cannabisnews.com: Representatives Hold News Conference on Marijuana





Representatives Hold News Conference on Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on July 27, 2002 at 16:47:29 PT
FDCH Political Transcripts 
Source: IMMLY
FRANK: My name is Barney Frank. I am the sponsor of the bill. And what I am going to do is, one of our colleagues, Congressman Rohrabacher from California, has joined us very generously, because he is in the midst of an important session of the Committee on International Relations. So I am going to first introduce Congressman Rohrabacher so he can, as we often have to be, be as close to being in two places at one time as you can be, unaided by any substance. 
ROHRABACHER: Let me just say this is a nonpartisan -- a bipartisan issue. We're talking about making common sense and a more heartfelt and sensitive decision about what policies we're going to have concerning the use of marijuana. And it makes no sense by anybody's calculation, at least by mine and by conservatives who believe in individual responsibility, that we put people in jail for utilizing marijuana in order to help someone who's sick and someone who might be helped get through an illness with what marijuana as a drug has to offer. Let me just say that my mother, who passed away about a year and a half ago, was in the hospital for some surgery, major surgery, and it was very difficult to get my mother to eat. And she was in pain, she was nervous, and she had lost her appetite. And I remember going through that trauma and thinking to myself that I'm very happy and very glad that I had voted in California, behind closed doors in the ballot box, for the medical marijuana initiative, which permits people to use marijuana for those type of situations where it can be of help to someone who's suffering some type of injury or malady or some sort of disease. So I'm very pleased that Lyn Nofziger is here, who was my mentor, and supporting this and very happy to join Barney on this issue. I think this is a matter -- when we talk about whether or not marijuana should be available to people who are suffering in the hospital, this is a matter of conscience. This shouldn't be a matter of drug control, for Pete's sakes, this should be a matter of trying to help people who are suffering. And if we can do this by making sure that marijuana is available to them so they get their appetite back and they gain some strength, I think it's sinful for us not to do that and not to reach out to people like that. ROHRABACHER: So I hope that people get -- you know, let's get over some of these stereotypes and these hangovers from the '60s and get on to an honest discussion of this issue. And the first step has to be whether or not patients who need help are going to be able to use this to alleviate their pain and help them with their appetite so they can get better. And I'm very proud to stand here with Barney and do this for freedom and for humanitarian sake. Thank you. FRANK: I just want to outline the bill and then I'm going to call on my colleague, Dr., in this case, Ron Paul, and the Lyn Nofziger, who we are delighted is going to join us. The bill is very straightforward. As you can see, nine states have decided to allow physicians within those states to prescribe marijuana. The -- a number of them have done it by referendum; I think most of them -- I know most of them have done it by referendum, by a vote of the public. What our bill does is to say that in those states where, by proper processes the state has decided to allow physicians to prescribe marijuana, there will be no federal prohibition. It simply removes the federal government's prosecutorial presence from a situation where the state has decided that this is the way the practice of medicine ought to be carried out. There obviously are a lot of broader issues about marijuana. They're not implicated by this bill one way or the other. This bill is very simple and very straightforward, and it says that you cannot interfere with the prescription of marijuana by an -- according to the state law, and it is simply is a respect for state law. We should note, as people understand, the practice of medicine has, throughout our history, been a state matter. We are not the super-medical board. Many people have suggested that from time to time, it's generally been resisted. And what this does is simply reaffirm the long-standing American practice that the practice of medicine is done at the state level. It does have an amendment that makes it clear that this does not interfere with no smoking rules, this does not give to people who are using marijuana for medical purposes superior rights to others where there are no smoking in public. It's, as I said, very simple and very straightforward, and that's what it does. FRANK: Next I'm very pleased to be joined by the original -- there were two of us who originally did this bill, my colleague, Ron Paul, from Texas. PAUL: Thank you, Barney. And I'm glad to be able to join you here today and try to talk about what I consider a very important issue. The first attack on marijuana is rather recent. I'd like to think not so much that we're breaking ground and going in a new direction, we're actually trying to restore a freedom that existed for a long time. It was in 1937 or '38 where the first federal law was passed. At that time it was well recognized that they could not put a prohibition on this particular drug, or any drugs for that matter. And what they did was they put a high tax on it. But up until then there were no restrictions, and states regulated and did what they wanted. And to me, this is a restoration of a personal choice, as well as a state legislative matter. And it shouldn't be so dramatic. It reminds me a little bit about what happened in 1932, for financial reasons they made gold illegal and we relegalized it, ownership, in 1976. So I, sort of, liked to see that there was an attack in the 1930s. And what we would like to do is relegalize freedom of choice for various reasons. I, as a physician, am very concerned about what's happening in this country and recognize the many, many dangers in the misuse of drugs, both prescription drugs and so-called illegal drugs. And I have practiced medicine that way and raised kids that way with a great deal of concern. But this is not exactly what we're dealing with. We're dealing here with a state issue in the legalization of personal, private choice by patients to use a substance that can be very helpful. The idea that we attack sick people and the right of the doctor- physician relationship to deal with that is criminal. It's an absolute criminal act. And where is the compassion? Where is the compassionate conservatives today coming and saying, "Look, we are compassionate enough and we do care about people as physicians or as patients or as loved ones." They're not here, but they should be. PAUL: The large number of the American people agree with us on this issue. And people ask me, "Why is it that Congress is so slow? Why don't they respond if your right?" Well, I think it's rather natural for Congress to be about 20 years behind events. They're very, very slow to catch on to what's happening in the country. And for this reason, I think we have made inroads. Barney is working hard on this. And we have made progress. But we still cannot win this vote. But I think it will come. I'm convinced that it will. But ultimately, it is a states' right issue. It's a federal matter, where they should be involved. But ultimately in this country, we should deal with it in a broader sense of freedom of choice. I, as a physician, who practiced conventional medicine, have high respect and high regard for all alternative medicine and personal choices. And I also accept the principle that governments cannot protect us from ourselves. So therefore, what we want to do is to be the protector of liberty, the protector of freedom of choice. And believe me, we can sort this out a lot better. So I compliment Congressman Frank on his work and his effort. And hopefully the next time we have a vote, Barney, we'll do a lot better. Thank you. FRANK: Thank you, Ron. I even noted, by the way, we do believe this ought to appeal both to Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives. You notice we have a new color scheme here. We have green states and white states. But I would point out that the green states are composed of both red states and blue states. (LAUGHTER) Now, that may be a color combination that you don't get from the spectrum. I guess -- what? -- red and blue will give you purple states. So maybe we'll do -- but there are states there that were carried by George Bush and there are states there that were carried by Al Gore. Next, I am very gratified that Mr. Lyn Nofziger has agreed to join us. It's not easy for people who have dealt with difficult matters in a private way always to talk about them. And I'm always especially grateful to people who are willing to, kind of, share private matters because they want to spare other people from undergoing some of the difficulties that they may have had themselves had to encounter. FRANK: So, Mr. Nofziger, we are very grateful for your joining us. NOFZIGER: Well, thank you, Barney. And I am very pleased to have been invited here. I think those of who know me may notice that I'm wearing a tie, which I don't usually do, so this is important. I came to the Hill, which I don't usually do, because it's a terrible place. And I'm mingling with liberals. ( LAUGHTER ) So you can see it's important to me that I be here, and this legislation is tremendously important to me. And I have a brief statement here that I'd like to read, because I'm not as articulate as any of the three congressmen who you've been listening to. But some of you may know my older daughter died several years ago from non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and she was 38. Before she died, she underwent heavy chemotherapy that caused nausea, diarrhea and loss of appetite. None of the legal medications, including the marijuana substitute, Marinol, helped to alleviate the symptoms. In desperation, we turned to marijuana to see if that would help. Fortunately, people of her generation knew a lot more about where you find marijuana than people of my generation. And the marijuana did help. It reduced the side effects of the chemotherapy to the point where she regained her appetite and actually began putting on weight. Obviously, it did not save her life, nor did we think it would, however it made a portion of the last weeks of her life considerably more bearable, both to her and to her family. Since then, I've learned that marijuana can also help persons with glaucoma, the wasting symptoms of AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other afflictions. Because of this, I've become an avid supporter of efforts to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. The bill by Congressman Frank and Congressman Paul is a big step in that direction and I'm pleased to be here to lend my support. And in closing, I want to say that an administration that claims to be compassionate and conservative should enthusiastically support legislation that truly is compassionate and that also would return rights to the states that the Tenth Amendment theoretically guarantees to them. NOFZIGER: And I sincerely hope that the administration will get behind this bill and that we can do something for a lot of people who need help and who are being denied help by people who just don't seem to give a damn. Thank you very much. FRANK: Next, one of the early co-sponsors, my