Two years ago my cousin Antonio Glassberg lost a battle to cancer. He was 21. Although my uncle lost his only child at an unbearably young age, the most horrific part of his passing was not his youth, but the circumstances surrounding his death.

Antonio’s intensive chemotherapy treatment caused endless pain. He often couldn’t sleep for days and frequently had no desire to eat. He lost more than 40 pounds. Tragically, his family couldn’t legally obtain the only drug that would have facilitated sleep, ameliorated pain, and encouraged eating.

Contemporary medical research demonstrates that medical marijuana provides great benefit to many who suffer from a multitude of medical problems. These include cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis. The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine asserts: “Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs ... for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation.”

Medical professionals acknowledge the numerous benefits of medicinal marijuana. Over 60 international health organizations, including the American Public Health Organization, The Federation of American Scientists, and Health Canada, support legalizing medical marijuana. A 1991 study conducted by Harvard University found that, if it were legal, 50 percent of oncologists would prescribe marijuana to patients.

Popular support for medical legalization is widespread. Voters in nine states have succeeded in exempting patients with doctors’ prescriptions from state criminal penalties. A 2001 Pew Research Center poll found that 73 percent of Americans support making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe. A 2002 CNN/Time poll found that 80 percent of respondents agreed that adults should be allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes.

Why then do legislators refuse to change the current laws? Here’s the most common objection: If we (the government) legalize medical marijuana, then we imply that we don’t consider it a sufficiently harmful drug to merit prohibition.

I reject this line of reasoning. Legislative reform implies that the government cares greatly about the terminally ill and suggests nothing about its position on recreational use.

How do we explain why our government deprives the sick of enormously beneficial drugs?

First, only a small percentage of the population has a legitimate need for medicinal marijuana. As such, there exists no strong political force lobbying for reform. Second, two federal agencies, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, have vested interests in the status quo. Medical legalization would cut their budgets and staff. Policy changes that retard bureaucratic growth usually fail the political calculus.

Here is an example. In 1986 the DEA held public hearings before administrative judge Francis Young to determine whether the federal government should reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug. Schedule II drugs are described as medically beneficial, highly addictive, and frequently abused substances; morphine is a Schedule II drug. If reclassification were achieved, doctors could legally prescribe marijuana for medicinal use while recreational use would remain illegal.

Judge Young concluded: “Marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record.”

DEA administrator John Lawn rejected Judge Young’s ruling. He held that the criteria on which Young ruled were not of primary importance. What criteria does Mr. Lawn regard as important? Certainly not the welfare of terminally ill patients, the advice of medical experts, or the opinion of the American public. Perhaps Mr. Lawn’s primary concern was the budget of his bureaucracy.

Marijuana prohibition unjustly denies countless benefits to tens of thousands of terminally ill patients every year. The current law is at best capricious. The government has no legal, medical, or moral basis for denying the sick pain relief in the months preceding death. There are compelling reasons to reform this travesty of justice, morality, and medicine.

Antonio stands with a multitude of unfortunates who suffered unnecessarily in the final stage of life. Although most of us would never directly benefit from medical legalization, we should all advocate reform for the sake of the few who would.