Dying is, apparently, a lesser harm...

"Although not determinative, it is noteworthy that on at least two occasions, proposals to create a medical necessity defense for marijuana possession were deferred in the South Dakota Legislature until the forty first day.  See Senate Bill 73, 76th Session, South Dakota Legislature, 2001; House Bill 1120,  76th Session, South Dakota Legislature, 2001.  In the South Dakota Legislature, deferring a bill until the forty-first day of session is tantamount to tabling the bill."

Okay, if it's not determinative, why the fuck do they even mention it? Are they blowing a kiss to the eminent infallibility of the legislature? The above paragraph comprises the closing words of a SoDak Supreme Court decision that asserts that South Dakota Law does not allow a person to use a remedy that clearly benefits him and that says dying is a lesser harm than using cannabis to stay alive.

They could have done the right thing, but they chose to pretend the legislature recognizes a constitutional right.

http://www.sdjudicial.com/sc/scopiniondetail.aspx?ID=1203