colleague Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky from Chicago. SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you, I'm proud to be here today with Representatives Frank and Paul to speak on this critical issue. It is really a sad day in the United States when the alleviation of suffering of thousands, tens of thousands, maybe even millions, of people is held hostage to a misguided policy that has probably more -- definitely has more politics than science involved in it. This bill is so modest. H.R. 2592 simply guarantees the rights of states to determine their own laws and how best to provide those suffering from debilitating illnesses with alternative methods to ease their pain. This means the right of doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. It seems to me that the attorney general should be concentrating on putting behind bars Enron or WorldCom thieves who stole millions from the American people instead of doctors who are relieving the pain of people who are afflicted with grave medical conditions. They can't eat, they can't sleep, they're experiencing acute and unbearable pain, and I guess John Ashcroft just didn't get the memo explaining about being a compassionate conservative. Every day, doctors prescribe potent and addictive drugs like codeine and morphine to patients across the country to help ease their pain, live in dignity, improve their quality of life. In some instances these drugs don't work and the medical community has agreed that medical marijuana does. The federal government needs to get out of the doctor's office and let the patients get the help they need. We could be here asking Mr. Ashcroft to just say yes. We are not. We are asking that the Congress take a first step in allowing states to make that kind of decision, to get out of the way of people who are simply asking to be relieved of their suffering. Thank you. FRANK: Next, two people who are themselves ill and have found marijuana to be helpful have joined us. And again, as with Mr. Nofziger, I want to express my very deep personal appreciation. It isn't easy to come and do this, and people don't do it out of any need to exhibit, but out of a deep commitment that what they've gone through they would like to prevent other people from having to go through, namely the problems with the law. The last thing we ought to be doing, literally the last thing, to people who are ill is to be burdening them in any way when they seek a method of alleviating their pain and the pain of those around them that harms no one else. So I am especially grateful to them for coming and speaking out on behalf of others this way. We have with us Cheryl Miller ( ph ) from Tom's River, New Jersey, and Cheryl's ( ph ) husband Tim ( ph ) is going to speak on their behalf. MILLER ( ph ): I'd like you all to meet my wife, Cheryl Miller ( ph ). In Washington I'm better known as Mr. Cheryl Miller ( ph ), because when we come to Washington it's pretty much about her. MILLER ( ph ): I'd like to say, first, Cheryl ( ph ) was born in 1946 and she never used marijuana, not in the '50s, not in the '60s, not in the '70s, not in the '80s. She did what was the right thing to do for her. She didn't use marijuana when all her friends were. She has multiple sclerosis, diagnosed in 1971. She has been in a wheelchair since 1981. She hasn't even been able to scratch her own nose when it itched for the last 10 years. It's something I don't even want you to imagine. It was kind of like a "Tale of Two Cities" when we found out about medical marijuana. It was the best of news and it was the worst of news. There was something when her neurologist called us aside after a visit to him -- we go twice a year -- and he said he was worried about six more months going by, that she might not live that long. Now, you take a neurologist very seriously when he says that and he bothers to say that to you. He asked us, is there something that he might be forgetting? We told him we'd heard about marijuana might help her spasticity. And he said, of course, he would prescribe it if he could, but he can't. And then he suggested she try Marinol, because it had very little side effects like marijuana has very little side effects. We found out that Marinol did work good, but, of course, you have to wonder what would the real plant work like. Not knowing exactly what to do and knowing she couldn't smoke because of concerns for her throat, we put it in a salad dressing. And three days later she ate a salad that deep down inside I almost hope wouldn't work. But we could move her arms where spasticity pulls back. She's been turned down from being in therapy in a rehab, because it takes too many people with the spasticity, but not with the marijuana it doesn't. With her conventional medicine that I'm being told works just fine by a lot of people, doesn't work just fine. We tried, starting 10 years ago, to contact our representatives and found out how hard it was, before today, for people to just go on record, say what they think. We were heartened when one New Jersey congressman did agree to meet us, Representative Rob Andrews, who up until that point did not agree. But when he saw that he believed Cheryl ( ph ) was telling the truth and I was telling the truth, we wanted to gain just her health back a little bit. We wanted her to have therapy. We wanted her to be as well as she could. It's not going to save her life either. And this is probably her last trip here. This will be her ninth and probably last trip. I just want to say that it's obvious we didn't come here to fool anybody. And, as her husband, until today we felt largely ignored. I promised her I would protect her. I'm not able to. This is very important that 2592 at least get discussed on the floor, because we're tired of hit and run. "No, it's not good for you, but I won't talk to you." It's too late for Cheryl ( ph ), but there's a lot of other Cheryl's ( ph ) left. It's not too late for some of them. So for those people who have lost children to drugs, we feel very sorry, but I'm quite tired of hearing what children might do. Cheryl ( ph ) was well. We have talked to children. They're a little bit upset about hearing that, and maybe we should ask them what they think because they know better. They know the difference between drugs and medicine. And when everybody else does and some more people that voted against medical marijuana in '98 show the guts that Rob Andrews said when he changed his mind on this position after meeting Cheryl ( ph ), it might not be too late for somebody else. MILLER ( ph ): And that's why we came here, to just plead with whoever might listen to do whatever it takes to get this discussed on the floor, because there is no logical argument against it. And that's all we're asking for, is no more hit and run on patients, just logical discussion. Thanks. FRANK: Thank you. I would note that Representative Andrews became a cosponsor, in fact, last December and is one of the cosponsors. Next we have Gary Stork ( ph ) from Madison, Wisconsin. STORK ( ph ): My name is Gary Stork ( ph ), and I'm a glaucoma and arthritis patient and a resident of Madison, Wisconsin, which has what I am told is the oldest medical marijuana law on the books in the United States, Ordinance 2320, which allows city of Madison patients to possess cannabis for medical use pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner. I want to thank Representative Frank and Representative Paul for sponsoring H.R. 2592 and hosting this press conference, my congressperson, Representative Tammy Baldwin, for being one of the first cosponsors, the other honorable representatives who have cosponsored and those who have joined us today. I'm very honored to be here today speaking on behalf of patients who need medical marijuana and humbled to be following the footsteps of patients like the late Robert Randall, who wrote a book called "Marijuana RX: The Patient's Fight for Medicinal Pot," and Lyn Nofziger wrote the forward. And I'm very glad to see Lyn here today, because he knows firsthand how important this is. This is my first solo trip to Washington. The last two times I was here with our friend Jackie Richert ( ph ). Jackie ( ph ) is in chronic, unrelenting pain from illness including Aylors ( ph ) Danlow ( ph ) Syndrome and advanced reflex sympathetic dystrophy, for which she is prescribed a number of drugs, including morphine. Jackie ( ph ) was approved for both a compassionate IND and a research IND in 1991, but George Bush the elder closed the program to new applicants in 1992 and the federal government defaulted on its promise to provide her with supplies of medical marijuana. Jackie ( ph ) takes shots of morphine to control her pain, and on our last two trips I actually had to help her with shots in the hallways of congressional office buildings. It seemed very ironic. If it is legal for Jackie ( ph ) to have morphine, why not cannabis? My story: I was born 47 years ago in Wisconsin, and it was apparent from birth I was not blessed with the same good health my three older siblings enjoyed. Years later, these symptoms were diagnosed as Noonan ( ph ) syndrome, a genetic condition typified by physical traits and medical conditions, including glaucoma and heart defects. I've had three open heart surgeries to date. As a young child, I worried a lot about going blind. I lost a great deal of eyesight to glaucoma before it was even diagnosed, and even then conventional medications could not adequately control my elevated pressures. Around 1972, after indulging in some marijuana with friends, I went to see my eye doctor, who was very pleased to find my pressure significantly lower. Faced with the choice of risking further vision loss or breaking the law, I felt I had no choice but to do all I could to save my sight and that if the law was preventing me from preserving my vision, it was a bad law. Since that day, I've medicated each day I've had access to cannabis, and it has preserved my vision from a lifetime of glaucoma. In the late 1970s, I hooked up with Bob Randall, and he and my U.S. senators at the time, Gaylord Nelson and William Proxmire, and my congressperson, Henry Royce ( ph ), tried to get me enrolled in the IND program, but my doctor was unwilling to go through the mountains of red tape involved. The best he would do was write me a letter, which he did on June 4th, 1979, saying he would prescribe me marijuana if it were legal. I think it's ludicrous that over 23 years later, my doctors can still not legally prescribe cannabis. STORK ( ph ): H.R. 2592 would allow doctors to do so. In the last four years, as my arthritis worsened, I was diagnosed with degenerative disk disease and prominent regional myofacial pain. This causes chronic, often severe, neck and back pain. Cannabis now also helps me manage this pain and allows me to use less over-the- counter and prescription medication, allowing me a better quality of life. And my doctor and I agree that my pain is fairly well controlled at the present time with exercise and my current regiment of medications, including marijuana. The benefits of cannabis clearly outweigh the risks. H.R. 2592 would allow my doctors, Cheryl's ( ph ) doctors, Jackie's ( ph ) doctors, anyone's doctor to prescribe marijuana if they felt it would ease their suffering, just like any other medication. This is something that people support poll after poll, election after election. We did a poll in Wisconsin that found over 80 percent support the state legislature passing a bill. Few issues have this kind of popular support. When are the politicians going to catch up with the people? Generations of patients have waited for Congress to do the right thing. The time is now. Bring H.R. 2592 to the floor for a vote. FRANK: Thank you. I'll now be calling on one further speaker and we'll have questions. But I do want to stress one point: We have this debate in which we have been told marijuana is never useful. It never does it. You've heard now, second hand from a father and firsthand, in effect, from two others who have used it and who have benefited from it. And when people contradict the direct testimony of those who have, in fact, encountered this, I think the only thing to do, if Ron and Lyn will forgive me, is to quote Marx -- Chico, who said, in one notable movie you will remember, "Who you going to believe me or your own eyes?" And we have to say that to those who tell us that it never works: Who you going to believe, the politicians who say that or the people who, in their pain, have experienced it? Now, I'm going to call on one of the leading advocates here, Keith Stroup from NORML. And I also want to acknowledge the presence of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, Commonsense for Drug Policy, the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project. And as I stressed, there are obviously areas that all these organizations have that go in other directions, but on this particular issue there is great unanimity. And I am delighted to have Keith here with us. STROUP: Thank you, Congressman Frank. My name is Keith Stroup. I'm the director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. >From NORML's standpoint, as Representative Frank suggested, there are a lots of reasons why we think current marijuana prohibition is a bankrupt, failed public policy. It's a waste of law enforcement resources that should be focused on more serious crime, especially terrorism in these days. We're needlessly destroying the lives and careers of literally hundreds of thousands of genuinely good citizens each year. But these concern pale in comparison, frankly, to the needs of the seriously ill and dying patients, such as the patients we've heard from today. They must got to the front of the line. Let me make my position clear. I believe it is absolutely unconscionable to deny an effective medication to seriously ill patients. We know that there are tens of thousands in this country for whom traditional medication is simply ineffective, but for whom marijuana offers important relief to their pain and suffering. For those to deny an effective medication to patients simply to support their anti-drug position is holding patients hostage to the war on drugs. So it's time we stop debating whether marijuana is effective as a medicine. STROUP: It clearly is. And tens of thousands of patients have been telling us that for many years. Since 1966 now, nine states, as you see on the chart, have approved the medical use of marijuana. In eight of those states it was by citizen initiative and, in fact, we have never lost an initiative on this issue where it has been placed on the ballot before the people. According to two recent national polls, 73 percent of the American public now support the medical use of marijuana; three out of four Americans. One of those was the Gallup poll taken in 1999, the most recent was a Pew Charitable Trust poll taken 2001. As the California supreme court said just last week in a decision that offered wonderful protection to patients in that state, they said those seriously ill patients who possess or use marijuana as a medicine are entitled to the same legal protection as patients who possess any other medication. And in the state of California, patients now enjoy that protection. So it is now time for Congress to act and end this confusing conflict between state and federal marijuana policy. H.R. 2592 should be promptly reported out of committee and voted on at the floor of the House. The American people expect no less, tens of thousands of patients demand no less, it is time to amend federal law so that states that wish to legalize medical use may do so without federal interference. Thank you. FRANK: I just want to stress, by the way, on how frankly limited this bill is. In most of the country, state law which now prohibits this would remain in effect. It in fact would not provide the kind of relief I would like to provide this bill, even for some of the people who are here. But it would, I think, be an important first step. And we also believe that if the federal government were to do this, in some states people have said, "Well, what's the use, because it will still be federally prohibited?" So we do think getting the federal prohibition out of the way would allow other states to make this decision that might now feel deterred. With that, any of us who are here would be glad to respond if members of the media have questions. QUESTION: I'd like to direct my question to Dr. Paul, please. As a physician, sir, when do you think medical marijuana should be prescribed to a patient? I mean, when that patient first hits your office or as a last resort or what? PAUL: Well, I think that has to be individualized. I'd hardly think that would be the first thing to cross the physician's mind, or the patient, but I think if conventional methods fail and were doing poorly it would be prescribed. So I would say somewhere in between, not when it's gone for a long, long time, and the doctor has been unsuccessful, nor as the patient arrives. But it would have to be individualized according to the situation. QUESTION: Do you now of any other countries, besides these nine states here in America, that have prescribed medical marijuana for their patients? PAUL: Well, I think in Europe they do. ( UNKNOWN ): It was recently legalized in Canada, and it is very close to being formally legalized in England, and there are several other European countries