DEPRIVING ILL PEOPLE MARIJUANA IS 'EVIL'

Anything causing harm, pain, etc." is the definition of the word
"evil" as a noun in my dictionary. For "evil" as an adjective, the
definition reads, "morally bad or wrong." While the argument over
what is "morally wrong" too often extends to trying to criminalize
the merely annoying, I'd think we could agree on the following premises:

It is morally wrong to purposefully withhold relief from someone
suffering the pain and nausea caused by many medical conditions. To
withhold such relief is synonymous with "causing pain, harm, etc."

Cannabis provides such relief for untold tens of thousands of
people. "Untold," because the mere act of relieving one's pain or
nausea with cannabis is a crime, with barbaric consequences for
those who are prosecuted.

Federal law proclaims that cannabis has "no medical use." While
trying to refrain from commenting on the obvious arrogance of such a
statement, the topic is simply no longer open for serious
discussion. Cannabis has a wide range of indications for a wide
range of medical conditions. If you maintain that cannabis has no
medical use, for anyone, anywhere, you're no longer a party to this
conversation.

The immediate question is: Why does South Dakota law forbid use of
an easily accessible, inexpensive and safe medication to those who
can benefit from it? Here are a few practical suggestions:

1. Recognize the fact in state law that cannabis has accepted
medical use. Stop enforcing federal laws that are based on an
obviously absurd presumption.

2. Allow patients with a doctor's recommendation to grow, possess
and use cannabis for their ailments. Allow another person to grow
cannabis for those who can't do it for themselves.

3. Make illegal any attempt, by any state entity or company or
organization that does business with the state, to punish people who
have recommendations to use cannabis, or to punish their doctors for
recommending cannabis.

4. Make "medical necessity" a recognized affirmative defense to a
charge of possession or ingestion of cannabis ("marijuana"). That
will allow juries and judges to take an accused person's medical
condition and his attempts to medicate that condition into account
in arriving at a verdict or sentence.

During the run-up to the 2006 election, Attorney General Larry Long
complained about certain portions of the proposed medical cannabis
law we had placed on the ballot. He did not say there was no medical
use for marijuana. On Dec. 9, South Dakotans for Safe Access sent
Mr. Long a letter, offering to meet with him and join in drafting a
law that would at least accomplish most of the criteria set out above.

Regardless of the attorney general's response, there will be a bill
introduced for consideration in the 2009 legislative session. There
are no good reasons to deny people the often nearly miraculous
benefits of an herb whose use is safer than taking an aspirin. One
might say that to do so is evil.

In a debate filled with irony, most ironic is this: Anyone with
mobility can make connections and get "marijuana" in short order,
even though penalties for distributing or possessing it are
draconian. Under current law, those most likely to be deprived of
cannabis are the seriously sick or wheelchair-bound for whom
cannabis is often life-sustaining medicine.