Joni Cutler, a Republican representative in Pierre and now a spear-head for the war-on-drugs is publicly touting her support for making Saliva, a plant with very mild and quick psychadelic effects when smoked, illegal in South Dakota. Keep in mind, the effects described by Salvia users are very similar to the effects one finds after rubbing there eyes and starring at a pattern, a very short and often times pleasurable visual hallucination.
Here is the report from Keloland: http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,74879
I'm not 100% sure about Salvia, it's history, or it's effects. But one thing is for sure, prohibtion hasn't worked for alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs. Why apply this failed policy to another harmless substance? As I continue my research on marijuana, medicinal herbs, and drug policy, i'll keep an open-mind approach to Salvia and report my own findings.
Perhaps Cutler is using incarcerex:
Action Update:
Right now I'm in northern California (A progressive oasis for medical marijuana users) to study their medical marijuana program; next week I'm attending NORML's 2008 national conference. Then I'm heading to Montana to study their program, one which we used as a base for legislation in 2006 on the SD ballot. I plan on posting my research and findings once I get back to South Dakota, so make sure to check back!
Thanks
- Emmett
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
From the NORML Stash
The FBI has released its annual report on Crime in the United States 2007. Once again, the number of people in the United States arrested for marijuana has gone up. 872,721 Americans were arrested for marijuana in 2007, and of those arrests, 89% or 775,138 were arrests for simple possession - not buying, selling, trafficking, or manufacture (growing).
This represents an increase in marijuana arrests of 5.2% from the previous year and the fifth straight year marijuana arrests have increased from the previous year. Now a marijuana smoker is arrested at the rate of 1 every 37 seconds and almost 100 marijuana arrests per hour.
(more…)
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
ACLU To Open South Dakota Office
From the AP:
The American Civil Liberties Union has announced that it will open a new office in South Dakota.In recent years, the ACLU has done its work in South Dakota through an office located in North Dakota. ACLU officials say the new office will allow a significant expansion of the organization's work on civil liberties in South Dakota.The ACLU's executive director in South Dakota will be Robert Doody, who has been working for the St. Francis Mission. The attorney also has worked on American Indian's rights in tribal, state and federal courts.The ACLU has won a number of South Dakota voting-rights lawsuits in recent years.
© 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. Material may not be redistributed
I'll try to get a hold of the ACLU to see what support they can provide for the NORML movement in South Dakota.
Thanks
- Tom
The American Civil Liberties Union has announced that it will open a new office in South Dakota.In recent years, the ACLU has done its work in South Dakota through an office located in North Dakota. ACLU officials say the new office will allow a significant expansion of the organization's work on civil liberties in South Dakota.The ACLU's executive director in South Dakota will be Robert Doody, who has been working for the St. Francis Mission. The attorney also has worked on American Indian's rights in tribal, state and federal courts.The ACLU has won a number of South Dakota voting-rights lawsuits in recent years.
© 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. Material may not be redistributed
I'll try to get a hold of the ACLU to see what support they can provide for the NORML movement in South Dakota.
Thanks
- Tom
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
New logos
So Dak NORML is currently redeveloping the oragnization's structure - a major project is recreating a more marketable image to the general public.
We are accepting drafts and ideas for a new logo or image, which we will apply to the new website.
Email logo or graphics to sodaknorml@gmail.com
Thanks
-Tom
Action Update
Attention readers:
So Dak NORML is now expanding across the state!
Chapters are forming in various communities and college campuses.
Email SoDakNORML@gmail.com if you would like to get involved!
Keep checking back for more updates
- Tom
So Dak NORML is now expanding across the state!
Chapters are forming in various communities and college campuses.
Email SoDakNORML@gmail.com if you would like to get involved!
Keep checking back for more updates
- Tom
Saturday, August 23, 2008
New blog addition: NORML daily podcast!
Check out SD NORML's latest addition, the official NORML daily podcast with updates on Marijuana policy reform and the legalization movement - along with information about responsable marijuana use.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Drug testing fails our students - Reform drug education!
“Society relies on schools to prepare students for the world. This world, like it or not, includes drugs. If young people are to make the right choices in the face of this and other challenges, we must be armed with the facts, and we must learn them in an atmosphere of trust. No one knows this better than students ourselves, so we must be the ones to remind our parents and educators what we need in order to be able to join them as responsible adults.” - Allegra Stout, senior at Montville Township High School in New Jersey.
Allegra's feelings reflect the urgent need to reform our approach to drug education; similar to the urgency for reform of drug policy. I found an article recently published by U.S. News & World Report.
7 Reasons Parents Should Not Test Kids for Drug Use
Seek out an addiction professional, experts say, to get reliable results and avoid a potential tragedy
By Lindsay Lyon
Posted August 6, 2008
When Kim Manlove and his wife discovered that their teenage son was abusing pot and alcohol, they did what they thought was right: They purchased commercially available drug-testing kits and began administering random urine screens at home. "We thought we'd be able to handle it on our own," recalls Manlove, 56, of Indianapolis. And for several months it appeared that their efforts were working. The drug tests, obtained on the Internet, consistently indicated that 15-year-old David was alcohol free and that his marijuana levels were decreasing, which they interpreted as a sign that he was quitting. Not so. Their son had switched to drugs that the tests couldn't detect, such as prescription pills and LSD. When his parents finally caught on, they enrolled him in treatment. "Things were beyond our capability," says Manlove.
David completed the program, but his desire to get high ultimately cost him his life, Manlove explains. Enticed by the notion that inhalants wouldn't register on his weekly, now professionally administered urine tests, David and his friends spent an afternoon huffing an aerosol (computer duster) and diving into a swimming pool because they'd heard the underwater pressure would heighten the rush. Instead, doing so triggered what's known as "sudden sniffing death syndrome," the gravest consequence of inhalants. David had a heart attack and drowned at age 16.
The Manloves' experience underscores some of the pitfalls of at-home drug testing, an increasingly popular practice among parents aiming to stop or prevent their child's drug use. And with countless test kits available, experts say that it's an increasingly difficult practice to resist—though parents should.
"I don't recommend that parents ever use home drug tests," says pediatrician Sharon Levy, director of the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program at Children's Hospital Boston. "[They're] going to be misled." The tests are often billed as preventive, but there's no evidence that they actually keep kids away from drugs, she adds. Levy's stance is echoed by numerous others, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, which issued a 2007 statement opposing home and school drug testing until further research is done. In hindsight, Manlove agrees: "I'd go straight to the professionals, no question," he says. "Shame" and "embarrassment" are the primary reasons that he and his wife didn't seek help sooner.
Here are seven reasons why experts say drug testing should be left to the professionals:
1. It can become a missed opportunity. Manlove, who now works as a substance abuse prevention specialist for the state of Indiana, believes that the six months that elapsed between he and his wife's initial discovery of David's drug use and their procuring outside help allowed a minor problem to become major. "That delay really worked against us," he says. "If we had sought professional help earlier, I think we would have had a better chance of preventing this outcome."
2. It's easy to cheat. With all the ways to cheat urine screens, says Levy, experts worry that parents could be falsely reassured by negative drug tests while their kid actually has a problem. "My clinical experience tells me that parents are fooled all the time," she says. Furthermore, Levy says parents aren't encouraged to watch their adolescents urinate—but some testing facilities can require that urine collection is witnessed by an observer to prevent tampering. "We do it under controlled circumstances, and we know the tricks of the trade," says Peter Rogers, a clinical professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University medical school who conducts substance abuse testing. That's why, he says, if a drug test is warranted, it should be handled by experienced professionals.
3. False positives can mislead you. Poppy seeds, cold medications, and even antibiotics in high doses can potentially cause false-positive results on certain types of tests, says Levy, leading parents to falsely accuse innocent teens of illegal drug use.
4. Some tests are confusing. Home kits can be difficult to navigate, says Levy, and to ask parents who have no experience with laboratory medicine to do them correctly is "tough." Moreover, she says, parents have to be pretty sophisticated to know the difference between similar-sounding drug types such as opiates (e.g., heroin) and opioids (e.g., oxycodone). Get the wrong kit, and your results could be meaningless. "Unless you have a really good indication of what your kid is using," says Manlove, "you're really just taking a shot in the dark."
5. They give you limited information. Most drugs clear the system pretty quickly, says Levy, so parents would have a tough time catching a child's occasional use.
6. And they can be costly. A package of home tests can be pricier than a visit to a medical professional. Manlove paid roughly $50 for a six pack of urine tests, though costs vary widely.
7. You're a parent, not the police. Some experts worry that the practice of home drug testing may damage the parent-child bond. "I'm not sure that's the relationship that parents want to have with their kids," says Rogers, who himself is the parent of a former teenage drug abuser (who's now a sober 21-year-old). "They shouldn't be policemen, just parents."
Allegra's feelings reflect the urgent need to reform our approach to drug education; similar to the urgency for reform of drug policy. I found an article recently published by U.S. News & World Report.
7 Reasons Parents Should Not Test Kids for Drug Use
Seek out an addiction professional, experts say, to get reliable results and avoid a potential tragedy
By Lindsay Lyon
Posted August 6, 2008
When Kim Manlove and his wife discovered that their teenage son was abusing pot and alcohol, they did what they thought was right: They purchased commercially available drug-testing kits and began administering random urine screens at home. "We thought we'd be able to handle it on our own," recalls Manlove, 56, of Indianapolis. And for several months it appeared that their efforts were working. The drug tests, obtained on the Internet, consistently indicated that 15-year-old David was alcohol free and that his marijuana levels were decreasing, which they interpreted as a sign that he was quitting. Not so. Their son had switched to drugs that the tests couldn't detect, such as prescription pills and LSD. When his parents finally caught on, they enrolled him in treatment. "Things were beyond our capability," says Manlove.
David completed the program, but his desire to get high ultimately cost him his life, Manlove explains. Enticed by the notion that inhalants wouldn't register on his weekly, now professionally administered urine tests, David and his friends spent an afternoon huffing an aerosol (computer duster) and diving into a swimming pool because they'd heard the underwater pressure would heighten the rush. Instead, doing so triggered what's known as "sudden sniffing death syndrome," the gravest consequence of inhalants. David had a heart attack and drowned at age 16.
The Manloves' experience underscores some of the pitfalls of at-home drug testing, an increasingly popular practice among parents aiming to stop or prevent their child's drug use. And with countless test kits available, experts say that it's an increasingly difficult practice to resist—though parents should.
"I don't recommend that parents ever use home drug tests," says pediatrician Sharon Levy, director of the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program at Children's Hospital Boston. "[They're] going to be misled." The tests are often billed as preventive, but there's no evidence that they actually keep kids away from drugs, she adds. Levy's stance is echoed by numerous others, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, which issued a 2007 statement opposing home and school drug testing until further research is done. In hindsight, Manlove agrees: "I'd go straight to the professionals, no question," he says. "Shame" and "embarrassment" are the primary reasons that he and his wife didn't seek help sooner.
Here are seven reasons why experts say drug testing should be left to the professionals:
1. It can become a missed opportunity. Manlove, who now works as a substance abuse prevention specialist for the state of Indiana, believes that the six months that elapsed between he and his wife's initial discovery of David's drug use and their procuring outside help allowed a minor problem to become major. "That delay really worked against us," he says. "If we had sought professional help earlier, I think we would have had a better chance of preventing this outcome."
2. It's easy to cheat. With all the ways to cheat urine screens, says Levy, experts worry that parents could be falsely reassured by negative drug tests while their kid actually has a problem. "My clinical experience tells me that parents are fooled all the time," she says. Furthermore, Levy says parents aren't encouraged to watch their adolescents urinate—but some testing facilities can require that urine collection is witnessed by an observer to prevent tampering. "We do it under controlled circumstances, and we know the tricks of the trade," says Peter Rogers, a clinical professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University medical school who conducts substance abuse testing. That's why, he says, if a drug test is warranted, it should be handled by experienced professionals.
3. False positives can mislead you. Poppy seeds, cold medications, and even antibiotics in high doses can potentially cause false-positive results on certain types of tests, says Levy, leading parents to falsely accuse innocent teens of illegal drug use.
4. Some tests are confusing. Home kits can be difficult to navigate, says Levy, and to ask parents who have no experience with laboratory medicine to do them correctly is "tough." Moreover, she says, parents have to be pretty sophisticated to know the difference between similar-sounding drug types such as opiates (e.g., heroin) and opioids (e.g., oxycodone). Get the wrong kit, and your results could be meaningless. "Unless you have a really good indication of what your kid is using," says Manlove, "you're really just taking a shot in the dark."
5. They give you limited information. Most drugs clear the system pretty quickly, says Levy, so parents would have a tough time catching a child's occasional use.
6. And they can be costly. A package of home tests can be pricier than a visit to a medical professional. Manlove paid roughly $50 for a six pack of urine tests, though costs vary widely.
7. You're a parent, not the police. Some experts worry that the practice of home drug testing may damage the parent-child bond. "I'm not sure that's the relationship that parents want to have with their kids," says Rogers, who himself is the parent of a former teenage drug abuser (who's now a sober 21-year-old). "They shouldn't be policemen, just parents."
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Rep. Frank and Sen. Paul introduce HR 5843
Recently Massachusettes Representative Barney Frank and Texas Senator and Presidential candidate Ron Paul introduced HR 5843. A bill to decriminalize use, possession, or transfer of up to 100 grams of Marijuana at the federal level.
This is a huge break for the legalization movement!
The congressional research service provided the following summary of the bill:
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill. SDNORML will follow the legislative progress of HR 5843.
Please share your thoughts about this law.
Thanks
- Tom
This is a huge break for the legalization movement!
The congressional research service provided the following summary of the bill:
4/17/2008--Introduced.
Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults - Prohibits the imposition of any penalty under an Act of Congress for the possession of marijuana for personal use or for the not-for-profit transfer between adults of marijuana for personal use.
Deems the possession of 100 grams or less of marijuana as personal use (one ounce or less for a not-for-profit transfer between adults).
Allows the imposition of a civil penalty under the Controlled Substances Act for the public use of marijuana if such penalty does not exceed $100.
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill. SDNORML will follow the legislative progress of HR 5843.
Please share your thoughts about this law.
Thanks
- Tom
Friday, August 15, 2008
AIDS patient charged with possession of cannabis
From SoDakNORML.org:
"Not so fast," says South Dakota...
By Bob Newland
Tom Faltynowicz (falti-NO-vich) is a 43-year-old gay rancher in southern Meade County in South Dakota. He has also contracted AIDS, the symptoms of which he alleviates with cannabis. He was diagnosed as having AIDS, based on T-cell count, in 1990. His prognosis at the time was, “maybe a few years.”
Last September, Meade County officials were told that Tom was growing “marijuana” in his trailer house situated near his parents’ house at the ranch headquarters a few miles north of Rapid City, SD.
Tom welcomed the police who came to investigate, Meade County Investigator Michael Walker and So. Dak. Division of Criminal Investigation Agent John Griswold, and immediately admitted growing cannabis to treat his condition. He invited the officers into his house to see his grow operation.
The evidence list says there were five plants and about a quarter-pound of dry “marijuana.”
Faltynowicz pled to possession of more than two ounces but less than 1/2-lb. of “marijuana.” That’s the lowest order of felony; maximum two years plus a $4000 fine.
The court, Circuit Judge Jerome Eckrich, will sentence Tom on April 21, 2008.
Tom’s AIDS specialist, Dr. Traub, of Rapid City, will speak at his sentencing hearing. The state’s attorney has already said he will not object to anything Traub has to say. Everything I have seen regarding this case leads me to believe no one wants to punish Faltynowicz. On the other hand, the law is the law.
Tom’s lawyer, Joe Ellingson of Spearfish SD, says the judge can impose anything from no sentence to two years, plus fines and probation. As a practical matter, the best he can probably hope for is a suspended jail sentence without probation. The probation officer has already told him that even Marinol is a probation violation, because there is no provision for any THC to be allowed to show up in drug tests. A probation violation means lockup for whatever the period of the suspended sentence. Probation means jail, unless they somehow make an unlikely exception for Tom.
Faltynowicz says he will not suspend use of the medicine that makes life livable for him. Any period of lockup would threaten, and perhaps end, his life.
Therefore I am asking you to write a letter to Judge Eckrich, asking him to impose the least restrictive sentence within his authority.
Faltynowicz’s criminal record lists a misdemeanor conviction for possession of cannabis in 1995, and one in 1996. Other than that, nothing.
The letter should contain some documentation of medical benefit from cannabis, especially for appetite stimulation in AIDS wasting syndrome, nausea-reduction and alleviation of anxiety and desperation (to the extent alleviation of those conditions can be documented). A personal anecdote about a family member or acquaintance is pretty powerful, too.
A subtle appeal to the judge’s humanity and consciousness of public sentiment could be included. We want him to have some idea (without overt threat) of the possible negative publicity resulting from putting a dying man in jail for using medicine that works.
A better way of putting that is to say that we want him to think of the possible positive publicity he can gain by acting humanely, something the legal system is not known for in these instances.
Among many other arguments to advance the thesis that no punishment is merited for Tom Faltynowicz’s actions is the obvious presumption that Tom has probably smoked cannabis regularly, probably nearly daily, since at least 1995. That assumption can be made after a rudimentary examination of the evidence. Tom confirms that he learned soon after his AIDS diagnosis was made that cannabis alleviated the ill effects of the disease and its treatment.
Yet, he has not been accused of ANY illegal behavior except mere possession. There isn’t even a hint of theft or violent behavior. There is no reason to believe that he will engage in such behavior in the future.
The only humanely permissible “correctional” sentence is one that most closely resembles no sentence.
Related documents:
Arrest Report
Pre-Sentence Analysis Questionnairefilled out by Tom Faltynowicz
Bob Newland's letter to Judge Eckrich
Editorial about Tom's sentence
Let me know what you think about this case, please leave comments..
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Watertown narcotics officer arrested
Officer Jessee Compton arrested for marijuana possession
Yes, even our law enforcement agents use marijuana for recreational purposes. This doesn't surprise me at all, it only proves that marijuana users can hold responsable jobs, and even jobs of authority without any problems (atleast until they get arrested for possession).
What do you think should happen to this officer?
- Tom
What do you think should happen to this officer?
- Tom
Drug Peace March
I'm trying to organize a car-pool from Sioux Falls to Minneapolis for the Drug Peace March sponsored by abNORMLMN and World Wide Marijuana March. The event is rally and hemp fest on Saturday August 30th at noon at the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul. (Sherborne Ave & Cedar St.) The March will go to the Excel Convention Center (Kellogg @ 7th St. West).
The Republican National Convention is running from September 1st - 4th, and there are multiple high scale anti-war, peace protests organized for the entire week.
More info visit
Protect not Prosecute: Story of the Pritchards
From the Argus Leader: Local family prosecuted for medicinal marijuana:
Former Sioux Falls postmaster faces misdemeanor charge
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880813011
Josh Verges • jverges@argusleader.com • August 13, 2008
Long story short, the Pritchard family was incarcerated because the father, Johnny, was growing marijuana in his home and using it as pain reliever. Shortly after, his daughter who was enrolled in college, was arrested for not reporting her father's growth and use of the substance, misprison of a felony. Johnny's wife Kim, a local postmaster, was also arrested for not reporting Johnny and for using her income to pay the electrical bill, which supported the growth operation.
I am disgusted that this entire family is facing legal reprucussions because this gentleman was using marijuana for medicinal purposes. Now that Kim has lost her job this family could possibly lose their home, and their daughter in college will probably face suspension; according to South Dakota law she will also lose all financial aid to pay for her college education.
I want to get in contact with the Pritchards and see if they would be intersted in using their case at a public level for marijuana reform. Obviously these people are not criminals and they do not belong in the court room facing years behind bars; they are productive members of the community who contribute to our local economy, pay their taxes, ect. It is unfortunate that Dave Nelson (Minnehaha County State's Attorney) is wasting our tax-payer dollars to puruse criminal charges on these folks.
I'm hoping, with the support of NORML, to organize a local demonstration outside the court house to protest these charges on the Pritchards, and the stringent marijuana laws of South Dakota. We could use 'Protect not Prosecute' as a theme for the demonstration. If this gets organized I will post details. If I can't go public with this case I would like to raise money to help this family pay court costs and attorney fees.
Please share your thoughts and concerns regarding the Pritchards.
If you know of any local cases of victimization on medical marijuana users, please let me know so I can report it on our blog.
Thanks,
Tom
Former Sioux Falls postmaster faces misdemeanor charge
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880813011
Josh Verges • jverges@argusleader.com • August 13, 2008
Long story short, the Pritchard family was incarcerated because the father, Johnny, was growing marijuana in his home and using it as pain reliever. Shortly after, his daughter who was enrolled in college, was arrested for not reporting her father's growth and use of the substance, misprison of a felony. Johnny's wife Kim, a local postmaster, was also arrested for not reporting Johnny and for using her income to pay the electrical bill, which supported the growth operation.
I am disgusted that this entire family is facing legal reprucussions because this gentleman was using marijuana for medicinal purposes. Now that Kim has lost her job this family could possibly lose their home, and their daughter in college will probably face suspension; according to South Dakota law she will also lose all financial aid to pay for her college education.
I want to get in contact with the Pritchards and see if they would be intersted in using their case at a public level for marijuana reform. Obviously these people are not criminals and they do not belong in the court room facing years behind bars; they are productive members of the community who contribute to our local economy, pay their taxes, ect. It is unfortunate that Dave Nelson (Minnehaha County State's Attorney) is wasting our tax-payer dollars to puruse criminal charges on these folks.
I'm hoping, with the support of NORML, to organize a local demonstration outside the court house to protest these charges on the Pritchards, and the stringent marijuana laws of South Dakota. We could use 'Protect not Prosecute' as a theme for the demonstration. If this gets organized I will post details. If I can't go public with this case I would like to raise money to help this family pay court costs and attorney fees.
Please share your thoughts and concerns regarding the Pritchards.
If you know of any local cases of victimization on medical marijuana users, please let me know so I can report it on our blog.
Thanks,
Tom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