looking at it as well. QUESTION: If your legislation were enacted, how would it affect the states where marijuana, medicinal use is allowed, for example... FRANK: It would then say that it would be allowed, according to those state laws. Now there are nine states, they don't all have identical laws. It would be, as is every other aspect of the practice of medicine, a matter for that state. The conditions under which you could prescribe it might differ from state to state. Who could prescribe it. FRANK: I mean, some states say certain licensures or regulations are required and not others. But it would leave it entirely up to the state. It would say that there is no federal prohibition in those states where the state has decided to do this. And it would then be up to each state. QUESTION: And how much federal interference is there right now, that you feel this legislation... FRANK: Well, recently we saw -- first of all, it is hanging over people. And as you heard, there are people who don't want to do things that they consider to be illegal. Obviously, that's all of us, in general. And it's only when you are driven by this pain that you get to that. But we recently had a raid in California, ordered by the Justice Department, of... NOFZIGER: ( OFF-MIKE ) of that? FRANK: Yes. Yes, sir. NOFZIGER: That raid closed down a medical marijuana outfit that was supplying medical marijuana to a lot of patients. And they had told -- the people running it had told the DEA what they were doing, they had the approval of the West Hollywood City Council, DEA was leaving them alone, until somebody back here in Washington apparently ordered the raids. And now they've closed it down, and they're threatening to put people in jail and so forth for -- and meantime, there are literally hundreds of people there in Southern California who are not getting their medical marijuana legally. PAUL: Let me just follow up on that, because that is an important question. California legalizes for medical reasons. There was an individual there, a well-known case, who was dying with AIDS and cancer and used his own marijuana, was taken to court and tried on a federal law. And the atrocious aspect of that case is he was not allowed to tell the jury that he did this under state law. So you talk about somebody who doesn't like the heavy hand of federal government, the overbearingness on the states, here is a place that just absolutely wouldn't even permit the state to be heard. That wouldn't happen if this law would be passed. QUESTION: If I could follow up just for a second, would your legislation affect distribution? My understanding is that the federal government could, in a sense, supply states, where it's legal, with medicinal marijuana. Is that incorrect? PAUL: I imagine that could follow, but that's not the purpose of the bill. There's no responsibility for the federal government to get involved in distribution. FRANK: No, none whatsoever. This takes the federal government out. Now, there has been an effort -- part of the problem here is you have a catch-22 which has been existing at the federal level, under both, by the way, the Clinton and Bush administrations, which is when I've been interested in this. And that is, we have been told, "Well, there's no evidence that marijuana helps." But it's, kind of, hard to conduct a trial when it's illegal to test it. So people have requested from the federal government over time, in both administrations, the right to conduct a trial. Now, part of that means the right to secure the marijuana legally. And what we have had is a refusal to allow that. There are some requests pending now. I work with people at Harvard Medical, Lester Greenspoon ( ph ) and others, who were trying to get that. So part of the problem is -- it's quite the opposite of what you're saying. The federal government now -- it's not only illegal to do this, it is illegal even to test whether or not it's a good idea to do it. But all the bill says is this: It's up to the states. The federal government would, if this bill passed, not be telling a state it had to do it or telling a state that it couldn't do it. It would be a matter of state policy. And what the laws would be with regard to medical marijuana would be entirely decided by a state. A state that chose still to prohibit them, that prohibition would be in effect. Those nine states that have allowed it would be allowed to carry that out without the fear that a federal prosecution would come in and impact on people who were following state law. QUESTION: Sometimes it's easier to move a bill in one chamber or another, so what's the situation in the Senate? FRANK: I, as is often the case, don't know. I will tell you that the greatest institutional defect here in this Capitol is -- the greatest institutional failing around here, in my judgment, is the failure of the House and Senate to stay in better touch. We don't really know what each other are doing. I am not aware that there is a Senate version of the bill. I don't think, there is not a Senate version of the bill. So, that's the answer. Other questions? I think we have one more speaker actually, Congresswoman Pelosi I'm told is approaching. So if you want to wait a minute, we will do that. We will have copies of the bill available, I guess, they must be back there. OK, she'll be here, and... QUESTION: ( inaudible ) have any Republican co-sponsors. Is there any chance you might be able to get enough signatures to get a discharge petition? FRANK: No. There'd be no chance for a discharge on this. There are several Republicans, they're mostly liberal Democrats. I -- one of the reasons we want to have this press conference is trying to break out of that view that people think this is, obviously there are both liberal and conservative reasons to do this. I mean, it's been