Bob Newland's support of hemp in South Dakota

This in yesterday from Bob Newland of South Dakota:

 

 

Feb 1, 2013

Hello everyone:

Yesterday, Jan. 31, the Medical Necessity Act was heard in the So. Dak. House Health and Education Committee.

You can listen to the entire testimony on the Medical Necessity Act by clicking on the following link.
http://sdpb.sd.gov/SDPBPodcast/2013/hhe16.mp3 (You'll probably have to wait a few minutes for the stream to download.)

Testimony on HB 1227 (Medical Necessity Act) starts at about 2/3 of the way along the timeline provided by the slider on the media player, and lasts until the end of the recording.

Proponents of the bill who testified in the committee hearing were the prime sponsors, Rep. Dan Kaiser of Aberdeen SD, a city police officer, and Sen. Craig Tieszen, former police chief in Rapid City SD., and Emmett Reistroffer of SIoux Falls (So. Dak. Families First), Dr. Gus Hercules of Rapid City, and Bob Newland of Hermosa SD.

 

Testifying against the bill were the Director of the Division of Criminal Investigation, a spokesman for the Highway Patrol, a lobbyist for the Attorney General, a lobbyist for the So. Dak. States Attorneys, the States Attorney for Minnehaha County, the lobbyists for police chiefs and for the sheriffs' assn., and one other jerk.

Eight opponents, all scared to death that the nationwide trend toward decriminalization of cannabis will infect South Dakota.

In six legislative attempts to change cannabis laws in So. Dak., we have never seen more than three opponents testify in any hearing. Often there was only one, because the opponents knew that the committee would recognize that we reformists are crazy and they didn't need to waste their time refuting our testimony.

No finality was reached. The committee ran out of time, and committee discussion and a vote as to whether to let the bill go to the full House of Reps for a vote was postponed until Feb. 5.

Today, the Rapid City (SD) Journal published a story on the hearing. The headline is "Pot bill: Compassion or gateway legislation?"

The Journal story characterizes my testimony in one phrase: "Bob Newland of Hermosa described marijuana as 'a benign herb.'"

That pretty well exemplifies Richard Cowan's (former director of NORML National) statement that the reason we are still fighting the war on some drugs is "bad journalism."

I'll close with the text of the testimony I presented.

I'm Bob Newland. I live near Hermosa SD.

No one hearing my voice today believes what is codified in South Dakota and federal law, that there is "no medical use" for cannabis. To believe that in light of the evidence available is akin to the mindset that placed Galileo under house arrest for 40 years for saying that the Earth revolved around the sun.

In the course of my advocacy for saner drug laws during the last 20 years, I have become acquainted with dozens of people in south Dakota whose lives have been miserably affected by the attacks of horrible symptoms like those described by the two proponents whose testimony I just read. A huge and growing body of medical evidence supports that testimony.

HB 1227 is not a pro-pot bill. It is a justice bill. It is a bill that will give people who use cannabis to treat their misery the right to argue in court that they are violating the law because they are preventing a greater harm.

Prevention of a greater harm is an established principle of common law and is allowed as a defense in any criminal case in South Dakota, except for cases of possession or ingestion of cannabis.

South Dakota law says that the destruction of a human life by consequences of accidents and diseases is a lesser harm than the alleviation of miserable symptoms by use of a benign herb.

South Dakota provides for an argument of self-defense if I kill someone or beat someone up or if I borrow a car without permission to drive someone, or myself, to a hospital. But it denies me an argument of self-defense if I use cannabis to prolong or sustain my own life against the attacks of vicious diseases. A crime for which no victim is apparent.

There can only be one reason to sustain this injustice. That will be that the So. Dak. legislature does not trust its police, prosecutors, judges and juries to view and assess the credibility of evidence presented by people whose lives are being destroyed by forces they can only fight with the use of this marvelous herb. Yet these same authorities are charged with the responsibility of assessing the credibility of evidence in other cases every day.

Please stand up for justice. Vote to pass 1227 on to the House floor.

So, now we have to see what happens Tuesday.

Best regards,

Bob

Appeal for supporty from NORML in South Dakota

Just in from NORML South Dakota:

 

 

 

Hello Everyone;

We can't MAKE you care…

…but we think you MIGHT care, and then do something to help, if we can make ourselves heard above everything else that wants your attention today.

The issue is tough. We want to change a South Dakota law because it's the right thing to do. It's passage probably won't mean more than a few hundred dollars one way or another to taxpayers. Laws rarely get passed just because it is the right thing to do.

Politicians get laws passed by claiming their passage is the right thing to do. What they usually mean is that passage of this law will point money in the direction of somebody the politician wants or "needs" to help.

Another thing that makes it tough is that its passage will probably benefit only a couple of dozen people a year.

Potential use of the Medical Necessity Act is limited to about 2800 people who will be convicted of cannabis possession or possession of paraphernalia in South Dakota in 2013.

We don't know how many of that 2800 will be able to present evidence that they use cannabis medically. We don't know how many will want to go to the trouble, if they can just pay a few hundred dollars, take a plea, and get on with life. We don't know how many cases would simply disappear if the potential to use medical necessity is there.

We would be surprised to see more than, say, three dozen cases among that 2800 where a "medical necessity defense" is contested by the state throughout a prosecution, to the point of trial. Presenting plausible evidence in a trial is both expensive and chancy. 2760 of those 2800 convictions will be obtained by trial or plea bargain. Nothing will have been changed by the Medical Necessity Defense for them.

So, we're guessing that about 36 people out of 8000 total possession arrests in 2013 in South Dakota will have evidence that they want to take to trial that they use cannabis as a medical necessity.

That's not a very large constituency. Even if some of these people would suffer significantly if they were unable to use cannabis, all a politician can say about this bill is, "It's the right thing to do." There is no lobbyist telling any South Dakota politician that passage of the Medical Necessity Defense will result in some campaign funding and that it will provide jobs or revenue.

Yet, Rep. Kaiser and Sen. Tieszen are willing to sponsor this bill. You can help. You can thank them for their willingness to stand up for what's right.

You can send a message to your legislators (most of you have three). You can do this by following directions at http://sodaknorml.org/2013necessityact.htm#legemail (read the left column when you get there).

You can ask your acquaintances who use cannabis medically to get hold of us. You can let us know of medical professionals in So. Dak. who agree with us. You need to do this in the next few days.

It will be a shame if we miss this chance to alleviate fear of punishment for those cannabis patients who have the misfortune of being arrested.

Best regards,

Bob Newland for SoDakNORML