Frequently Asked Questions
Why does South Dakota need a Medical Marijuana law?
Currently in South Dakota, patients with Glaucoma, Cancer, Multiple-sclerosis, Lupus, and other illnesses which often are debilitating or terminal, at the least, very painful, are deprived of the medicine in which they and their doctor's know to be the most effective means of treatment. Rather than provide protection, current state law literately places these patients subject to criminal prosecution; simply for using the medicine that relieves their pain, allows them to eat, or otherwise help 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. The Coalition for Compassion believes these 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.
Did South Dakota vote on medical marijuana in 2006? Does marijuana actually have medical value?
Yes. Unfortunately the measure in 2006 lost by a slim margin of 4%. With little opposition, the Coalition for Compassion believes this measure failed simply because the campaign in support of the measure did not have enough funding. Since 2006 scientific polling has proved that support for medical marijuana has grown tremendously through out the country, that with the thousands of newly registered voters in 2008, the Coalition for Compassion firmly believes that our prospects for 2010 are strongly viable. The proposed initiative in 2006 was very similar to the one in which we are proposing this year, the South Dakota Safe Access Act also mirrors the medical marijuana law enacted in our neighboring state of Montana in 2004. In Montana more than 100 doctors have signed written certifications for more than 200 seriously ill patients. We expect a similar, small number of patients to register with South Dakota's program in 2010.
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."
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:
reducing intraocular pressure in glaucoma; reducing nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy; stimulating the appetite for patients living with AIDS ;
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, over a dozen states have removed their criminal penalties from the doctor-approved, medical use of marijuana. We are working hard to bring similar protection to patients residing in South Dakota.
Click here to read various research studies and endorsements on medical marijuana.
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.
Click here to view the full report.
Did 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 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.
How are other medical marijuana laws working in other states?
Since 1996, Fourteen states have legalized medical marijuana use: AK, CA, CO, HI, ME, MI, MT, NV, NM, OR, RI, VT, and WA. Nine of these
states did so through the initiative process, with Michigan being the most recent in the 2008 election. Hawaii's law was enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2000, Vermont's was enacted by the legislature and passed into law without the governor's signature in May 2004, Rhode Island's was passed into law over the governor's veto in January 2006, and New Mexico's legislation was signed into law by Governor Bill Richardson on April 2, 2007.
The current 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."
