Learn More"It's hard enough to cope with constant, debilitating pain. But it's devastating that it's a crime to use the medicine that works best for me." — Val Hannah of Hill City, SD, who has used marijuana to treat severe and chronic lower back pain caused by a multiple sclerosis-like illness that she acquired after serving as a combat medic in the Gulf War Why does South Dakota need a medical marijuana initiative?Currently, South Dakota treats people who are suffering from cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other serious illnesses as criminals simply for using the medicine that relieves their pain, allows them to eat, or otherwise helps them live normal lives. Terribly ill South Dakotans face up to one year in prison for possessing even the smallest amount of marijuana — or even having it in their system. Seriously ill individuals deserve to live with dignity; they and their doctors should be free to determine the best course of treatment concerning their health. In 2003, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that patients' medical need for marijuana is not currently a legal defense. Although legislators — including Rep. Gerald Lange (D-Madison) — have proposed medical marijuana bills, the state legislature has failed to enact them. Now, it is up to voters to protect the seriously ill. What would the medical marijuana initiative have done?The initiative -- like the effective medical marijuana laws at work in 11 states -- would have protected people with cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other serious illnesses from being arrested and imprisoned for growing, possessing, and using a limited amount of marijuana for medical purposes with doctors' certifications. Additionally, such a law would have protected patients' caregivers from criminal penalties for growing or possessing medical marijuana for the patients' use. For more information, click here. The initiative mirrors Montana's law, which voters enacted in 2004. In Montana, more than 100 doctors have signed written certifications for more than 200 seriously ill patients. Are people really being arrested for the medical use of marijuana?Yes, there are numerous tragic examples. The following is a small sampling:
Does marijuana actually have medical value?Yes. Indeed, the Institute of Medicine concluded in its 1999 report "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base" that "there are some limited circumstances in which we recommend smoking marijuana for medical uses." Please click here to read excerpts from the report. Marijuana is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. No one has ever died from an overdose, and it has a wide variety of therapeutic applications. In its resolution supporting safe and legal access to marijuana, the American Public Health Association (APHA) listed many of symptoms that studies have shown that marijuana alleviates:
The APHA also explained that marijuana "seems to work differently than many conventional medications for the above problems, making it a possible option for persons resistant to the conventional medications…" This conclusion is backed up by scientific studies. One study found that inhaled marijuana relieves chemotherapy nausea and vomiting in 78% of people who don't respond to other medicines. Considering that an estimated 20% of all cancer deaths are caused by patients wasting away, marijuana could save hundreds of South Dakotans' lives. Marijuana could be helpful for millions of patients in the United States and many patients already are using it and risking criminal penalties. For this reason, in the past 10 years, 11 states have removed their criminal penalties from the doctor-approved, medical use of marijuana. Wouldn't passing a medical marijuana law in South Dakota send the wrong message to kids and lead to an increase in marijuana use among teens?No. A new report, compiled by the Marijuana Policy Project, evaluated government data and illustrates that state medical marijuana laws have not increased adolescent marijuana use. In fact, marijuana use among teenagers has actually declined dramatically in some states with medical marijuana laws. For example, California, which passed the first effective medical marijuana law in 1996, has seen particularly large reductions in teen marijuana use, ranging from 40% to 50% in many categories. Didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that states cannot pass medical marijuana laws?No. The June 6, 2005, U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the medical marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich does not invalidate the 11 existing state medical marijuana laws, nor does it preclude other states like South Dakota from passing their own medical marijuana laws to protect patients from criminal penalties. The ruling simply maintains the status quo by allowing — but not requiring — federal authorities to enforce federal marijuana laws against patients who are protected under state medical marijuana laws. Because the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal law enforcement agencies make only 1% of annual marijuana arrests, patients in states that enact medical marijuana laws retain a high level of protection. Following the Raich decision, officials in every medical marijuana state at the time declared that nothing has changed since the ruling and that state medical marijuana laws are still in effect. For example, California's attorney general issued a statement urging patients not to panic, saying, "Nothing is different today than it was two days ago, in terms of real-world impact." More information on the Raich decision. How are other states' medical marijuana laws working?The 11 state medical marijuana laws are working well. They haven't created problems for law enforcement or the programs' administers and they have protected thousands of seriously ill patients. Consequently, the laws become more and more popular as time as passed. A 2002 report by Congress' investigational arm interviewed 37 selected law enforcement organizations about the effect of medical marijuana laws in their states. It found that most of them "indicated that medical marijuana laws had had little impact on their law enforcement activities. …" The programs' administrators also report that the programs are going smoothly. Pamela Salsbury, the administer of Oregon's medical marijuana program, wrote in May 2005, "Overall … the registry has operated smoothly and without negative political or legal consequences. To the extent that we saw room for improvement, we have had great successes in adapting the program by changing procedures." You can visit the state-run medical marijuana ID card registries by clicking on the links below:
|
