WE HAVE TO THINK OF THE CHILDREN

Politics: The Ceaseless Argument Over Who Gets To Do What To Whom, For How
Long, And Against What Degree Of Dissent.

When Senator Ron Volesky (D-Huron) introduced a medical cannabis bill in the
South Dakota legislature in January, he specified the appropriate medical
conditions for marijuana therapy as "glaucoma and nausea from cancer
chemotherapy", thus excluding all other medical conditions for which
cannabis might have an application. I testified in the Senate State Affairs
Committee that the conditions under which one might use cannabis legally
should be broadened to all conditions in which patient and doctor concur in
the therapeutic use of cannabis.

Privately, Senator Fred Whiting (R-Rapid City) said to me, "Perhaps you
should proceed incrementally. We can add other conditions later." Since it
became obvious that we would not be able to add other qualifying conditions
to Volesky's bill, I decided that a small step was better than no step, and
supported the bill as it was submitted. During his comments as to why he was
voting against the bill, Whiting said, "By its principal lobbyist's own
testimony, this bill doesn't go far enough. Therefore I vote 'no'."

Whiting's ability to contort, bait-and-switch, and twist logic to an
unrecognizable tangle, then smile an insipid smile and say, "We have to
think of the children", comes as no surprise to those of us who have watched
politicians at all levels spew garbage regarding cannabis issues for thirty
years. What's frightening is that Whiting and others like him use the same
kind of incisive thinking, and non-existent commitment to principle, on all
issues, many of which become law.

In 1996, Proposition 215, California's Compassionate Use Act passed at the
polls with 56 percent of the vote. It plainly and simply states that
California's criminal code concerning marijuana possession or use or
cultivation does not apply to people possessing, using or cultivating if
they have a doctor's recommendation to use marijuana therapeutically. It was
worded specifically to make it illegal to even arrest such people.

It was also worded specifically "to encourage the federal and state
governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable
distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana."

The federal government's response to the 5,382,915 Californians who voted
"yes" on 215 was to threaten to prosecute physicians who suggested to their
patients that marijuana might make them feel better, might extend their
lives considerably. Some California city and county governments have obeyed
the law. Some other counties -- Placer, notably -- have been more barbaric
in their persecution of sick, disabled and dying people since 215 passed
than they were before.

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (essentially a federal agency) released
the report in which it was contracted to "assess the science base" for
claims made that marijuana had therapeutic value. The contracting agency?
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) -- the "drug czar",
retired general Barry McCaffrey. The gist of the report? Marijuana has
therapeutic value.

The result? McCaffrey ridiculed and buried the report, which had cost
$1,000,000.00 to produce. Gen'l McCaffrey, I know a few, . . . well,
several, South Dakota senators with whom I'm sure you'd enjoy having a
drink.

In 1997, as part of research for a book on medical marijuana, Californian
Peter McWilliams helped fund a friend's (Todd McCormick) marijuana growing
operation. After the Drug Enforcement Agency seized McCormick's operation,
where they found over 4,000 marijuana plants, they raided McWilliams' house
and arrested him on charges of manufacturing and distribution of a
controlled substance.

McWilliams was the author of the 1971 book, How to Survive the Loss of a
Love, which has sold over two million copies. Another best-seller, Ain't
Nobody's Business if You Do, illustrating the ludicrousness of criminalizing
adult consensual behavior, was released in 1993. He was at work on a new
book, A Question of Compassion -- An AIDS-Cancer Patient Explores Medical
Marijuana, when he was arrested and charged.

The DEA took all of McWilliams' equipment and books, including everything he
needed to continue writing his newest book.

McWilliams had AIDS and was undergoing treatment for non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
He smoked cannabis several times a day to quell the nausea caused by the
cancer treatment and to suppress the AIDS symptoms. His doctor testified
that he believed McWilliams' life had been extended to that point by
marijuana, and that marijuana was necessary to continue that extension.

The federal prosecutors asked for, and received from the federal judge, a
ban on McWilliams being able to mention those facts during his trial. Barred
from presenting a defense, in order have a chance to avoid prison, or even
be granted bail while awaiting sentencing, McWilliams was force to plead to
manufacture of a controlled substance. Conditions of his bail included
regular tests for marijuana use. A positive test would have meant immediate
incarceration and a death sentence.

As a result, McWilliams was subject to sudden, violent attacks of nausea and
vomiting. It was principally these attacks for which marijuana had proven
effective, and for which nothing else was effective. In June 14, 2000, still
awaiting sentencing, Peter McWilliams, now bedridden and bankrupt, was
bathing when he suffered a nausea attack, began convulsively vomiting,
slipped under the water and drowned. The federal prosecutors said they were
"saddened" by his death.

The monstrosity of such barbarism makes it hard for this South Dakota cowboy
to grasp. Can fellow human beings be this cruel? I mean fellow educated
human beings, schooled in the principles of justice for the purpose of
administering it as a federal judge or prosecutor. Can they -- the cream of
our crop -- be this cruel? Along with all those senators and representatives
for the past thirty years? Along with the American Medical Association?
Along with the Food & Drug Administration?

Apparently.

In the Senate State Affairs committee hearings on Volesky's bill, some
senators expressed concern over the "confusion" caused in other states by
the "conflict" between federal and state laws and over the fact that the
"guidelines were too broad", that "anyone could get a marijuana
recommendation ." What they mean, of course, is that, in California, law
enforcement chooses not to obey the law when it suits them.

Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, California, Colorado, Maine, and Hawaii
now have laws allowing medical use of cannabis. Somewhere in the area of 13
million people have now voted to allow sick people to use cannabis. From
nowhere but California do we hear stories of such "confusion". That's
because there is no confusion. If a person has a doctor's recommendation,
his possession, use, and cultivation is legal. Period.

Why does the federal government -- along with a wide variety of its lackeys
-- insist on denying the obvious? What is so frightening about admitting
that an herb, given us by God, might have some value?

Virtually all federal agencies with any law enforcement authority at all
have lobbied for, and received, funding for drug interdiction units. Even
the Department of Immigration and Naturalization has drug-SWAT teams. You
saw one in action rescuing Elian Gonzales from his cousin.

Virtually all federal, state and local law enforcement departments get part
of the loot when drug asset-forfeitures are imposed. Most drug
asset-forfeiture is connected to cannabis. Over half of the two million
people now in prison are there only for drug possession or sale. Well over
half of them are charged for marijuana only. In California, the prison guard
PAC is the best-funded lobbying group in the state.

To admit that Congress was wrong when it proclaimed that marijuana has "no
medical value" might lead to folks concluding that Congress might be wrong
about some other stuff, too. Worse yet, it might possibly lead to folks
concluding that marijuana has some medical use. Folks might might start
questioning the affordability -- and advisability -- of doubling prison
space every ten years or so. Funding for the continual flow of all those new
surveillance toys to the Sheriff's department in Sturgis or Olivet might
slow down.

There never was a factual basis for any reason ever given to criminalize the
cannabis plant. Yet, since the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 (which the AMA
opposed at the time), over 16 million man-years have been served in prison
in this country for the crimes of possession, use or sale of cannabis. This
rivals the records of so-called "repressive" regimes in so-called
"regressive" countries like Russia, China, Korea, et. al.

The judicial murder of Peter McWilliams in California rivals the worst
stories about government suppression anywhere. Lucky we are that South
Dakota prosecutors, judges and legislators are less vindictive and more open
to the supplications of logic and truth than are those judges and
prosecutors and legislators in California. They haven't yet killed anyone.
Except maybe that girl at Plankinton. And maybe a coupla others . . . .

See more about medical cannabis in South Dakota at
http://www.sodaknorml.org/. Bob Newland's journey is published at
http://www.nakedgov.com/.