South Dakota lawmakers introduced a
bill last week that would no longer make it illegal for someone to have
marijuana in their system.
Senate
Bill 129 has 17 sponsors from both Republicans and Democrats. State
Rep. David Lust, R-Rapid City, is the prime sponsor in the House and
state Sen. Justin Cronin, R-Gettysburg, is the prime sponsor in the
Senate.
Lust said the bill is
not done and amendments will be added, but the intent of the bill is to
repeal the state's possession-by-ingestion law for marijuana. Physical
possession of the drug would remain illegal as would ingestion of other
illegal drugs. He sees the measure as a law enforcement bill that could
save the state money and would put South Dakota's policies in line with
those of the rest of the nation.
"When
I hear possession, I think the of the potential for distribution, and
obviously if the drug is already ingested that can't happen," Lust said
Thursday. "There is no chance this drug would end up in the hands of a
child once it has been ingested." He noted the punishment, which can
include a felony charge, seemed "unduly harsh" for the crime.
Lust
said there is a feeling in Pierre that the possession-by-ingestion law
is leading to higher incarceration rates and parole violations. He said
legislators asked for data on these types of crimes in past sessions but
never received them.
South
Dakota is the only state in that nation that says the existence of drugs
in the body can be a felony crime. The law was passed in 2001 and
upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2004. Utah has a similar provision
under its consumption law, but that charge can be only a misdemeanor.
This
means someone could be charged with felony possession of an illegal
drug if that drug shows up in a urinalysis or blood test. With Colorado
legalizing the drug for recreational use, it can also create a legal
problem for vacationers who use legally in that state.
That
could come into play because tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the main
psychoactive compound in marijuana, is extremely fat-soluble and can be
present in blood for weeks after the drug had been ingested.
This
creates a situation in which a person could legally use the drug in
Colorado and then travel back to South Dakota. Even if the users no
longer feel any of the effects of the drug, the simple presence of THC
in their bodies would put them in violation of the law when they cross
the state line.
Lust said this bill isn't
some ploy to allow for expanded marijuana use. "It's not a slippery
slope, not a first step. If we are only state that has this law, we need
to look into why," Lust said.
Rep.
Kristen Conzet, R-Rapid City, is another sponsor of the bill. She spoke
out strongly against a bill last session that would have
allowed patients suffering from intractable epilepsy to use some forms
of medical marijuana rich in cannabidiol, or CBD. That bill died in the
House after it passed the Senate.
A
bill similar to last year's CBD oil bill was introduced this week also.
The bill would add cannabidiol to the list of Schedule IV
controlled substances and exclude it from the definition of marijuana.
Melissa Mentele, a marijuana
advocate with New Approach South Dakota, said the ingestion bill is a
"good start in smart cannabis reform for our state."
"It
is refreshing to see our state making choices to move forward into
lessening the penalties of cannabis use," Mentele said. "With cannabis
being legal in over half of the U.S., it is very sad to see children and
adult patients still suffering in our state. While this is not where we
need to be, it is a step forward."
Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom said he opposed the ingestion bill and asked of the measure: "What problem is it solving?"
He
envisioned a situation in which two people smoke marijuana in a car
together. Under this bill, Thom said, only the person who had the raw
marijuana on him or her could be charged for the crime even though both
of them were smoking it. Thom said both people in that case should be
charged.
Both the ingestion and CBD oil bills are expected to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment