Pubdate: Thu, 08 Jan 2009
Source: Black Hills Pioneer, The (SD)
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/4aQiA0OK
Copyright: The Black Hills Pioneer, Newspapers 2009
Website: http://www.bhpioneer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3570
Author: Bob Newland
Note: Bob Newland of Hermosa is principle spokesperson for 
SoDakSafeAccess.net (SDSA). SDSA will lobby for a  medical cannabis 
bill in the 2009 legislative session.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Cited: South Dakotans for Safe Access   http://www.sodaknorml.org/sdsa.htm

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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom