cannabisnews.com: Lawsuit Pending for Marijuana Measure





Lawsuit Pending for Marijuana Measure
Posted by CN Staff on August 02, 2006 at 06:13:10 PT
By Joe Kafka, Associated Press Writer
Source: Rapid City Journal
Pierre, SD -- 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. Source: Rapid City Journal (SD)Author: Joe Kafka, Associated Press WriterPublished: Wednesday, August 2, 2006Copyright: 2006 The Rapid City JournalContact: letters rapidcityjournal.comWebsite: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by afterburner on August 02, 2006 at 09:54:58 PT
I struggle with what will actually be accomplished
"warning adds that doctors may be subject to losing their federal licenses to prescribe legal drugs"That part of the ballot warning is a blatant lie and should qualify for, at the very least, a partial retraction of the warning. Better still, take the warning off entirely.CN AB: PUB LTE: Refusal To Regulate Marijuana Sales A Crime, FFWD, (20 Jul 2006) 
http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v06/n975/a05.html?180OT: What d'ya Think:Heavy net users are loners, study shows.
Aug. 2, 2006. 09:15 AM
http://tinyurl.com/esb7h"There's a new study that says heavy Internet users lead a considerably different lifestyle than people who do not surf the web."&&& Texting doesn't hurt grammar: study.
Aug. 2, 2006. 08:09 AM
http://tinyurl.com/p3gs5"Hmm. Omg. Only a tiny fraction of teenage text messaging includes short forms, according to a new University of Toronto study, dispelling the myth their grammar is deteriorating. Daniel Girard reports."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Wayne on August 02, 2006 at 08:39:42 PT
hmmmm
The right-wingers whine are always whining about activist judges.What about activist attorneys?? Mike Nifong in the Duke case, Alberto G, and now this guy? He is willing to deliberately go against this proposed state law to protect federal law. He's not a federal attorney!! When is someone gonna put a leash on these people??
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Storm Crow on August 02, 2006 at 08:14:02 PT
Well, this part is pure BS!
"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." That sure contradicts what the Supreme Court said in "CONANT vs WALTERS"! The following is from http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/challenges/cases/conant/ "On October 29, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the right for doctors to recommend marijuana to their patients. The Justices emphasized that it is the role of the states, not the federal government, to regulate the practice of medicine. In a concurring opinion, Judge Alex Kozinski cites extensive research on the efficacy of medicinal marijuana in treating seriously ill patients." I think that says it all!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Had Enough on August 02, 2006 at 07:32:45 PT
mayan
Saw the C-SPAN Symposium yesterday evening. Very interesting. (remember the German Soldier with the Tricycle on Rowan and Martins Laugh –In) Thank you for keeping a heads up on that.  I put a note right on the TV with the time and date as a reminder. I would have missed it, if it weren’t for your posts.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by mayan on August 02, 2006 at 07:04:11 PT
Why So Afraid?
"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."Attorney General Larry Long is awful terrified of this measure which will "accomplish nothing". I love to see these folks squirm!In unrelated news, the 9/11 Commission is terribly desperate to salvage some credibility. TOO LATE!!! This Washington Post article coming out on the heels of the C-SPAN Symposium and ahead of Vanity Fair's new article makes the timing almost comical!9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.htmlV.F. SPECIAL - 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...Official Presbyterian Publisher Issues 9/11 Conspiracy Book:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/131/12.0.html9/11 Truth: In-depth Kevin Barrett Interview on Wisconsin TV (video):
http://infowars.net/articles/August2006/020806Barrett.htmAir America Radio Plugs C-SPAN's Coverage of 9/11 Symposium:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/08/radio-event-of-day-award.htmlThird of Americans suspect 9/11 government conspiracy:
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment