cannabisnews.com: Lawmakers Debate Medical Marijuana Bill





Lawmakers Debate Medical Marijuana Bill
Posted by FoM on January 22, 2001 at 16:38:52 PT
By Patrick Baker, Capital Journal Staff 
Source: Capital Journal
A proposed medical marijuana bill will be scrutinized in the Senate State Affairs committee before it goes up in smoke or is passed to the legislative floor. Committee members heard from several proponents and opponents of the bill this morning before deciding to put SB73 on Wednesday's agenda for more discussion.
Sen. Ron Volesky, D-Huron, introduced the bill as one of its sponsors. He said no such bill has ever been introduced in the South Dakota Legislature to his knowledge.According to Volesky, his introduction of the bill is "not an effort in any way, shape or form ... to legalize marijuana" except for certain, limited medical purposes."I believe it would alleviate suffering for some of our citizens in South Dakota," Volesky said.In its current form, SB73 would allow licensed physicians to recommend the medical use of marijuana for treatment of patients with glaucoma or to mitigate the side effects of chemotherapy for cancer patients.Volesky said, "I believe it's an important bill. I don't think it's something we should be politically afraid of."I don't think it does anything to weaken our current stance on the illegal use of marijuana."Charles McGuigan, office of the attorney general, disagreed. He testified that passing SB73 would "open the door" to legal problems.McGuigan said language in the bill that refers to a patient's "primary caregiver" is too broad. He asked who would qualify as such a person and why anyone other than a patient would possess the drug.According to McGuigan, the bill authorizing patients or their caregivers to cultivate the plant could lead to law enforcement problems. He said people legally covered in the bill at the state level could still face federal prosecution for possessing or growing marijuana.Sen. Fred Whiting, R-Rapid City, said changing the language of the bill so physicians would prescribe the drug instead of "recommend" the drug's use in written form or orally may improve SB73. Whiting suggested the bill may be more "palatable" to the Legislature if the "cultivation" language were removed and if a section were added prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle for patients under the influence of marijuana.Sen. Gil Koetzle, D-Sioux Falls, spoke to the committee as a co-sponsor of the bill. He said he has witnessed the problems chemotherapy patients have with nausea, one of the side effects that marijuana can mitigate for some patients."I didn't hesitate to sign onto it," he said. "It was personal to me."Koetzle said he has been with loved ones suffering from cancer treatments, "holding what was left of their hair as they vomited."Bob Newland, Hermosa, testified in support of the bill but said he believes it should include several other classifications of patients. According to Newland, marijuana is safer than some of the other drugs used to treat glaucoma and certain other medical conditions.Newland said he knows people with various ailments who could benefit from such a law and who currently "make themselves criminals in order to feel better" by using marijuana.Doneen Hollingsworth, secretary of the Department of Health, said she opposes SB73 because marijuana is not dealt with in controlled substance statute as other medically legal drugs are. Dean Krogman, South Dakota Medical Association, said physicians writing prescriptions for marijuana would subject themselves to legal and licensing problems at the federal level. He said the state medical association would not support a law legalizing the use of a drug with limited medical research to back its benefits.Krogman said the American Medical Association currently opposes medicinal marijuana legislation because of limited research and because of pending legal cases concerning the conflict between federal law and state law.Volesky said, according to the Aberdeen American News, there are nine states that currently have medical marijuana laws. Contact staff writer Patrick Baker by phone at 224-7301 or via e-mail at: news capjournal.comSource: Pierre Capital Journal (SD)Author: Patrick Baker, Capital Journal Staff Published: January 22, 2001 Phone: 605-224-7301Fax : 605-224-9210Copyright: 2001 Pierre Capital JournalAddress: 333 W. Dakota P.O. Box 878, Pierre, SD 57501Contact: news capjournal.comWebsite: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?brd=1130Related Article & Web Sites:South Dakota NORMLhttp://www.sodaknorml.org/South Dakota Industrial Hemp Councilhttp://www.sodakhemp.org/Poll: SD Favors Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8394.shtmlTo track this bill as it proceeds through the systemhttp://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2001/bills/SB73p.htm 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by meagain on January 22, 2001 at 18:28:38 PT
Laughing out loud
Volesky said, according to the Aberdeen American News, there are nine states that currently have medical marijuana laws. AHHHHHHh how many states I demand a recount . I sure hope Volesky isn't counting the citizens electorial votes .I thank the people who have supported this bill. lol
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on January 22, 2001 at 16:46:43 PT:
Ignoramuses Should not Make Laws
"changing the language of the bill so physicians would prescribe the drug"This cannot happen, and has not even been suggested in any of the legal states. The reason is, that to do so would cause a physician to run afoul of the DEA and lose their prescription privileges. Since cannabis is not a prescription drug, a recommendation suffices just fine, thanks. The fact remains that legislators have a responsibility to know the subject before they go shooting off their mouths with their blatant ignorance.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: