Press enter after choosing selection

News From Normal

News From Normal image
Parent Issue
Day
1
Month
October
Year
1976
Copyright
Creative Commons (Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-alike)
OCR Text

SOUTH DAKOTA:

BREAKING THE $100 BARRIER

South Dakota's new marijuana law is the first to call for fines under $100. Passed in February as part of a sweeping update of the state's penal code, the new law makes possession of under one ounce of marijuana a $20 traffic-ticket-like violation. Moreover, exchanging small amounts of marijuana for no profit is treated less severely. Trading or giving away up to a half ounce of grass carries a possible $100 fine and a thirty day jail sentence. Possession or selling more than one ounce, however, still could bring a prison term and a stiff fine.

The new law does not become effective until April 1,1977.

Of the eight States to scrap criminal penalties for pot in favor of fines, South Dakota's $20 fine s the smallest and the most realistic. The commonly used $100 figure ($200 in Maine) has been largely an arbitrary and imaginary boundary. The South Dakota law will be an important new model as other states shift to noncriminal approaches.

The law-reform package began last summer with the state's special Committee on Criminal Code Revision. Composed of four legislators and five citizens, the Committee recommended that minor marijuana possession be a "petty offense," a separate classification carrying a maximum $20 civil fine. State Senate Majority Leader Homer Kondaras (D-Rapid City) introduced the recommendations in the legislature. After some debate, and with the unexpected support of state Attorney General William Janklow, a Republican, the bill was approved. It was signed by Democratic Governor Richard F. Kneip on February 29, 1976.

South Dakota's law-makers first considered marijuana decriminalization more than two years ago and held hearings to gather viewpoints. They had strong support from John Finlator, retired Deputy Director of the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs; Dr. Dorothy Whipple, Washington, D.C. pediatrician and author; Dr. J. Thomas Ungerleider, U.C.L.A. psychiatry professor and member of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse; and Keith Stroup, National Director of NORML. Though this first proposal was later defeated, some new and independent thinking had started in South Dakota.

A summary of the new law is available from NORML.

DEA

The U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan has held that airport search techniques which may constitutionally be used to prevent airplane hijackings cannot constitutionally be used by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to prevent drug smuggling. As serious as the country's drug problem is, the court said, it does not threaten the fabric of society to the degree that air piracy does. The Court held that the DEA cannot make airport drug searches based solely on a person's "suspicious" activities in the airport and the fact that he fits the "drug courier" profile which the DEA has prepared. Independent evidence of drug activity, or consent to the search, is required. United States v. Van Lewis, 1 8 Cr. L. Rep. 2549 (1976).

NEWS FROM NORML is a new feature which will run regularly in The Sun. For more information please contact NORML, 231 7 M Street, Washington, DC 20037.