KELOLAND.com Search   Advanced Search.RSS Story Links
Online Opinion Poll
Online Opinion is your chance to tell Keloland what you think.
Remember - our on-air polls are scientific. Online Opinion is not. It's simply an easy way to speak your mind.

As of today, 574 questions have been posted and 1,066,602 votes have been cast. Click Here to view the Online Opinion archives.


May 4, 2009
Special housing and employment protections to drug dealers?
Posted by: Pat Powers - 05/04/2009 8:19 PM (2010 election)


You have got to be kidding me.

In what has come to be almost ritualistic every few years in South Dakota, the dope smokers have gotten up off the couch to try to foist another dope legalization measure on South Dakota.

A petition drive has started to seek a statewide public vote on a proposed law that would legalize marijuana in South Dakota as a medical treatment for severe and chronic pain.

and..

The new proposal would legalize the limited use of marijuana to treat symptoms of illnesses that include pain and the nausea that can accompany chemotherapy treatments for cancer.

Read it here.

And as in every measure that’s come before, it has several fatal flaws - not the least of which is a twist I hadn’t noticed in past measures.

* It legalizes medical pot for kids.
*It legalizes drug dealing (for up to 5 addicts per drug dealer)
* It provides no standards for the safety, dosage, or anything else having to do with the pseudo-pharmaceutical product.
*It provides overly broad immunity to drug dealers - and a presumption of medical use, irregardless of there being a factual basis.
* It prevents law enforcement from seizing property associated with drug dealing.
* Despite having to register with the state, drug dealers apparently don’t like open government. Their identities are shielded under the act.

Read it here….

And then there’s the latest twist -

Under this act, Dope Dealing would become a protected class of citizen when it comes to housing under South Dakota law:

Section 19. No school, employer, or landlord may discriminate against a cardholder by refusing to enroll, employ, or lease to, or otherwise penalize a person solely because of his or her status as a registered qualifying patient or a registered designated caregiver unless failing to do so would put the school, employer, or landlord in violation of federal law or cause it to lose a federal contract or funding.

So. As a landlord, if you personally and morally objected to illegal drugs and the people who sell them - guess what? Under this law, they would now have a cause of action to sue you if you didn’t want drugs on your property.  Object to drug dealers working for your place of business? Again, they’d now have a cause of action to bring suit against you.

It doesn’t matter if they use it for medical reasons - all they’d have to prove is that they have the “get out of jail free” card as almost every pot grower in the state would have access to just by asking, and you’d have no recourse.   Your property could be used to grow drugs without your say so, and as an employer, you’d be forced to retain a drug dealer employee as long as they had their card because of the special protections they’ve created for themselves as a result of the act.

Special rights for drug dealers? I think not.

Somehow, I think this act is destined for the dust bin of history - just like every measure of it’s kind that has gone before.

 

Comments

There are no comments at this time.

Post a Comment
Name

Email

Remember my information?
Yes No

Subscribe to this comment thread?
Yes No
Comments



Enter the word in the image for verification.

 

Web Site Design and Custom Programming By: Lawrence & Schiller© 2009 KELO-TV -- KELOLAND.COM -- ALL RIGHTS RESERVED