GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T FEAR THE REEFER

They are the sick, the dying. They are living in pain caused by terminal
illnesses that ravage their bodies.

They want us to take away some of that pain.

And we are moving slowly -- ever so slowly -- to help them.

It's time we moved faster.

"They" are critically ill patients. AIDS patients. Cancer patients.

What they want is marijuana. The illegal weed numbs their pain and eases
their symptoms, making life more bearable.

Last June, federal Health Minister Allan Rock reluctantly agreed to a
procedure exempting certain patients from criminal prosecution for the use
of marijuana.

Ottawa also announced a clinical trials program into "appropriate
guidelines" for the medical use of the drug.

But the wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly.

Of course, the "war on drugs" is a hot-button issue with the electorate.
Politicians who appear soft on drugs can face a backlash where it matters to
them most -- the ballot box.

But the legalization of marijuana for the ill and infirm is not one of those
issues that has the public clamouring for tougher measures.

It's an issue with the weight of public support behind it.

In fact, in a 1997 poll cited by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
(CFDP), 83 per cent of Canadians supported legalizing marijuana for
medicinal purposes. (The CFDP is a non-profit organization founded in 1993
by several of Canada's leading specialists in drug policy. Its founding
members include psychologists, pharmacologists, lawyers, health policy
advocates and public policy researchers.)

It's an issue with the weight of the medical community behind it.

In fact, according to published reports, the New England Journal of Medicine
has editorialized in favour of marijuana's use for medicinal purposes.

Currently, government is loathe to release details about its marijuana
exemptions policy. "It's not really a situation we want statistics drawn
from," a federal spokesperson sniffed when asked about the topic by an
Express reporter earlier this week.

That may be because the rules are still somewhat ludicrous, even for those
exempted from prosecution.

Permit holders -- namely gravely ill patients -- must grow their own supply
of the drug. It is illegal for anyone else to grow it for them.

Many, if not most, of these people are by definition too ill to regularly
tend to their garden. That leaves them legally able to ease their pain, but
practically unable to do so. This defeats the entire purpose of last June's
decision.

The government should loosen the law as it applies to those it exempts from
criminal prosecution. Surely it wouldn't be difficult for government to
arrange an easier way for these patients to obtain this drug.

The only backlash the government should fear is that from a public angry
that its most needy members are being denied basic treatment for horrible
maladies.