cannabisnews.com: The Debate: Hinchey - Rohrabacher MMJ Amendment





The Debate: Hinchey - Rohrabacher MMJ Amendment
Posted by CN Staff on July 23, 2003 at 21:58:25 PT
Parts 3 & 4 - Courtesy of Mapinc. & Richard Lake
Source: Congressional Record (US) 
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess). Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I actually had not planned on speaking on this issue this evening, but after sitting in my office and hearing some of the other arguments, I felt compelled to come over and at least, if I could, perhaps provide some illumination on this subject.
The last speaker, in fact, talked about science, common sense, and human decency as dictating that we must make marijuana available to our sickest patients. But why, indeed, would we want to make a substance available that is widely recognized as a gateway drug which could lead to greater drug use? My friend from Arizona pointed out that drug use amongst our youth and our children is increasing at a rapid rate, and we need to do what we can to stop that. I do not believe that making marijuana generally available, even for medicinal purposes, is going to further that curtailment of drug use in children or young people. But, Mr. Chairman, the fact remains that if we want to legally prescribe medication to deal with our patients' suffering, that is, anorexia, Marinol is available today; and I believe it is legal in all States, not just 10 states. What is Marinol? Marinol is a synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is also the naturally occurring compound of Cannabis sativa, or marijuana. So you see, Mr. Chairman, our physicians already have the active ingredient in marijuana available to prescribe to their patients today; and, in fact, I will include for the RECORD the package insert from Marinol which details the double-blind placebo studies that show that Marinol has been useful as an appetite stimulant and an antiemetic, that is, it inhibits nausea and vomiting in individuals who are suffering from terminal HIV/AIDS and individuals who are undergoing chemotherapy. And perhaps the beauty of using Marinol is your patient does not have to be terminally ill, they just have to be ill, because Marinol can be used for a short term. In fact, that is what it is recommended, to be used over the short term to deal with those two adverse consequences of chemotherapy. Mr. Chairman, compassionate care is available in this country. Our doctors are providing compassionate care. It is approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It is approved by the DEA. Marinol (Dronabinol) Capsules DESCRIPTION Dronabinol is a cannabinoid designated chemically as ( 6aR-trans )-6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]py ran-1-ol. Dronabinol, the active ingredient in Marinol Capsules, is synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol ( delta-9-THC ). Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is also a naturally occurring component of Cannabis sativa L. ( Marijuana ). Dronabinol is a light yellow resinous oil that is sticky at room temperature and hardens upon refrigeration. Dronabinol is insoluble in water and is formulated in sesame oil. It has a pKa of 10.6 and an octanol-water partition coefficient: 6,000:1 at pH 7. Capsules for oral administration: Marinol Capsules is supplied as round, soft gelatin capsules containing either 2.5 mg, 5 mg, or 10 mg dronabinol. Each Marinol Capsule is formulated with the following inactive ingredients: FD&C Blue No. 1 ( 5 mg ), FD&C Red No. 40 ( 5 mg ), FD&C Yellow No. 6 ( 5 mg and 10 mg ), gelatin, glycerin, methylparaben, propylparaben, sesame oil, and titanium dioxide. CLINICAL PATHOLOGY Dronabinol is an orally active cannabinoid which, like other cannabinoids, has complex effects on the central nervous system ( CNS ), including central sympathomimetic activity. Cannabinoid receptors have been discovered in neural tissues. These receptors may play a role in mediating the effects of dronabinol and other cannabinoids. Pharmacodynamics: Dronabinol-induced sympathomimetic activity may result in tachycardia and/or conjunctival injection. Its effects on blood pressure are inconsistent, but occasional subjects have experienced orthostatic hypotension and/or syncope upon abrupt standing. Dronabinol also demonstrates reversible effects on appetite, mood, cognition, memory, and perception. These phenomena appear to be dose-related, increasing in frequency with higher dosages, and subject to great interpatient variability. After oral administration, dronabinol has an onset of action of approximately 0.5 to 1 hours and peak effect at 2 to 4 hours. Duration of action for psychoactive effects is 4 to 6 hours, but the appetite stimulant effect of dronabinol may continue for 24 hours or longer after administration. Tachyphylaxis and tolerance develop to some of the pharmacologic effects of dronabinol and other cannabinoids with chronic use, suggesting an indirect effect on sympathetic neurons. In a study of the pharmacodynamics of chronic dronabinol exposure, healthy male volunteers ( N = 12 ) received 210 mg/day dronabinol, administered orally in divided doses, for 16 days. An initial tachycardia induced by dronabinol was replaced successively by normal sinus rhythm and then bradycardia. A decrease in supine blood pressure, made worse by standing, was also observed initially. These volunteers developed tolerance to the cardiovascular and subjective adverse CNS effects of dronabinol within 12 days of treatment initiation. Tachyphylaxis and tolerance do not, however, appear to develop to the appetite stimulant effect of Marinol Capsules. In studies involving patients with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ( AIDS ), the appetite stimulant effect of Marinol Capsules has been sustained for up to five months in clinical trials, at dosages ranging from 2.5 mg/day to 20 mg/day. The elimination phase of dronabinol can be described using a two compartment model with an initial ( alpha ) half-life of about 4 hours and a terminal ( beta ) half-life of 25 to 36 hours. Because of its large volume of distribution, dronabinol and its metabolites may be excreted at low levels for prolonged periods of time. Metabolites: Dronabinol undergoes extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism, primarily by microsomal hydroxylation, yielding both active and inactive metabolites. Dronabinol and its principal active metabolite, 11-OH-delta-9-THC, are present in approximately equal concentrations in plasma. Concentrations of both parent drug and metabolite peak at approximately 2 to 4 hours after oral dosing and decline over several days. Values for clearance average about 0.2 L/kg-hr, but are highly variable due to the complexity of cannabinoid distribution. Elimination: Dronabinol and its biotransformation products are excreted in both feces and urine. Biliary excretion is the major route of elimination with about half of a radio-labeled oral dose being recovered from the feces within 72 hours as contrasted with 10 to 15% recovered from urine. Less than 5% of an oral dose is recovered unchanged in the feces. Following single dose administration, low levels of dronabinol metabolites have been detected for more than 5 weeks in the urine and feces. In a study of Marinol Capsules involving AIDS patients, urinary cannabinoid/creatinine concentration ratios were studied bi-weekly over a six week period. The urinary cannabinoid/creatinine ratio was closely correlated with dose. No increase in the cannabinoid/creatinine ratio was observed after the first two weeks of treatment, indicating that steady-state cannabionoid levels had been reached. This conclusion is consistent with predictions based on the observed terminal half-life of dronabinol. Special Populations: The pharmacokinetic profile of Marinol Capsules has not been investigated in either pediatric or geriatric patients. CLINICAL TRIALS Appetite Stimulation: The appetite stimulant effect of Marinol ( Dronabinol ) Capsules in the treatment of AIDS-related anorexia associated with weight loss was studied in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 139 patients. The initial dosage of Marinol Capsules in all patients was 5 mg/day, administered in doses of 2.5 mg one hour before lunch and one hour before supper. In pilot studies, early morning administration of Marinol Capsules appeared to have been associated with an increased frequency of adverse experiences, as compared to dosing later in the day. The effect of Marinol Capsules on appetite, weight, mood, and nausea was measured at scheduled intervals during the six-week treatment period. Side effects ( feeling high, dizziness, confusion, somnolence ) occurred in 13 of 72 patients ( 18% ) at this dosage level and the dosage was reduced to 2.5 mg/day, administered as a single dose at supper or bedtime. As compared to placebo, Marinol Capsules treatment resulted in a statistically significant improvement in appetite as measured by visual analog scale ( see figure ). Trends toward improved body weight and mood, and decreases in nausea were also seen. After completing the 6-week study, patients were allowed to continue treatment with Marinol Capsules in an open-label study, in which there was a sustained improvement in appetite. Antiemetic: Marinol ( Dronabinol ) Capsules treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis was evaluated in 454 patients with cancer, who received a total of 750 courses of treatment of various malignancies. The antiemetic efficacy of Marinol Capsules was greatest in patients receiving cytotoxic therapy with MOPP for Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Marinol Capsules dosages ranged from 2.5 mg/day to 40 mg/day, administered in equally divided doses every four to six hours ( four times daily ). Escalating the Marinol Capsules dose above 7 mg/mg 2 Capsules dose above 7 mg/m 2 increased the frequency of adverse experiences, with no additional antiemetic benefit. Combination antiemetic therapy with Marinol Capsules and a phenothiazine ( prochlorperazine ) may result in synergistic or additive antiemetic effects and attenuate the toxicities associated with each of the agents. INDIVIDUALIZATION OF DOSAGES The pharmacologic effects of Marinol ( Dronabinol ) Capsules are dose-related and subject to considerable interpatient variability. Therefore, dosage individualization is critical in achieving the maximum benefit of Marinol Capsules treatment. Appetite Stimulation: In the clinical trials, the majority of patients were treated with 5 mg/day Marinol Capsules, although the dosages ranged from 2.5 to 20 mg/day. For an adult: 1. Begin with 2.5 mg before lunch and 2.5 mg before supper. If CNS symptoms ( feeling high, dizziness, confusion, somnolence ) do occur, they usually resolve in 1 to 3 days with continued dosage. 2. If CNS symptoms are severe or persistent, reduce the dose to 2.5 mg before supper. If symptoms continue to be a problem, taking the single dose in the evening or at bedtime may reduce their severity. 3. When adverse effects are absent or minimal and further therapeutic effect is desired, increase the dose to 2.5 mg before lunch and 5 mg before supper or 5 and 5 mg. Although most patients respond to 2.5 mg twice daily, 10 mg twice daily has been tolerated in about half of the patients in appetite stimulation studies. The pharmacologic effects of Marinol Capsules are reversible upon treatment cessation. Antiemetic: Most patients respond to 5 mg three or four times daily. Dosage may be escalated during a chemotherapy cycle or at subsequent cycles, based upon initial results. Therapy should be initiated at the lowest recommended dosage and titrated to clinical response. Administration of Marinol Capsules with phenothiazines, such as prochlorperazine, has resulted in improved efficacy as compared to either drug alone, without additional toxicity. Pediatrics: Marinol Capsules is not recommended for AIDS-related anorexia in pediatric patients because it has not been studied in this population. The pediatric dosage for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis is the same as in adults. Caution is recommended in prescribing Marinol Capsules for children because of the psychoactive effects. Geriatrics: Caution is advised in prescribing Marinol Capsules in elderly patients because they are generally more sensitive to the psychoactive effects of drugs. In antiemetic studies, no difference in tolerance or efficacy was apparent in patients 55 years old. INDICATIONS AND USAGE Marinol ( Dronabinol ) Capsules is indicated for the treatment of: 1. anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS; and 2. nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional antiemetic treatments. CONTRAINDICATIONS Marinol ( Dronabinol ) Capsules is contraindicated in any patient who has a history of hypersensitivity to any cannabinoid or sesame oil. WARNINGS Patients receiving treatment with Marinol Capsules should be specifically warned not to drive, operate machinery, or engage in any hazardous activity until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and to perform such tasks safely. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California ( Mr. Rohrabacher ). Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, for two reasons. Number one, I believe in freedom. I believe in democracy and the democratic process. If the people of 10 States have voted, I guess eight of them have actually voted through referendum and two through their other legislative process to legalize the medical use of marijuana within those States, it is totally contrary to our way of life in the United States of America to say that those States, the people of those States, do not have a right to set their standards, their legal standards in those States. There are dry counties, and there are wet counties. You can have a State that is right next to one State. That is no argument. You do not have to have one rule for the whole country. That is what federalism is all about. And what greater use of federalism or more important use of federalism than for people to control substances as they are consumed in their own area? I would suggest that in my State, for example, where the people did, by a large majority, vote for legalizing the medical use of marijuana that it is a travesty for the Federal Government to send police into my State and arrest people and throw them in a cage, in jail, for doing something that the vast majority of people in my State voted to make a legal practice. This is contrary to American tradition. This is not right. It has only been in this last 100 years that America has decided to go haywire and create this type of oppression which is contrary to the wishes of the majority of people in these areas. Number two, let us just face it, it has not worked. The process that we have tried to use to prevent drug use has not worked. The drug war is a miserable failure. That does not mean we should give up. I am not advocating that. I do not advocate legalizing drugs, but I think that it is time to take a second look at what has been going on. It has not succeeded at all in preventing people from using drugs, and it has been a catastrophe in the black and other minority communities where young people get thrown into jail at an early age and their whole life is ruined. We need to take a second look at drugs in general and how we are going to try to convince young people not to use drugs. By the way, I was Ronald Reagan's speech writer and I wrote almost every one of his speeches about drugs at a time when we convinced America's youth to stop using drugs and there was the greatest decline in the use of drugs during Reagan's administration as any time in our history. I can assure you in Ronald Reagan's speeches, he talked about just relying on law enforcement was not the answer. And it certainly is not the answer in dealing with medical marijuana that has been approved by the majority of people in various States. Lynn Nofziger, Ronald Reagan's adviser; William F. Buckley, the editor of National Review; Bob Ehrlich, the Governor of Maryland, all of these people understand what this is all about and understand that those people opposing this liberalization of the medical use of marijuana are living in a bygone era. Let me just note this. My mother passed away about 4 or 5 years ago. One of the factors in my determination tonight to stand up here before you is that I remember when the doctor told me that she had lost her appetite and I was going to have to feed her. I was very pleased that I had voted for making the medical use of marijuana legal because I could not look at myself in the face knowing that I had done that to other people who were confronted by their mother. What are we doing to someone, and they do not have to be critically ill. What about an older person that has lost their appetite and their will to live? If a doctor thinks it is going to help them to use marijuana, it is immoral for us to try to put people in jail who are moving to alleviate that type of horror that people have in their own lives. Are we compassionate or are we not? I suggest that we vote for compassion and freedom and support this liberalization. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana ( Mr. Souder ). Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, it is awful when your parents get older and have different struggles and we need to look and we have found drugs to give them to try to address this question. That is not what this debate is about. The gentleman from California and I have been friends for many years. We grew up in the same conservative youth organization, Young Americans for Freedom. We had these same disagreements when we were in YAF a long time ago on legalization of marijuana. We had a very close vote in the national organization. It was an organization founded by William F. Buckley. Richard Brookhiser came up through that same organization. What we called, and I was a more traditionalist conservative, the libertarians believed at that time, and in many cases still do, as we heard from the most consistent libertarian in the House, the gentleman from Texas ( Mr. Paul ), that drug laws are wrong and that States can nullify Federal laws. I do not agree with that. I believe there are times when the elected representatives of the American people can make national policy and that is what we are debating right now. Does the Federal Government have a right to make a law by elected citizens all across the United States that will be upheld because they believe it protects the citizens of the United States in the best way? Many States conceivably could pass different laws on civil rights to nullify some of the things we do here and other laws. We cannot operate that way. We heard earlier today that people said on the other side that we should support the first responders and our police forces. They are unanimous across the country as a whole saying that they are against any weakening of the marijuana laws with the signals they are sending. This is a fundamental debate about what direction we are going in national drug law. This is a backdoor way to move in. It is not about compassion. We need to look for additional ways if Marinol does not solve it all, but it does and in the new, improved ways it actually appears to deal with vomiting. People can promise all types of different things. We can feel the pain, but we should not change laws that are working. And if we want to change those laws on the national drug policy, you should come and change the national drug laws. It would be a travesty if this House in effect nullifies Federal law. This is not just nullifying Federal law. The case was brought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General and DEA have an obligation to enforce Federal law. I believe that the courts too often have usurped State authority and taken the 10th amendment the wrong direction. This is not about that. This is about when Congress passed a law under the Constitution that said in interstate commerce, which narcotics move across interstate commerce, which was not a liberal interpretation of that clause but a strict interpretation of that clause from a conservative perspective, all except the more anarcho-libertarians, as we used to call them, believe that in drug laws the Federal Government historically has had the right to enforce a Federal law. The conservative movement is not divided. We have a few of the libertarian fringe who I respect for their opinions but strongly disagree just as we did when we were kids; now we are grownups, and we still have the same disagreement. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas ( Ms. Jackson-Lee ). ( Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks. ) Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from Indiana ( Mr. Souder ) for the work that he has done. We have traveled together. I think anyone that comes to the floor of the House and discusses this issue obviously is not concerned about the political liability that the headlines will read that you stood on the floor of the House to support the free and open use of marijuana and the promotion of drug use in the United States of America. That is why I think it is very important to clarify the distinctive arguments that are being made on either side. In fact, I disagree with the interpretation of nullification when, in fact, it is an issue of States' rights that will not be harmful to others. I believe the Federal law is relevant when the Federal law seeks to solve a problem that is, in fact, harmful overall to all Americans. The civil rights example that the gentleman from Indiana used was an issue where the United States wanted to fall