conservatives who're generally most strongly asserted the right of MDs to practice medicine without excessive regulation. There's the states' rights issue. There's also a, kind of, joint liberal and conservative sense that people ought to be allowed their own choices. But no, with the current level we do not have that. I am, I must say, perplexed by people, particularly who represent areas -- we have members of Congress who represent areas where the voters in those areas heavily supported this. I mean, you know, we have those breakdowns by congressional district. And I am somewhat puzzled that some of my colleagues have felt that that doesn't gain any weight with them whatsoever. But no, there's no chance for a discharge. And to be honest, it's, this subject hasn't been as widely discussed. I mean, I follow this and I feel strongly for it and have tried to argue for it. In fairness this may be the first real effort we've had to, sort of, present it to the press this widely with a broad range of both philosophical and practical experience. So we hope at least to begin the conversation. QUESTION: So is the passage of this bill probably something that is still years away? FRANK: Well, it's not going to happen this year. That unfortunately is the case. On the other hand, by the way, that's not the only reason for doing it. There's a great deal of executive discretion. There are more laws on the books at any given time than can be fully enforced. Indeed, the federal agency -- after the mass murders of September 11th, the federal law enforcement agencies, said, "Look, we're going to be able to do less in some areas." So part of what we can do, you know, you can influence public policy short of passing a bill. You can, if you demonstrate widespread support among Congress, within the public, persuade those executive officials who make the decisions who make the decisions about where to put law enforcement resources that there are other things that might be more useful. And I do think we have a realistic chance of at least discouraging the kind of effort that Lyn Nofziger described, which had very real impact on people. QUESTION: What kind of feedback are you getting in your own state, sir? FRANK: Oh, most of the people that I talk to think this is a good idea, when it comes up. Massachusetts had a referendum not on medical marijuana but a broader one on drug treatment. It lost fairly narrowly, probably because I think it was considered to be an overreach in some areas. But I have to say, as Ron Paul said it and others, this is one where I think there's a kind of a cultural lag. Marijuana has been associated throughout American history with the counter-culture, whether it was African-American jazz musicians and people associated with them, and then later with people who were protesting the war, who were rejecting American capitalism. FRANK: I think the treatment of marijuana -- because, as Jan Schakowsky pointed out, we allow doctors to prescribe substances that have much more effect on people's personality, that are much more addictive, et cetera, than marijuana. And there is a, kind of, a social question, why is marijuana treated so much more harshly than other substances which are far more disorienting, et cetera? And I think it's the association with the counter-culture. And I think what's happened is that the public has gotten beyond that and a lot of my electoral colleagues have not. So I really do think this is a case where there's, kind of, a cultural lag on the part of elected officials. And the public is capable of saying, "Well, yes, there were jazz musicians in the '30s and there were peace protesters in the '60s, and then there's sick people. And let's not put them all together." Not, in my view, that because jazz musicians used it, it ought to be outlawed. It would also -- maybe it would be illegal to use saxophones. I mean, that's not... ( LAUGHTER ) ... a very logical position. But I do think that's what's at issue. And I think the very fact of discussing it -- and that's why I'm so grateful to the three people who have had firsthand, personal and familial experience have come forward, because I think that's a very important way to get off the ideological miasma that has surrounded this issue and into the reality. Well, Ms. Pelosi may not be able to make it, so we won't hold you any further. I think you've gotten enough room tone while we sat here and waited for her, so thank you all very much. ( APPLAUSE ) END NOTES: [????] - Indicates Speaker Unknown [--] - Indicates could not make out what was being said.[off mike] - Indicates could not make out what was being said.  Complete Title: Bipartisan Group of Representatives Holds News Conference on Medicinal MarijuanaNews article courtesy of Mapinc -- http://mapinc.org/drugnews/v02.n1401.a04.htmlSource: FDCH Political Transcripts Published: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 Copyright: 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. Location: Washington, D.C. Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/IMMLYhttp://www.immly.org/ Cheryl Hearthttp://www.cherylheart.org/Audio: Kevin Zeese vs. Ken Connor http://highwire.stanford.edu/~straffin/dp/NORML Press Conference Photoshttp://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5359CNN Crossfire: The Medical Marijuana Debatehttp://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse1436.ramBackers Again Seek Medicinal Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13538.shtmlCrossfire Transcripts: Keith Stroup & Hutchinsonhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13530.shtml CNN Transcripts: Kevin Zeese & Connor http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13541.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on July 29, 2002 at 11:29:57 PT:
The closer it gets to the surface...
