The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

No one disagrees. At least they're not speaking it.

For 13 weeks we have sent a letter once a week to every legislator. The content of these letters has been available to anyone on Earth with internet service.

We have proposed the repeal of the So. Dak. statute making cannabis possession a crime and prescribing penalties for graduations in weight of the product.

So. Dak. legislators have said they wouldn't do that. They have not given a reason.

We have proposed that the legislature inform the courts that they need to allow evidence of "medical necessity" under the common law precept that one may violate a law in order to prevent a greater harm than the violation itself.

So. Dak. legislators have said they understand that cannabis is a valid remedy for at least some adverse medical conditions. None has offered to help change the law--to allow people accused of possession of "marijuana" to tell the court of their experience, and to present other evidence of medical benefit.

No one has suggested that SoDakNORML has erred in its presentation of the facts.

No one has suggested that current "drug" policy is anything but a failure. No one has taken offense to our assertion that So. Dak. "drug" law serves no one except (1) those making a living from selling "drugs" and (2) those making a living hunting down and prosecuting people for possession or sale of "drugs."

No one seems to be repeating Rep. Roger Hunt's assertion of a few years ago, "Anyone who tells you there's medical marijuana is blowing smoke."

No one disagrees that So. Dak. law enforcement filed 82402 arrests for possession of "marijuana" since 1999. That number is equal to 10% of the population of South Dakota. No one bothered to answer our question: For what?

In short, SoDakNORML has not heard or read any disagreement with any evidence we've presented. It's all here, in the series of letters in the right column of this page.

Do you think that would be true if we were asking to repeal laws against assault, burglary, robbery, DUI, rape or murder? "Crimes" create victims. Cannabis use does not.

No one has even bothered to take offense at our assertion that to fail to disallow The State from making criminals of people who use cannabis to alleviate their medical condition is active egregious cruelty.

We've proposed a law that no legislator should fear to support because it is so obviously the right thing to do. And we doubt, at the moment, that we will see any legislator offer to support it.

So long for now,
Bob Newland
for SoDakNORML

P.S. You might want to sign a petition or two at

Specifically, this one to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, and to allow the states to regulate cannabis as they choose, is 2nd in popularity:

The White House promises to"review" and "take appropriate action" on those which get enough signatures.


Dumb Fuck said...

When NORML supports the right of SD business owners to allow [tobacco] smoking on their premises, and the right of folks to smoke tobacco outdoors,

then I'll think about my support to legalize pot.

Why the push to ban tobacco smoke, and a concurrent push to allow pot smoke?

All in all though, a REASONABLE column.

Unknown said...

Dumb Fuck, I'm mystified as to why you blame NORML for the smoking ban.