Category: Statehouse

I was reading the article in this morning’s Argus Leader, and was just “thrilled” (insert sarcastic inflection here) to read that the Flandreau tribe has plans to bus people from Brookings and Sioux Falls down to their pot parlor in Flandreau when it opens.

Monarch sales director Cory Johnsen said as the lounge gets closer to opening in early December, he intends to do a lot of marketing in the Sioux Falls and Brookings communities. Among other things, they want to promote the shuttle services that will be offered to transport people from those cities to Flandreau and back.

“Our big thing is, we want people to be able to come there, hang out, consume and be safe,” Johnsen said. “That’s our No. 1 objective, so we just want to promote how we’re going to be able to achieve that.”

There are, of course, law enforcement concerns about all of this. Flandreau Police Chief Anthony Schrad can’t believe the lounge is going to attract only law-abiding citizens.

Read it all here.

Thinking about the city bus stops here in the nicest city in South Dakota, I’m left wondering if they’re going to be bringing the pot shuttle directly to SDSU and pick up people right at the dormitories? Or if they’re going to hit the city bus stops, such as the one across the street from Mickelson Middle School?

It’s one thing for the tribe and it’s designees to be promoting the use of illegal drugs in their sovereign territory – but they want to start exporting it to our neighborhoods?

What are your thoughts? Should cities, or state government have the ability to ban the pot transport vans from their community or their campus?

And if they’re going to be this aggressive about pushing it, should the Attorney General be just as aggressive to keep it confined within the boundaries of the reservation?

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Measure
Decriminalizing One Ounce or Less of Marijuana

PIERRE, S.D.- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for an initiated measure has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the measure. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures (13,871) on the petitions by November 9, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.

1. An initiated measure to decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed measure and a description of the legal consequences.

To view the Attorney General Explanation for the measure, as well as the final form of the measure submitted to this office, please click on the link below:

http://atg.sd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6-NsyQhltiM%3d&tabid=442

This morning I’m reading an interesting report on the impact of the legalization of pot in Colorado, and some of the negatives that the South Dakota pro-pot legalization forces don’t really care to discuss in their pursuit of medical marijuana in the state as they ease us towards full legalization.  Did I say some of the negatives? Reading the review of the report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area group, I’m not seeing a lot of positives.

But this isn’t about the overall report. This is about how in Colorado, it seems that there’s a high incidence of pain inflicting the residents of the state.

In the same breath as she calls the AG and police chiefs ignorant, Melissa Mentele, sponsor of the pot legalization measure, promotes her cause with such platitudes as “Our smallest and most vulnerable residents need this medicine… Help us #stoptheseizures.”

But the reality is that once it became available in Colorado, using pot for seizures became less than secondary:

Out of 115,467 Colorado residents with medical pot cards, roughly 2% are claiming a need to use it for seizures. And 107,384 claim to need it because of “severe pain.”

Basically, to get their Pot cards, just like the R.E.M. song, Everybody Hurts.

While we’re far fewer in population in South Dakota, I suspect there would be a corresponding proportion of people “reporting pain” in South Dakota to get their pot smoking card.

I’ll have more fun facts to come as I peruse the report for more on the Colorado experience – Such as where they rank on child pot use as a result of their “grand experiment.” (They’re #3 while we’re #46)…

And how many pot labs have blown up recently for the ‘miracle drug’ that they want to bring to a South Dakota neighborhood near you:

 

Well that can’t be good news for the people trying to promote medical pot in South Dakota. An Associated Press story today says that according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, Medical Pot’s benefits are unproven, there’s no consistency in dosage, and in many cases may have no effect:

Independent laboratory testing for THC, marijuana’s leading active ingredient, found accurate amounts listed on labels for just 13 of 75 products. Almost 1 in 4 had higher amounts than labeled, which could cause ill effects. Most had lower-than-listed amounts. There were similar findings for another active ingredient. Products were not identified by name.

Johns Hopkins University researcher Ryan Vandrey, the lead author, said he was surprised so many labels were inaccurate. The researchers note, however, that the results may not be the same in other locations.

Read it here.

Gee, what a shocker. Stuff produced under grow lights in some dude’s basement has no consistency of dosage. And the story continues on:

Twenty-three states and Washington, D.C. have laws permitting medical marijuana use. Approved conditions vary but include Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, glaucoma, kidney disease, lupus and Parkinson’s disease.

An editorial in the journal says approval in many states has been based on poor quality studies, patients’ testimonials or other nonscientific evidence.

and..

The editorial by two Yale University psychiatrists suggests enthusiasm for medical marijuana has outpaced rigorous research and says widespread use should wait for better evidence. Federal and state governments should support and encourage such research, the editorial says.

“Perhaps it is time to place the horse back in front of the cart,” Drs. Deepak Cyril D’Souza and Mohini Ranganathan wrote in the editorial.

