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










  The Debate: Hinchey - Rohrabacher MMJ Amendment

Posted by CN Staff on July 23, 2003 at 22:10:32 PT
Parts 1 & 2 - Courtesy of Mapinc. & Richard Lake 
Source: Congressional Record (US)  

Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2004 (July 22, 2003)AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. HINCHEYMr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hinchey:At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONSSEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington from implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those States. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from New York ( Mr. Hinchey ) and any amendment thereto be limited to 60 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?There was no objection. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple limitation that would prevent the Justice Department from using any of the funds appropriated to it by this bill to interfere with the implementation of State laws that allow for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes under the supervision of a licensed physician. During the past several years 10 States, Alaska Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and Washington State, have passed laws that decriminalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. With the exception of Hawaii and Maryland, all of these laws were passed by referendum and the average vote in each of those eight States was more than 60 percent approval. These State laws are not free-for-alls that open the doors to wholesale legalization as critics claim. Rather, in every case, they specify in great detail the illnesses for which patients may use marijuana for medicinal purposes, the amounts the patients may possess, and the conditions under which it can be grown and obtained. Most establish a State registry and an identification card for patients. Federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic with no permissible medical use. Despite the difficulty of conducting clinical trials on such a drug, it has been highly effective in treating symptoms of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and other serious medical conditions. In fact, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences has recommended smoking marijuana for certain medical uses. The AIDS Action Council, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Preventative Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, Kaiser Permanente, and the New England Journal of Medicine have all endorsed supervised access to medical marijuana. Internationally, the Canadian Government has adopted regulations for the use of medical marijuana in that country to our immediate north. In addition, the British Medical Association, the French Ministry of Health, the Israel Health Ministry, and the Australian National Task Force on Cannabis have all recommended the use of medical marijuana. Here at home, however, our Federal Government has been unequivocal in its opposition to the citizen-led initiatives in the States that I mentioned. After California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, the Clinton Justice Department brought suit against both doctors and distributors in an attempt to shut down the new California State law. Federal courts upheld the right of doctors to talk to their patients about medical marijuana. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that it is a violation of Federal law to distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes. Despite State laws that protect patients from State prosecution, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Federal Government to enforce Federal laws against those individuals, nevertheless complying with laws in their own States. Attorney General Ashcroft has vigorously enforced this decision, choosing to prosecute patients and distributors, which makes passage of this amendment critical to the States that have enacted laws for the medicinal use of marijuana. This amendment would prevent the Justice Department from arresting, prosecuting, suing or otherwise discouraging doctors, patients and distributors in those States from acting in compliance with their State laws. This amendment in no way endorses marijuana for recreational use, not in any way. It does not reclassify marijuana to a less restrictive schedule of narcotic. It does not require any State to adopt a medical marijuana law. It will not prevent Federal officials from enforcing drug laws against drug kingpins, narco-traffickers, street dealers, habitual criminals, addicts, recreational users or anyone other than people who are complying with the laws of their own State with regard to the medical use of marijuana. By limiting the Justice Department in this way, we will be reaffirming the power of citizen democracy and State and local government. I urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police wrote a letter and said, "Dear Mr. Chairman" to the gentleman from Indiana ( Mr. Souder ), "I am writing to advise you of the strong opposition of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to an amendment to be offered today by Representative Maurice Hinchey to the appropriations measure on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State which would effectively prohibit the enforcement of Federal law with respect to marijuana in States that do not provide penalties for the use of the drug for so-called 'medical' reasons."It ends by saying, "The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local law enforcement officials to reduce drug crime in every region of the Nation."In the year 2001, the Supreme Court issued a notwithstanding rule and held that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act. It has no currently accepted medical use and treatment in the United States. There are other drugs that now can take its place. It cannot be used outside the FDA-approved DEA-registered research. Marijuana is the most abused drug in America. More young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency and for alcohol than for all the other illegal drugs. Marijuana use also presents a danger to others beyond the users themselves. In a roadside study of reckless drivers who are not impaired by alcohol, 45 percent tested