Volesky wins one for Marijuana

Represented by Democratic Attorney General Candidate Ron Volesky, the Medical Marijuana forces won a minor victory in forcing changes to the ballot explanation as formulated by the Attorney General's office. As reported by the Rapid City Journal:
A circuit judge told South Dakota officials Friday to make substantial changes in the language that will appear on the November ballot to explain a proposal that would legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Voters in November will decide whether to legalize marijuana for people who have certain medical conditions such as cancer, AIDS or chronic pain. The ballot explanation by Attorney General Larry Long will guide voters.

In a ruling issued Friday, Circuit Judge Max Gors of Pierre gave Long the option of either using a new explanation written by the judge or making substantial changes to the explanation Long had written.

Sponsors of the medical marijuana measure argued in an Aug. 17 hearing that Long’s explanation went too far because it said even if South Dakota legalizes marijuana for medical purposes, it would still be illegal under federal law. The attorney general had said that could lead to federal prosecution for possession or use of marijuana for medical use, and doctors could be prosecuted or lose their federal licenses to dispense prescription drugs if they recommend that patients get marijuana.

Gors said the explanation should tell voters that marijuana use would still be illegal under federal law even if the South Dakota measure passes, but the statement should be made only once. The judge said the attorney general’s explanation went too far because it repeated that message several times.

Read it all here. The attorney general’s explanation went too far because it repeated that message several times? Apparently some people are touchy about the truth.

Just because marijuana use would still be illegal under federal law even if the South Dakota measure passes. And that marijuana use would still be illegal under federal law even if the South Dakota measure passes. Despite that fact, marijuana use would still be illegal under federal law even if the South Dakota measure passes.

It would be interesting to ask Volesky how he would consider enforcement of the law if he were elected, since marijuana use would still be illegal under federal law even if the South Dakota measure passes.

Would he refer matters to federal law enforcement because marijuana use would still be illegal under federal law even if the South Dakota measure passes? Or would he act as an obstacle to Federal Law Enforcement, and ignore the fact that marijuana use would still be illegal under federal law even if the South Dakota measure passes?

Aside from the fact that marijuana use would still be illegal under federal law even if the South Dakota measure passes - I'm against the measure as filed because:
#1 Marijuana is illegal.
#2 Selling or distributing Marijuana is illegal.
#3 All of section 4. Prescribing MM for Minors? No way.
#4 Falsification of a card allowing use/distribution is only a misdemeanor?
#5 Where does responsibility lie on the drug manufacturer's part?

You can read my previous objections to the measure in detail here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The Feds don't prosecute small time marijuana users.
Anonymous said…
A child could only qualify if he had a "debilitating medical condition" like cancer or AIDS.

Not many kids have terrible illnesses like that. Thank God.

So not many kids would qualify under the measure, if any at all.

But if they do, and if pot can make them feel a little bit better as they're dying, and if their parents consent to it, why would you deny that to them?

Oh yeah, that's right, because it's illegal.
Bob Newland said…
Once again, PP demonstrates himself to being only a whore for the status quo, with no principles beyond election of other such horses asses.

"#1. Marijuana is illegal."
And what a blessing that has been to all of us.

"#2 Selling or distributing Marijuana is illegal."
Except for the FDA, to those patients admitted to its Compassionate Investigational New Drug Study, which send 300 cannabis cigarets a month to each of five patients, none of whom wouldbe alive after the 22 years of the program, had they not been able to obtain cannabis.

"#3 All of section 4. Prescribing MM for Minors? No way."
It's not a prescription, you dope. It's a recommendation, based on the doctor's assessment that the potential benefits would outweigh the risks. So a doctor can read the science on cannabis therapy and come to the realization that the 13-year-old in front of him who is undergoing chemotherapy that leaves him nauseous and unable to eat. The doctor decides that it doesn't make much point to kill the cancer if he also kills the patient, especially when he sees that the literature suggests there IS NO RISK OF SIDE EFFECTS!

"#4 Falsification of a card allowing use/distribution is only a misdemeanor?"
The distribution is still a felony. Once falsification of a card is demonstrated, the falsifier can be charged with distribution, if he/she actually distributes.

"#5 Where does responsibility lie on the drug manufacturer's part?"
Jeez, PP, I thought you thought God DOES take and bear responsibility for His acts.

As with all his thuggish ilk, Powers refuses to read the government studies that confirm medical benefits from cannabis therapy, refuses to lend any credence to the tens of thousands of anecdotal data showing benefit to individual patients, and will not produce any evidence to demonstrate physical or mental damage to ANYONE from ingestion of cannabis. The reason for the latter charge is that there IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE.
johnnie w. said…
Despite what you may think, PP, this is a huge victory for medical marijuana in South Dakota, not simply a "minor" victory.

Judge Gors found the AG's explanation biased and misleading. Simply as that. We knew/know Larry is opposed to the measure (not on the merits of course).

It's been a tough year, Larry... I know, you're "struggling."

Lets put an end to reefer madness, good South Dakota people. Educate yourself on this issue -- it's simple.

Vote Yes on Initiative 4.
Bob Newland said…
The full decision (29 pages) can be seen at
www.sodaksafeaccess.org/ballotexpl.htm

PP, I'll bet if your child suffered from migraine headaches that reduced him/her to lying on a bed in a dark room crying five days a month, and your doctor suggested that vaporized THC from marijuana might alleviate the attacks or avert them entirely, and showed you case histories (they exist) in support of that opinion, you'd sign the consent form and go over to campus and score some weed. God have pity on you if you wouldn't.
Anonymous said…
Boy, I'm just crying a river over the sick and dying who can't live without marijuana. What a crock!

It is too bad Larry Long is playing politics with the ballot explanations and what gets on the ballot. Nelson should quit crying about the inability to get ballots ready and ask Long to simply make explanations just that--explanations. These guys are crying about their inability to do their jobs, but they caused this debacle. I'm embarrased for my republican friends!
Bob Newland said…
"I'm embarrased for my republican friends!"

I don't blame you. But it's exactly what I expect from the stupid bastards.
Anonymous said…
Newland, go get your saggy old self cleaned up. It's sad to see a grown human being who has been so baked for so long.

You will lose at the polls, once again. The explanation doesn't matter. You've proven yourself a biennial loser on this issue.

Regardless, good luck to you. We know that whether you prevail & celebrate or fail (as always) & throw a pity party, it will involve you, your lonliness, and a bowl of greens.
Anonymous said…
Hey Bob

I was reading the decision on your website but ran into a missing page. Do you have p 25 somewhere?
Bob Newland said…
Yep. My saggy old self made a mistake. Musta been the granola I had for breakfast.

P. 25 is now posted.
Anonymous said…
The real story here is that Long has been overturned on just about everything he does regarding ballot initiatives.

From keeping them off the ballot improperly to one-sided wording, he's been slapped by the courts how many times this year?

Long's either incompetent or unwilling to play it straight.

He's free to have his personal biases just as everyone else, but his roll in writing ballot explanations is to write a balanced explanation - not to shill for one side.
Anonymous said…
I disagree, 6:43.

The SD Supreme Court went out of their way to write in their opinion that he merely followed precedent in instructing the secretary of state to keep video lottery & the cell phone tax off the ballot. He was all but patted on the back by Judge Gors for the Amendment E explanation(see para 53 where he tells him it was tame compared to how he could have "with a straight face" let them have it.) He had to change 1 word - "volunteers" to "special grand jurors. Neither one of those looks to me like a "slap."

The Medical Marijuana case was the first one he really lost.
Anonymous said…
Come on! Long and Nelson aren't playing it straight. They are attempting to turn the law on its head, like the activist liberal judges we all detest. They should be ashamed!

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over