They note that repeated recreational marijuana use can be addictive and say unanswered questions include what are the long-term health effects of medical marijuana use and whether its use is justified in children whose developing brains may be more vulnerable to its effects.

Read it here.

In short, it’s clear and convincing evidence that despite the claims of people pushing for legalization of pot in South Dakota for medical use that aside from claims of pot use supporters there is no scientifically based evidence yet that it does good for all the ailments that they’re claiming.

The Organizer of the petition effort specifically noted here at the SDWC Comment section that “At last patient poll statewide we had roughly 150 patients who were interested and would qualify.” How many of those would be trying to do so for “chronic pain and for muscle stiffness in multiple sclerosis,” where the AMA Journal noted the strongest evidence exists?

It will be up to the voters to determine whether it’s worth putting the question to the electorate as to whether we want to unleash the dragon of open pot use upon South Dakota.  But as far as the American Medical Association is concerned, the jury is still out, and supporters saying that it’s the only thing that will cure what ails them are just water pipe dreams.

So, I find out today that a one-time self-styled “Press Person” for Corinna Robinson (and I use that very, very loosely) is now fighting for Dr. Boz?

As the admin of a newsy blogsite, one of the things you’re forced to deal with from time to time are people of questionable motives who might think in they’re own minds that they’re quite reasonable, but actually come off to the world at large as nutty web site trolls who serve no purpose.

Case in point are the people from Florida or Georgia or wherever who last year decided to call a countrywide boycott of the SDWC, including a request of one of the people on the Kardashian TV show to boycott this web site (Hilariously, they declined,) after I had the audacity to question why they were sending out press releases for the ill-fated Corinna Robinson campaign.

Fast forward to this morning. After a link from the Bosworth ally with the twitter handle @dakotafreepress tagged me with the following tweet,

What happened at Harvard @coralhei? Why change your profile? @SoDakCampaigns http://t.co/ZoUtTul6pS pic.twitter.com/99aYtgvCeq

— FREE Dakota (@DakotaFreePress) June 23, 2015

I was obligated to take a look, which, took me back to the land of the trolls, and back down the rabbithole, where these out-of-staters are back on the attack in South Dakota, this time against someone else in defense of Annette Bosworth. Here’s the latest passage:

Since 2013, Heidelberger has spent a large part of his time stalking Bosworth’s social media pages, posting stolen items from her office to use against her on his blog and even attacked her children online, encouraging deplorable behavior that has labeled him a Hate Blogger. But for all the things that have been said about him, stupid is definitely not one of them.

In 1989, Heidelberger was the recipient of the Presidential Scholar Award, given each year to just one male and one female graduating senior per state. According to his cousin Aaron, Heidelberger was given a big scholarship to Harvard after earning a near perfect score on the ACT. And, he did attend, briefly. After spending just the fall semester at what is arguably the most prestigious schools in the nation, Heidelberger abruptly left.

He has never spoken about Harvard, nor was he comfortable with his entry in the 1989 Presidential Scholar Yearbook.

I’m not endorsing the accuracy of anything written there, but you can read it if you want. (And you probably don’t want to.)

And there are other pronouncements, such as takedown demands from Heidelberger, more posts how the Floridians are “taking down one hate blogger,” referring to their blind support of Annette Bosworth, and lifting entire blogposts from sites including the SDWC, erroneously referring to a press release from the AG’s office as “an ad,” (because I put a colorful header on it), calls for Marty Jackley to resign, and other silliness in a month long campaign in support of Dr. Bosworth who was recently given a felony conviction for her petition violations.

So, with Corinna Robinson’s loss to Kristi Noem and subsequent evaporation from the South Dakota political scene, these out-of-staters have abandoned Robonson, and taken up the flag of Annette Bosworth?

With that, I’ve probably given it more time than any of it is worth.  And as I’ve said more than once, I can’t wait for the circus to be over.

Update… because I can’t help but dig in.

So, regarding the twitter account that was pushing the story? The @DakotaFreePress twitter account, which appeared in June and claims to be South Dakota related is tied to the dakotazfreepress.com website that was created in March, but seems to have backdated articles to earlier.

But what grabbed me is that the first thing that they retweeted was some of the silliness that I’m talking about above.

Even more curious, the same (or related) person or people have created another twitter account aping the SDWC name with the same content as on the @dakotafreepress twitter account. In fact, the first post was the exact same re-tweet as the twitter account pushing this story has. On the same day.

Which seems to indicate that the anonymous web site and anonymous twitter account would be working in conjunction with the out-of-state internet trolls, if it isn’t they themselves.

An even bigger reason to just ignore the whole mess.

Attorney General Marty Jackley is interviewed in today’s Argus Leader regarding the proposed pot legalization measure being proposed for the ballot, and he succinctly sums up the problem these measures always tend to have:

Attorney General Marty Jackley said he would only support medical marijuana legalization if the treatments were backed by the FDA, if prescriptions can be written only by physicians, and if products can be only dispensed by a pharmacy.

