SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) — Three medical marijuana related bills will advance after do pass recommendations today from the Senate Health and Human Services committee.
Two of the bills, SB10 and SB11 were sponsored by committee chair Republican Sen. Erin Tobin who is a health care provider. The third bill, SB71, was sponsored by Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff. SB10 and SB71 move to the Senate. SB11 was uncontested will be placed on the Senate consent calendar.
SB71 states that it would ” remove a prohibition on the ability of law enforcement and various
governmental entities to inspect, search, seize, prosecute, or impose disciplinary action on cannabis dispensaries, cultivation facilities, manufacturing facilities, and testing facilities.”
Mehlhaff said the bill would ensure that medical marijuana facilities “stay in their lane” and that medical marijuana is not illegally sold for recreational use. Under existing law, local and state law enforcement have little or no ability to inspect or ensure that medical marijuana facilities, including dispensaries or grow facilities, are operating legally, Mehlhaff said.
Law enforcement already has the ability to get involved with medical marijuana, two lobbyists for the medical marijuana industry said. Local and state law enforcement can search a medical marijuana facility with a search warrant if there is probable cause for a crime, medical marijuana lobbyists Jeremiah Murphy and Roger Tellinghuisen said.
The South Dakota Department of Health has oversight over the medical marijuana industry but law enforcement needs to be more involved, Mehlhaff said.
The employees at medical marijuana dispensaries are often called “bud tenders” which is similar to bar tender, Mehlhaff said. Bars are subject to compliance checks to make sure they aren’t selling alcohol illegally, he said. But law enforcement can’t conduct compliance checks on medical marijuana dispensaries, Mehlhaff said.
Committee member Republican Sen. Al Novstrup asked what would the lobbyists think if there was a law that said no person or business could be subjected to an inspection.
“You can’t be inspected. (Law enforcement) can’t come into a business without probable cause,” Murphy said. Police just can’t come in an inspect a business, he said, but medical marijuana businesses can be inspected by the DOH.
Existing law “does not allow (police ) to wander in,” to a medical marijuana business, Tellinghuisen said. But SB71 could allow that to happen, he said. SB71 could potentially compromise patient confidentiality, Tellinghuisen said.
Committee vice-chair Republican Sydney Davis, who is a health care provider, said she was concerned about patient privacy. In the medical field “we don’t have police officers come into our work to check if we are following health care laws,” Davis said.
Murphy said under existing law if there was probable cause for an inspection or search, law enforcement may investigate when the medical marijuana facility was not open but there could be chance patients may be in the facility. The premise, he believed, would be to respect patient privacy.
SB71 is supported by the South Dakota Attorney General and the South Dakota Sheriffs Association.
Tobin said some scenarios “were getting a little bit into the weeds.” In one respect, if police chose to go into a medical marijuana facility under SB71, it could be good because they’d see firsthand. Tobin said while she worked in an emergency room, police officers would often stop for a break and she never believed patient privacy was compromised.
During the vote, Davis switched her original no vote on SB71 to a yes vote. SB71 moved from the committee with the lone no vote coming from committee member Democrat Sen. Shawn Bordeaux.
Tobin’s sponsored bill of SB10 was approved with do pass to the Senate with minimal discussion and unanimous approval from all in attendance. SB11 was uncontested and will move to the Senate consent calendar.
SB10 will require “that a notification of medical cannabis certification be provided to a patient’s primary or referring practitioner.”
Tobin said this is a standard practice between providers within the health care industry. The bill was generated from the summer’s medical marijuana oversight committee.
The committee determined there was a need to improve communication between providers, Tobin said.
Tim Rave of the South Dakota Association of Healthcare Organizations (SDAHO) said he and the organization was not in favor or opposition to SB10 but it does have concerns and questions about the extra day-to-day implementation and medical marijuana patients who may not have a primary care provider. Who will monitor it is another question, he said.
The state already as a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), so a better alternative may be to require use of that, Rave said.
Tobin said the summer group did discuss Rave’s questions and concerns. “There is a burden on that provider to provide back on that medical marijuana card giver, but that is, again standard of care, it improves patient quality of care and communication and that really is a small burden at the end of the day…,” Tobin said.
The best path to monitor is for the primary care or referring care notice a patient that hasn’t been care for properly, there is now a path for them to recommend a concern, Tobin said.
Medical marijuana patients have serious illness, so most have a primary care provider, Tobin said. If they don’t, hopefully conversations happen when a medical marijuana patient meets with the medical marijuana card provider meet, she said.
SB11 addressed health care providers who knowingly refer patients to a medical marijuana clinic with which the provider or an immediate family member has a financial relationship.
Tobin amended SB11 on Wednesday to include the word knowingly. Tobin said the word knowingly is needed, for example, because medical marijuana clinics may be owned by a limited liability company the provider may not be aware of all the owners. They could refer a patient to a clinic and not of the financial relationship, she said.
Recent Comments