and his appetite remained.

The family member did not have to miss church on Sunday, or Bible study during the week. And grandkids were around most of the time.

Almost 80 years old, the family member survived the cancer and the radical treatments for nearly a year before succumbing to a heart attack.

No, glyconutritionals didn't save his life but he had life during chemo and radiation -- without "weed."

Don't legalize what the flower children of the 1960s called "mind-blowing weed."

[palmspringsbum]

Support short for medical marijuana

<span class=postbigbold>Opponents concerned about controlling use</span>

By JAY KIRSCHENMANN
jkirsch@argusleader.com
PUBLISHED: November 8, 2006
The Argus Leader

A movement to legalize the use of marijuana for medical uses was headed for defeat with partial election results available late Tuesday.

South Dakota's Initiated Measure 4 was patterned after laws in 11 states. Passage looked doubtful at 11 p.m. with 141,734 votes against legalized use compared with 127,713 votes in favor, a 53-47 margin, with 743 precincts out of 818 reporting.

Those against the measure said approval would have led to open use, and the public might think that it is the only medicine effective for certain ailments.

Sioux Falls police chief Doug Barthel said he feared that people would abuse the privilege.

"I think the state will be glad they voted against it, because from an enforcement aspect, I think it would have been a nightmare for us," Barthel said Tuesday night.

"Look at an event like JazzFest where you have thousands of people," he said. "Some who would have been allowed to smoke it would be doing that openly. How would we differentiate between who can and can't?"

Those in favor argued in part that marijuana can relieve seriously ill patients' discomfort and even save lives. But under South Dakota law, patients who use it face a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.

Support came from a group called South Dakotans for Medical Marijuana. A spokesman, Tony Ryan of Sioux Falls, was a police officer in Denver for 36 years. He has family members who suffer from cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis.

"It would be an option," Ryan said. "They don't need it now, but there might be a day when they need it."

Valerie Hannah of Deerfield supported passage. She uses marijuana in a vaporized form to ease chronic pain of nerve damage she suffered from nerve gas in the Gulf War.

Hannah said legal drugs such as morphine make her feel "like a zombie" and put her in a stupor.

"If it fails, of course it's a disappointment, and very terrifying," she said. "I think we need to provide voters with a better education."

Reach reporter Jay Kirschenmann at 331-2312.

[palmspringsbum]

<span class=postbold>Drug War Chronicle - world’s leading drug policy newsletter</span>

Election 2006: South Dakota Medical Marijuana Initiative Backers Vow to Try Again After Narrow Defeat

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #461, 11/10/06

In an unexpectedly strong showing, an initiative that would have allowed seriously ill patients to use marijuana garnered nearly half the votes in the socially conservative Upper Midwest state of South Dakota. But it couldn't quite get over the top, losing by a margin of 48% to 52%. South Dakota thus earns the distinction of being the only state where voters have rejected medical marijuana at the ballot box.

Backers of the effort, while disappointed, are undeterred, and have already announced they will try again in 2008 or 2010. But the state will remain a tough nut to crack.

A stark illustration of the political atmosphere in the state when it comes to marijuana was the fact that South Dakotans for Medical Marijuana, the initiative organizers, could only come up with two patients willing to go public about their marijuana use. But perhaps that should be no surprise in a state where "ingestion" of marijuana is a criminal offense for which people are routinely sentenced to jail time and a public acknowledgment of one's marijuana use could became the basis for a search warrant demanding a urine sample, which would then be used to file ingestion charges.

The measure won majority support in Minnehaha County (52%), where nearly a quarter of the state's voters reside, the college town environs of Brookings County (52%) and Clay County (62%), Gateway Computers' home Union County (51%), the Black Hills' Lawrence County (52%), and a handful of other sparsely populated West River counties. But in most of the state's East River farm country counties, voters rejected the measure, sometimes narrowly, but occasionally by large margins, and even Pennington County, the home of Rapid City, the state's second largest city, voted narrowly against it (51%).

While initiative supporters ran a relatively low-profile campaign -- the state's ballot was full of hot button issues, including an abortion ban and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- opponents led by Republican South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long rallied local law enforcement in opposition to the measure. Long also called in the big guns from Washington, DC, bringing White House Office on National Drug Control Policy Deputy Director Scott Burns to the state for a series of widely publicized press conferences denouncing the measure as a "con" and a "sham."

Drug czar John Walters himself weighed in on the state initiative with a press release the Friday before the election. "This proposal is a scam being pushed on the citizens of South Dakota by people who want to legalize drugs," Walters warned. "Marijuana is a much more harmful drug than many Americans realize. There are more teens now in treatment for marijuana dependence than for all other illegal drugs combined. It is unfortunate that people who have been trying to legalize this drug for many years are exploiting the suffering of genuinely sick people to further their political ends."

The intervention by South Dakota law enforcement and federal drug warriors was key in preventing the measure from passing, said initiative spokesperson and medical marijuana patient Valerie Hannah, a Gulf War veteran who uses the drug to ease the symptoms of neurological disorders she suffers as a result of her service. "Attorney General Long bringing in the drug czar's people really hurt us," she told Drug War Chronicle. "They said things like having a caregiver just meant somebody to get high with, which is just not the case."

For the national marijuana reform movement, the South Dakota loss -- its first at the polls -- was a tough blow, but movement leaders vowed to try again. "We knew from the early polling that this would be an uphill fight, particularly on a ballot filled with hot-button issues, and with the White House and the whole state establishment, including the attorney general, against us," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), which provided support for the South Dakota effort. "The fact that we came this close against such powerful opposition is remarkable. Working with the local activists who started this effort, we plan to try again with another medical marijuana initiative in South Dakota in November 2008 or 2010," he announced.

"Every day, science continues to prove the medical value of marijuana," Kampia continued. "In just the last two months we've seen evidence of remarkable benefit against hepatitis C and even potential against Alzheimer's disease. It's tragic that brave patients like Val Hannah, who spoke out for the initiative, will continue to face arrest and jail for simply trying to preserve their health, but in the long run, science and common sense will triumph over ignorance and fear."

"South Dakota's result, while disheartening, does nothing to change the fact that according to national polls, nearly eight out of ten Americans support the physician-approved use of medicinal cannabis," said Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

Sick people like Hannah remain at risk of arrest and imprisonment for using marijuana to relieve their symptoms, but she refused to be saddened by the outcome. "I'm proud of what we did. We came very close, and this means people here are waking up. The South Dakotans who supported us made a wise choice. Next time, we will be working to get the education and knowledge out to the public more efficiently so they can make a more informed decision," she said. "We can pass this in South Dakota, perhaps through another ballot initiative in 2008. I remain hopeful," she added.