on the side of what was right and end the most heinous of behaviors in the 20th century, and that was segregation, lynching; and so we wrote civil rights laws to give equality to all Americans. This issue of the medical use of marijuana is a question of the patients asking and demanding relief. I guess there is no one that can stand in the shoes of a patient who is suffering from the horrible pain of cancer. No one, none of us who are standing here healthy today can understand the absolute pain of not being able either to eat or suffer through the treatment that might be provided by normal medical procedures. My understanding of the States that have voted for the use of medical marijuana is, in fact, regulated processes; is, in fact, structures in place to ensure that this is not a situation of drug running. So I do not know why we have come to the floor of the House and not respect the amendment that the gentleman from New York has put forward, which is to cease the utilization of Federal funds for intervention in a process that has been accepted by States and regulated by States. Appropriately, I believe, the 10th amendment, leave-it-to-States, States' rights, should be the acceptable call of the day. That should be the law. These nine or 10 States have opted to be able to choose in their regulated manner to allow for physicians and others to be able to prescribe marijuana for use to be able to help their patients and to stop the pain that they are suffering from. I cannot imagine that we would not want to be problem solvers on this issue and take the responsible route, which is to allow States who have been responsible in their own areas and suggested that medical marijuana is a vital and important use. I would hope my colleagues would see this separately from the war on drugs when there is a great debate as to whether the war on drugs is effective. I too am not interested in legalizing drug use, but I am interested in making sure that the sick are taken care of and States' rights are protected in this instance. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona ( Mr. Shadegg ). Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I again reiterate my opposition to this amendment. I would agree with the gentlewoman who just spoke that each side has an argument of merit in this debate. I compliment her for standing up and speaking out her views. But I would say I strongly disagree. Let us start with this whole issue of States' rights. I yield to no one on the issue of States' rights. I have a piece of legislation I have introduced every year in this Congress which would have required every Member of Congress to cite in each bill they introduce the constitutional authority, the provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives the Congress the right to act in this area. The gentlewoman would suggest that medical marijuana is not an area in which the Federal Government has the right to legislate. The implication there is that the Federal Government does not have the right to legislate in the area of drug policy. I would suggest that our Nation's civil rights laws, which I strongly support, are based on the issue of interstate commerce and that discrimination affects interstate commerce, and therefore it is appropriate for the Federal Government to pass laws prohibiting civil rights conduct that is offensive, including discrimination. By the same token, clearly our Nation's laws against drugs, marijuana and all of the others, are based on the same premise, and that is that they do affect interstate commerce. Indeed, drug use, illegal drug use by American workers, imposes a tremendous burden on our workforce and on our productivity. But let us go beyond that. The argument I believe she tried to make was there is a distinction because these laws that do not have any negative effect, they do not do harm. I would suggest that even if medicinal marijuana did not harm anyone other than its user, an argument I will refute in just a moment, that premise would be wrong. But let us look at the case cited earlier in this debate. There is a doctor in California who has taken advantage of that State's medical marijuana law to write 7,500 prescriptions for medical marijuana and has conducted in doing that not a single medical exam. The reality is, this is a fraud. The medical marijuana prescriptions which that doctor and other doctors have written are not written for medicinal reasons. The gentleman from Texas ( Mr. Burgess ) gave, I thought, eloquent testimony here on this floor just a few moments ago in which he made it very clear that there are drugs available to doctors today with the exact same medical and medicinal properties as marijuana, that will relieve the pain or that will deal with the lack of hunger or appetite, that will deal with those issues. I want to make another point. It was interesting that in this debate one of my colleagues on the other side said, Look, we already recognize certain painkilling drugs and we allow them to be legal in our system, and he cited a couple of those painkilling drugs. Why do we not allow marijuana? The answer is, there is sound evidence behind allowing certain drugs and there is no sound evidence behind allowing marijuana to be used for the reasons for which it is argued. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It will, in fact, send an inconsistent signal to our children and do grave damage to the children of America. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our Federal system reserves to the States all those powers that are not designated to the Federal Government in the Constitution. Ten States have decided that they want to alleviate the pain and suffering of their citizens who may be afflicted with AIDS or cancer or some other debilitating, killing disease, and make their last days on this Earth more comfortable by allowing them, under prescription from a licensed physician in those States, to use marijuana for medical purposes. The Federal Government has said "no." The Justice Department and this administration have said "no." They are not going to allow people in those 10 States, fully 20 percent of the States of the Nation, to be relieved of the pain and suffering under the laws of those States. That makes no sense. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia ( Mr. Wolf ) has the right to close. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York ( Mr. Hinchey ) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia ( Mr. Wolf ) has 3 minutes remaining. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank everyone who participated in this debate. I think it is very important that issues like this be discussed on the floor of the House of Representatives. The fact of the matter here, in this particular amendment, is simply this: Are we going to continue to allow the United States Justice Department to stick its nose into the business of 10 sovereign States of this Union who have decided that they want to help people who are suffering and dying from debilitating disease, AIDS, cancer, and others, who suffer from ailments such as glaucoma and a whole host of other ailments that have been found by a vast majority of the highly respected medical associations of this country, they have found that people suffering in that way can be relieved by the prescriptive use of marijuana under the supervision of a licensed physician? That is what this amendment would do. It does not open up anything else. Some of the arguments that have been made against this amendment have nothing to do with what this amendment seeks to achieve. It is very narrow in its form and in its definition. It relates only to States that have decided in their own way, either by referendum, which eight of them have, or by laws passed by their State legislative bodies, to allow people to use marijuana for medical purposes to relieve the pain and suffering in the final days of their lives. People talk about a gateway drug. Someone dying from cancer is not going to use marijuana as a gateway drug. They are using it to try to gain back a bit of their appetite so that they can maintain their strength and continue to live among their family and offer the aid and assistance of themselves to that family during the last days of their lives. Are we going to deny people that? That is exactly what we are doing by the present law, and that is why this amendment is here, and I ask for its passage. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, this is really a cultural issue. That is what this is all about. It is about the culture, nothing else. The Hinchey amendment would mean that State medical marijuana laws are the supreme law of the land. This amendment would prevent Federal officials from enforcing Federal law in a manner contrary to State law. Under this amendment anyone who manufactures, distributes, or possesses marijuana in purported compliance with State law would have immunity under Federal law. I think it is a big issue and I think the gentleman from Arizona ( Mr. Shadegg ) and the gentleman from Indiana ( Mr. Souder ) covered it very well. Medical marijuana laws send the wrong message to our youth, too many of whom do not recognize the dangers of marijuana and continue to experiment. It is a cultural issue. It has taken the culture in the wrong direction, and I urge defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York ( Mr. Hinchey ). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York ( Mr. Hinchey ) will be postponed. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore ( Mr. Kolbe ) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill ( H.R. 2799 ) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon. Source: The Congressional Record (US) Published: Tuesday, July 22, 2003Website: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html Note: This is an historic debate on medical cannabis in the United States House of Representatives as printed by the Congressional Record. The actual vote took place on 23 July, was 152 for, 273 against and nine not voting. Action: more details, and the ability to find and send your comments to your representative based on their vote, is currently at: http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=2948301&type=CO Plus the ability to fax a message to your representative is at: http://mpp.org/DD/action.html Also: This debate transcript is posted in four parts. Part: 1 http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1110.a09.html Part: 2 http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1111/a01.html Part: 3 http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1111/a02.html Part: 4 http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1111/a03.htmlRelated Article:Growing Outrage - Jacob Sullumhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16931.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment