Debate over Marijuana Use Heats Up in SD

The Presidential election year may be over, but for folks at South Dakotans for Safe Access the election is just beginning, for 2010 of course. The group has recently announced it's intent to submit a proposed medical cannabis law for consideration by the 2009 South Dakota Legislature. If those efforts fail, the group is fully poised to begin the process of getting a public referendum on the ballot in 2010.

The intent of the new law would be to provide safe access to medical marijuana for certain qualified persons. Only ten other U.S. States currently legalize or decriminalize the medical use of marijuana, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

This effort is not a new one in South Dakota. A public referendum was on the ballot in 2006. The proposition failed that year, but received the support of 48% of those who voted on the measure.

This time around the group will again be sporting legislation and hopes to find a sponsor this legislative session which starts January 13, 2009. But such legislation, although well-meaning, is not without it's difficulties even if it does pass.

The legal status of similar legislation in other states has been continually challenged, specifically in California. And, current Federal law maintains that marijuana is a banned substance, regardless of circumstances.

What is intriguing about this debate, however, is not the legal aspects, or even the medical necessity for such a law, but in the politics. Specifically, who is supporting these measures, and who isn't?

According to The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), a change in the law would not only help patients and doctors, but would also reduce the amount of taxpayer dollars that go to jails, and law enforcement.

Oddly enough, it is law enforcement workers who stand to lose the most from propositions that legalize elements of marijuana use, and who have come out strongest against such propositions.

NORML's blog site points to a recent proposition in California, Prop. 5, as a case-in-point.

According to the 'No on 5' website, the California State Sheriff’s Association, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the Police Chiefs of California, and the California District Attorneys Association all oppose Prop. 5.

As with any proposed law, whether by legislative action or public referendum, money talks. In the case of Proposition 5, law enforcement organizations appeared to be somewhat responsible for it's failure. According to the Huffington Post, California's prison guard union spent close to $2 million dollars lobbying against it.

Why would law enforcement be so adamant about such measures? According to NORML, law enforcement workers have the most to lose, in lost overtime and other compensations they currently enjoy.

Ultimately though, the question should not be "who stands to lose" from the partial legalization of marijuana, but "who stands to gain".The NORML website states:

Marijuana prohibition applies to everyone, including the sick and dying. Of all the negative consequences of prohibition, none is as tragic as the denial of medicinal cannabis to the tens of thousands of patients who could benefit from its therapeutic use.

But as the SDSA group found out in 2006, regardless of need, getting legislation passed can be a difficult process, which is why they are seeking the help of others. The SDSA hopes to get their message through to as many South Dakotans and others interested in such laws as possible. Their website even invites others to comment on proposed legislation. If you have suggestions for the group, visit their website, or review the proposed legislation and make your own suggestions for improvements. After all, this is the year of change!