of the Average American's media directed-consciousness, he more the antis will try to bury it. But now that it's in the media, it's too late. Especially as it will soon become the whip by which liberally inclined media people can lash the overly-tightarsed heads of this 21st-century pogrom.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by ekim on July 28, 2002 at 19:06:00 PT
calling Paul P. whos Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky 
Do you know -----FRANK: Next, one of the early co-sponsors, my colleague Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky from Chicago.  Hey Paul should your State become the 10th MMJ State.Did I hear somwhere that this Bill is stuck in the Energy and Technogly committe I mean what kind of low level types are in this committe when such a important Bill for Jobs and Farmers and most of all our Childrens Health not to mention saving Tax money.
 
We all hear about Global Warming. How can it be that at a time that we should be looking at ways of using Mother Earth to grow our way out of some of our problems. Like Ethanol to replace imported oil, Hemp for food and oil, Hemp for Paper making, you could go on all nite. Where are those elected officals that say they are for more jobs, more education and research and development. While allowing a complete ban on use of this all mighty plant. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on July 28, 2002 at 18:50:51 PT
Thanks Puff-Tuff and xxdr_zombiexx 
Let us know if it's good. I don't have any movie channels.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on July 28, 2002 at 09:21:31 PT
Hutchinson meets Dennis Miller - HBO - 8.2.2002
Asa Hutchinson will be the guest on Dennis Miller Live this Friday August 2, 2002 on HBO.
The show is aired at various times.HBO Schedule http://www.hbo.com/NASApp/schedule/ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&ID=91993Per Mr. PuffTuff on another thread......more for the media blitz...and this oughtta be good. Do you think somebody has asked Miller to take it easy on ol' Asa? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on July 28, 2002 at 08:44:22 PT
The Official Marijuana Reform Bandwagon
Despite the concerted efforts of Walters and Hutchinson, cannabis reform appears to have swung, at least briefly, into the limelight.Last week we had Hutchinson debating Keith Stroup on Donahue's MSNBC program, following Hutchinson's kind and gentle treament by the guys   CNN Crossfire.Then we had this bill presented in Congress, on C-Span, with all the varied entorage that went with the presentation of the bill. Thank VERY much for posting the transcripts, FoMNow Marijuana will be the topic on Donahue on MSNBC this coming monday (8pm est) and John Stossel has a program tuesday night on ABC exploring the failures of the WOD.I say thet Marijuana reform is now an Official Bandwagon and advise all the GOP and other politicians to hop on ASAP as a way to make some amends for sucking up to Big Business so shamfully and disasterously.Toke One for America!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo MD on July 28, 2002 at 07:51:01 PT:
Almost as Good as Being There
Thanks to FoM for helping us share the experience. Thanks to all the principles for taking this bold step. I do not expect the bill to pass, but the effort is truly worthwhile, and has brought the issue to the forefront. Every little bit helps.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by p4me on July 27, 2002 at 18:50:46 PT
slippery slope
The next thing those reformist will want is full legalization. Slippery slope alert. I call slippery slope arguements 1-3 and might I ad that the patriotic wife of Ronald Reagan was awarded the nations highest award by the baby-mind president for the great saying "Just say no.""Pass the pot" is not going to get anybody a Medal of Freedom. Onward with the police state and 7 trillion in debt.1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment