PIERRE -- A circuit judge told South Dakota officials Friday to make substantial changes in the language that will appear on the November ballot to explain a proposal that would legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Voters in November will decide whether to legalize marijuana for people who have certain medical conditions such as cancer, AIDS or chronic pain. The ballot explanation by Attorney General Larry Long will guide voters.

In a ruling issued Friday, Circuit Judge Max Gors of Pierre gave Long the option of either using a new explanation written by the judge or making substantial changes to the explanation Long had written.

Sponsors of the medical marijuana measure argued in an Aug. 17 hearing that Long's explanation went too far because it said even if South Dakota legalizes marijuana for medical purposes, it would still be illegal under federal law. The attorney general had said that could lead to federal prosecution for possession or use of marijuana for medical use, and doctors could be prosecuted or lose their federal licenses to dispense prescription drugs if they recommend that patients get marijuana.

Gors said the explanation should tell voters that marijuana use would still be illegal under federal law even if the South Dakota measure passes, but the statement should be made only once. The judge said the attorney general's explanation went too far because it repeated that message several times.

Those statements and other features of Long's explanation appeared to be biased, the judge said.

"The whole impression leads one to believe that the attorney general wants voters to reject the initiative. The attorney general should confine his politicking to the stump and leave his bias out of the ballot statement that is supposed to be objective," Gors wrote.

Long said he was still studying the judge's ruling late Friday afternoon and did not know whether he would rewrite his original explanation or use the one written by the judge.

However, the attorney general said state officials will not appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court because ballots need to be printed by Sept. 1 so soldiers and other people living overseas can return their ballots by the November election.

"The one thing we can't be doing is file an appeal because we don't have time," Long said.

Ron Volesky of Huron, a lawyer representing sponsors of the measure, said his clients also will not appeal.

"I'm very pleased with the decision, and we don't plan on appealing. There's no need to appeal," said Volesky, the Democratic candidate for attorney general.

Gors said the ballot explanation should say marijuana would be available to "persons," not adults and children. He said the attorney general's use of the word "children" could be an improper attempt to persuade voters to reject the measure.

Also, the ballot explanation must explain that minors could get marijuana for medical use only if their parents consent, Gors said.

The ballot explanation also must include language explaining that people could get state certification to use medical marijuana by submitting their medical records or by getting a doctor's recommendations, the judge said.

And the explanation should tell voters that only people with debilitating medical conditions could use marijuana for medical purposes, Gors said.

Newshawk: Community Audits and Initiatives www.drugsense.org/caip
Pubdate: Sat, 26 Aug 2006
Source: Rapid City Journal (SD)
Copyright: 2006 The Rapid City Journal
Contact: letters@rapidcityjournal.com
Website: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1029
Author: Chet Brokaw, Associated Press Writer
Related: South Dakotans for Medical Marijuana http://sdmedicalmarijuana.org