“I do hope that medicine may reach a point in which some form of marijuana or THC can safely be prescribed under a doctor’s care for treatment,” Jackley said.

and…

Sioux Falls Police Chief Doug Barthel is against legalizing marijuana for medical use. He thinks most groups pushing for medical marijuana are just looking for a way around the law to use it for recreation.

“I certainly sympathize with the very small percentage of people who have illnesses and ailments that marijuana has been able to help,” Barthel. “I think there is certainly an opening to get some sort of FDA approval for that to get them help.”

Read that here.

And that’s one of the eternal problems with things grown in a dude’s closet under grow-lights. It’s not medicine.

There’s a good article from Men’s Health in 2013 which reviews many of the problems with it’s use as such, and explains why we’re a long time off in even considering it as such:

“I think we have to be real about what that’s all about,” says Dr. Friedmann. “It’s really about legalization—not the health benefits or risks.” Sure, tobacco and alcohol—which are both legal—harm many more people than cannabis, but we don’t use them as medicines, Dr. Friedmann adds. “During Prohibition, one of the few ways to get alcohol was by prescription, and some unscrupulous doctors and clinics made good money—just as they are for medical marijuana.”

So could the pot you pick up with a medical marijuana card ease anxiety like many people claim it does? “It could,” says Dr. ElSohly. “But it could also exacerbate it.”

You don’t actually need much THC to see medicinal benefits. But street pot—as well as pot sold in dispensaries—is just getting more potent. Dr. ElSohly and his team at Ole Miss track the THC content in confiscated marijuana in this country. “In the 1970s, the THC content was around 1 or 2 percent,” he says as he shows me weed sent to the lab from the Drug Enforcement Administration after a raid. “Today it’s more like 11 or 12 percent.”

Why that matters: It’s the lowest dose of Marinol—2.5 milligrams of THC —that works best for appetite stimulation in HIV patients, Dr. ElSohly says. This is equivalent to smoking about a half-gram joint at 1 percent THC. The same thing goes for a good high: A 2007 Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics study found that of 1.7, 3.4, and 6.8 percent THC pot, most people preferred the experience from the 3.4 percent weed. What you won’t read in that study is that it was originally designed to include 8 percent THC weed, but “even the most experienced marijuana smokers couldn’t tolerate it,” Dr. ElSohly explains. “So what the heck do you want more THC than that for?”

Look at the Colorado population using marijuana for pain, Dr. ElSohly says. “It’s mostly youth—people who should be pain free.” It takes him about a minute to stand up—he’s wincing again. “I have back pain right now, but I’m not about to smoke marijuana for it. You know what I’m saying?”

Read it here.

Is there research being done? Yes. But as you can read for yourself, it’s showing many problems in delivery methods, absorption and dosage. Things are a long way off, at best. Not exactly the basis for a state approving the ‘wonder medicine’ du jour.

The organizer of the ballot measure claims that only 150 people statewide would be affected by the measure. So does that number justify setting up new levels of bureaucracy in the state health department to justify bypassing physicians, pharmacies and the FDA?

The AG and law enforcement doesn’t think so. And they’ll be the ones left to clean up the mess if it passes.

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Measure Relating to Medical Marijuana

PIERRE, S.D.- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for an initiated measure has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the measure. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures (13,871) on the petitions by November 8, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed measure and a description of the legal consequences. It is anticipated that additional Attorney General Explanations for initiated measures will be filed in the near future.

To view the Attorney General Explanation for the measure, as well as the final form of the measure submitted to this office, please click on the link below:

http://atg.sd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u6cZgrZAsnw%3d&tabid=442 

From Attorney General Marty Jackley, a further explanation of the sentencing guidelines in the Bosworth case, the future of her medical license, and how much of this could have been avoided by Dr. Bosworth’s own actions:

While the state does not usually discuss plea negotiations, based upon the continued misrepresentations of both law and fact by Mrs Bosworth and the Bosworth campaign representatives I will generally confirm: 

1). Mrs Bosworth’s public statement (ap) that she would have been required to plead to every felony count is absolutely false and inaccurate and her lawyers have been advised of that in writing;

2) While the Attorney General has many responsibilities, licensing physicians is not one of those responsibilities.  The state medical licensing board made up of South Dakota physicians determines medical licensing issues. Because at the Secretary of State’s request the Attorney General handled the criminal prosecution the Attorney General is not involved in providing legal advice to the medical board in relation to Mrs Bosworth’s potential medical license issue;

3) Before bringing any charges I consulted with my colleague state attorneys general and there are several cases of similar type petition violations such as the Butch Morgan’s case out of Indiana;

4) All plea negotiation attempts by the Attorney General would have put Mrs Bosworth in a better place then she currently is in relation to any potential sentence or permanent record.

Whether or not Mrs. Bosworth’s continuing actions and statements constitute acceptance of responsibility will be for the court to determine at sentencing.