positive for marijuana. It sends the wrong message. What a message it sends. I urge the defeat of the amendment which was, I might say, defeated in the full committee. GRAND LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, Washington, DC, July 22, 2003. Hon. MARK SOUDER,Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to advise you of the strong opposition of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to an amendment to be offered today by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey to H.R. 2799, the appropriations measure for the Department of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, which would effectively prohibit enforcement of Federal law with respect to marijuana in States that do not provide penalties for the use of the drug for so-called "medical" reasons. In these States, Federal enforcement is the only effective enforcement of the laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana. Federal efforts provide the sole deterrent to the use of harder drugs and the commission of other crimes, including violent crimes and crimes against property, which go hand-in-hand with drug use and drug trafficking organizations, particularly in the State of California where marijuana is sometimes traded for precursor chemicals for methamphetamines, and in the State of Washington, which is a significant gateway for high-potency marijuana that can sell for the same price as heroin on many of our nation's streets. The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local law enforcement to reduce drug crime in every region of the country. On behalf of the more than 308,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat. If I can be of any further help on this issue, please feel free to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco through my Washington office. Sincerely, Chuck Canterbury, National President. - --NATIONAL NARCOTIC OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS COALITION, West Covina, CA, July 22, 2003. Hon. MARK SOUDER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEAR CHAIRMAN SOUDER: I am writing to let you know of the strong opposition of the 60,000 state and local law enforcement officers in 40 states who are members of the NNOAC to an amendment to be offered today to the Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill that would effectively prohibit enforcement of federal marijuana law in states that do not provide penalties for the use of so-called "medical" marijuana. Because even a modest amount of federal marijuana enforcement is now the only effective enforcement of the marijuana laws in several such states, it provides a strong deterrent effect to the use of harder drugs and other crimes, including violent crimes and crimes against property. Federal investigations of marijuana producers also serve to disrupt larger drug trafficking organizations, particularly in the State of California where marijuana is sometimes traded for precursor chemicals for methamphetamines, and in the State of Washington, which is a significant gateway for high-potency marijuana that can sell for the same price as heroin. The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant disruptive effect on state and local law enforcement of both drug laws and of other crimes affecting public safety in states where it would apply. We strongly encourage Members of Congress who support their local police officers and law enforcement to oppose this amendment. Sincerely, Ronald E. Brooks, President. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California ( Mr. Farr ). Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I am one of the cosponsors of this, and I would like to first point out that the last statement you heard by your distinguished chairman is not about the amendment. This amendment does not legalize marijuana. I repeat, it does not legalize marijuana. It is a very straightforward amendment. It removes the Federal interference from local law, from local affairs where States have adopted through their legislative process or initiative process, a limited use of marijuana for medical purposes only. And in most cases, in all the cases I know, it has to be dispensed by a doctor. This is not about legalization of marijuana. This is just saying, Federal Government, where those States have adopted those laws, just stay off their backs. The attorneys general of these States, the law enforcement in these communities, they support these operations. I know, because in Santa Cruz County they were very, very upset and petitioned when the Federal Government came in and did a raid. It upset everybody. So this process of not allowing States to go forward, I think, is wrong. This amendment provides States with voter-given authority to promulgate regulations to control the limited, limited, limited use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. It is an amendment about States' rights. It is about the sacredness of the electoral process and the sanctity of the citizens' votes. It is about treating people as if they have instructed their government to do so. That is all this amendment does. A very narrow, limiting amendment. Please adopt it. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana ( Mr. Souder ). ( Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks. )Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about what it purports to be about. It is bad amendment for so many reasons that I can barely touch on. First, let me clarify that the FOP, the Fraternal Order of Police, exactly knows what amendment we are talking about. In fact, in their letter, echoed also by a letter we received from the National Narcotics Officers' Association Coalition says specifically this:"Federal investigations of marijuana producers also serve to disrupt larger drug trafficking organizations, particularly in the State of California where marijuana is sometimes traded for precursor chemicals, for methamphetamines, and in the State of Washington, which is a significant gateway for high-potency marijuana that can sell for the same price as heroin" on many of our Nation's streets. These officers in California and Washington, these States, opposed the referendums. They warned the people about what was going to happen and what they see happening in many places in these States. Let me reiterate a couple of basic points. It does not help sick people. First, this amendment is not about helping sick people. There are no generally recognized health benefits to smoking marijuana. We heard a false reference earlier to the Institutes of Medicine report where in it its verdicts said marijuana is not modern medicine. They issued a warning particularly against smoking marijuana in that report which, admittedly, was mixed, but did not endorse medicinal marijuana. The FDA has not considered or approved marijuana for this use. Its active ingredient, THC, is available in an improved pill form for those who want to use it. In fact, as people have said, there are many dangerous products that have ingredients in them that can be helpful, but that does not mean that the carrier of it, such as marijuana, is in fact medicinal. It is something inside that. In fact, I, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources recently met with officials from The Netherlands and in their Office of Medical Cannabis, even that nation, which is generally recognized for its extremely liberal drug policies, specifically has rejected the use of smoked marijuana for so-called "medicinal purposes," which these State referendums do not do. The American Lung Association has said that marijuana contains 50 to 70 percent more of some cancer-causing tobacco smoke. This is very dangerous. Furthermore, in a recent article by the Deputy Director of ONDCP, Andrea Barthwell called The Haze of Misinformation Clouds the Issue of Medicinal Marijuana, she eloquently wrote, "Before the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1907, Americans were exposed to a host of patent medicine cure-alls, everything from vegetable folk remedies to dangerous mixtures with morphine. The major component of most 'cures' was alcohol, which probably explained why people said they felt better."What we are hearing now is the same kind of classic peddling on the street of remedies that, in fact, are not remedies, when there are legal remedies to address the same question. The compounds in marijuana plants may have some medicinal marijuana but that is not marijuana and can be gotten elsewhere. Secondly, it makes no legal or governmental sense. In fact, it is fairly embarrassing we have this amendment on the floor. This amendment is premised on two extremely curious principles, first, that the Justice Department should not enforce a clear Federal law on the books; and as acknowledged by the sponsor of amendment and other supporters, the Supreme Court has ruled that States cannot usurp Federal law. If the sponsor of the amendment believes that Federal law should permit the medicinal use for marijuana, he ought to go through the legislative process and change the law. But the Justice Department, the DEA, and Members of Congress, I might add, have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States which requires enforcement of the laws of the United States; and it is an incredibly dangerous precedent to retreat from that. Second, to ask Federal law enforcement to look the other way in some States, but not others is unfair and probably unconstitutional selective enforcement of a law. This amendment would only apply in certain States. So someone in Washington State would be exempt from enforcement of Federal marijuana laws if they claim it is for medicinal purposes, but someone in Indiana would not. What kind of law is this?In fact, we fought a Civil War over this. It is called nullification. States do not have the right. How would the minority feel, those who are advocating this, if civil rights laws could be overturned at the Federal level, and we said we were not going to enforce Federal rights because State can nullify a Federal law?If you want to change a Federal law, have the courage to change the Federal law. Do not try to nullify a Federal law. It makes no police sense. In the States listed in the bill, the Federal Government is the only entity now doing effective marijuana enforcement. This bill would end that enforcement, even though the States in question are some of the most active drug States, and there are clear ties between marijuana traffic and ties in harder drugs, as well as marijuana traffic and other violent crime. In the State of Washington, for example, streams of high-potency marijuana are selling for more in Indiana and New York and Boston than cocaine and heroin because its HTC content is not what we saw in the 1960s, 2 to 4 percent, but in the 18 to 30 percent range. That is extremely dangerous to individuals. This amendment would in effect prohibit DEA from enforcing marijuana laws if it claimed it was for medicinal purposes. For that reason, State and local law enforcement officers have opposed this amendment, including the National Narcotic Officers and the FOP, Fraternal Order of Police. Lastly, State medical marijuana laws are a sham. Finally, we have seen these laws do not operate as intended. A State audit in Oregon found that many of those who obtained so-called medicinal marijuana have not provided documentation of their claims. A survey of many HIV patients who claimed to use marijuana for medical purposes found that 57 percent smoked marijuana for mental, rather than physical, reasons and that a third admitted outright that they had smoked marijuana for recreational purposes. Even in California, the State is trying to revoke the license of a physician who has written 7,500 marijuana recommendations for patients without conducting any medical exams. Lastly, we heard that this was citizen-led. What a joke. What we have are people who historically, including some Members of this body, who favor drug legalization in general support this as medicinal marijuana. In fact, what they back more is legalization of marijuana, and this has not been a citizen-led effort. A man named George Soros has poured millions of dollars into these referendums and the citizen groups have predominantly opposed them against an overwhelming number of ads masquerading behind a few herding individuals who have been given false promise by the modern-day medical hustlers, just like they did in the 1900s. This is embarrassing from a legal standpoint and embarrassing from a body that should be upholding the laws of the United States and to be fighting the terrorism on our streets where people are dying and here we are trying to give them cover for this pro-drug movement by acting like it is medicine. It is not medicine. If my colleagues believe it is medicine, get it out of the main and into the people who need it. Do not hide behind marijuana and make it more available so more kids can die in my district and in my colleagues' districts as well. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas ( Mr. Paul ). ( Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks. )Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. As a cosponsor of the amendment, I rise in support of this amendment and appreciate the fact that the gentleman from New York has brought it to the floor. I would suggest that the previous speaker has forgotten some of the law; and to me, that would be the constitutional law of the ninth and tenth amendments. So changing the law is one thing, but remembering the Constitution is another. This has a lot to do with State law; but more importantly, as a physician, I see this bill as something dealing with compassion. As a physician, I have seen those who have died with cancer and getting chemotherapy and with AIDS and having nothing to help them. There is the case in California of Peter McDaniels, who was diagnosed with cancer and AIDS. California changed the law and permitted him to use marijuana if it was self-grown, and he was using it; and yet although he was dying, the Federal officials came in and arrested him and he was taken to court. The terrible irony of this was here was a man that was dying and the physicians were not giving him any help; and when he was tried, it was not allowed to be said that he was obeying the State law. That is how far the ninth and tenth amendments have been undermined, that there has been so much usurpation of States' rights and States' abilities to manage these affair, and that is why the Founders set the system up this way in order that if there is a mistake it not be monolithic; and believe me, the Federal Government has made a mistake not only here with marijuana, with all the drug laws, let me tell my colleagues. There are more people who die from the use of legal drugs than illegal drugs. Just think of that. More people die from the use of legal drugs; and also, there are more deaths from the drug war than there are from deaths from using the illegal drugs. So it has gotten out of control. But the whole idea that a person who is dying, a physician cannot even prescribe something that might help them. The terrible irony of Peter McDaniels was that he died because of vomiting, something that could have and had only been curtailed by the use of marijuana. No other medication had helped; and we, the Federal Government, go in there and deny this and defy the State law, the State law of California. Yes, I would grant my colleagues there is danger in all medications. There is some danger in marijuana, but I do not know of any deaths that is purely marijuana-related. If we want to talk about a deadly medication or a deadly drug that kills literally tens of thousands in this country, it is alcohol. And how many people want to go back to prohibition? I mean, nobody's proposing that, and yet that is a deadly drug. The whole notion that we can deny this right to the States to allow a little bit of compassion for a patient that is dying, I would say this is a compassionate vote. If we care about the people being sick, then we have to vote for this amendment. This will do nothing to increase the use of bad drugs. The bad drugs are there; and as a physician and a parent and a grandparent, I preach against it all the time, but the unwise use of drugs is a medical problem, just like alcoholism is a medical problem; but we have turned this into a monster to the point where we will not even allow a person dying from cancer and AIDS to get a little bit of relief. I strongly urge support and a positive vote for this amendment. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona ( Mr. Shadegg ). Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment and in very strong disagreement with the last speaker. The reality is his point would be well taken if indeed there were medical evidence that medicinal marijuana helped people, but there is none. In his entire testimony there was not a single citation to a study that showed medical marijuana, in fact, helps, as my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana ( Mr. Souder ), pointed out earlier where indeed the medical evidence is to the contrary. And that leads me to an important part of the case against this amendment I think it is very important for people to understand, and that is, how did we get where we are? We got to this position because in a handful of States across the country, valiant initiatives have been raised to legalize medical marijuana. My State happens to be one of those States, but let me make it clear to my colleagues what happened in those campaigns in those States. First, make no mistake about it, law enforcement agents in every single one of those States opposed the medical marijuana initiative. They did so for good and solid reasons: number one, there is no medical benefit; but, number two, marijuana is a precursor drug. Make no mistake about it, today's marijuana is not the marijuana that we had 40 or 30 or 20 or even 10 years ago. The potency of today's marijuana is dramatically higher, shockingly higher than the marijuana that existed and was around in the 1960s. But what else happened in those campaigns? The other important thing that happened in those campaigns is that the people were led astray by massive spending. My colleague, the gentleman from Indiana ( Mr. Souder ), pointed out that some proponents of this idea, including one who happens to be a resident of my State, have spent many millions of dollars advocating the legalization of marijuana; and they have outspent the opponents of these measures by two, three, four, five, 10 times. In my State of Arizona in two different campaigns the proponents of legalizing medical marijuana outspent the opponents by a dramatic amount of money. When we stack the debate, when only one side of the argument gets out, of course they are going to win. Let us talk about what happens with this marijuana, and I disagree so strongly with my colleague who spoke just a moment ago. The reality is that in this Nation we have a serious drug problem confronting our youth, and why do we have that drug problem? We have that drug problem because of this very debate, because as a Nation we have not decided that drugs, illegal drugs, marijuana for one and many others, are bad. Indeed, we have leaders of the Nation saying, oh, it is all right, we are not really going to go against it; we are not really going to enforce these laws; we do not care about these laws. How do my colleagues think kids react to that? I will tell my colleagues how I raised my kids. I raised my kids to see these are the rules, you violate these rules, you will be punished. You know what? My kids understood the rules because when they violated them, we punished them. That is not what we do with drugs in America. We say if it is a drug we will look the other way; we will let it go; we are not really committed to enforcing our Nation's drugs law. Now look at the hypocrisy, the outrageous hypocrisy of this proposal. Now we are going to say, yeah, we have Federal laws against these drugs; we have Federal laws against marijuana; we believe that those laws are valid and good and appropriate, but you know what, in some States we will not enforce them because in some States we do not want to enforce them. So if the FBI is dealing with a person and they happen to be in Maryland, they get one set of rules; but if they happen to be in Arizona, they get another set of rules. What about those States that border each other? What about New Jersey right next to New York? What about Arizona right next to California? What about all kinds of other border jurisdictions? We want the laws of this Nation to say that in this State the Federal antidrug laws on marijuana will be enforced, but right across the river in Kansas City, Missouri, versus Kansas City, Kansas, we are not going to enforce that law? Do my colleagues not think that will send a confused message to our kids about our Nation's policy on illegal drugs? Do my colleagues not think that will lead to more kids getting involved in drugs? The most outrageous statement made on this floor on this House tonight was the statement that sending the message to our kids that some drugs are okay will not lead them to use those drugs or other drugs and will not lead to an increase in the use of illegal drugs. That is the most outrageous and absurd concept we can possibly embrace, and I hope this House will reject it. We cannot afford to confuse our Nation's children. We cannot afford to tell them that marijuana is okay. We cannot afford to let them begin to use the dramatically more potent marijuana that is on the streets today and coming through my State of Arizona, to your State and your district by some confused policy that says, well, we think it is bad in some States, but we do not think it is bad in others. The truth is, the gentleman who spoke before me believes we should legalize all drugs, and that is a valid and fair position; but take that issue directly to the substance of this Congress, propose it as a law, propose to amend the Federal laws that prohibit the possession and the use and the sale of marijuana and talk that debate straight up. Do not do it by subterfuge. Do not do it under the table. Do not do it by saying in one State we are going to enforce the Federal law and in another State we are not, because if we want to confuse a generation of America's children, that is the way to do it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio ( Mr. Kucinich ). Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. There is a context here which is worth reflecting on, and that is the law enforcement policies of an administration which cannot effectively meet the challenge of international terrorism, but is ready to wage a phony drug war, including locking up people dying of cancer simply because those poor souls seek relief from horrible pain. I ask, can we truly be so lacking in compassion? This is not about legalizing marijuana. That is just a smoke screen. It is an amendment to end Federal raids on medical marijuana patients and providers in States where medical marijuana is legal. Despite marijuana's recognized therapeutic value, including a National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine report, recommending its use in certain circumstances, Federal law refuses to recognize the importance and safety of medicinal marijuana. Instead, Federal penalties for all marijuana use, regardless of purpose, include up to a year in prison for the possession of even small amounts. Let us reflect again on how cynical and how dark it is to even contemplate sending someone to prison for a year when they may not even have that much time left in their life; but since 1996, eight States have enacted laws to allow very ill patients to use medical marijuana in spite of Federal law. The present administration has sought to override such State statutes, viewing the use of medicinal marijuana for purposes in the same light as heroin or cocaine. Last year, Federal agents raided the Women and Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, an organization that under California State law legally dispensed marijuana to patients whose doctors had recommended it for pain and suffering. Eighty-five percent of this organization's 225 members were terminally ill with cancer or AIDS. This is about compassion. The Federal Government should use its power to help terminally ill citizens, not arrest them. And States deserve to have the right to make their own decisions regarding the use of medical marijuana. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida ( Mr. Mica ). Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time. I had the opportunity in Congress some 2 1/2 years ago to chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources for some 2 years. During that time, I held the first hearings, really, in Congress on the question of legalization of marijuana; and I tried to approach the issue of the medical use of marijuana from an open standpoint. We conducted hearings and brought in what we considered were the best medical experts, and we dug into all of the testimony. And, my colleagues, I can say here tonight that we did not find one scintilla of evidence that there was any medical benefit by consuming marijuana, whether an individual was healthy or whether they were ill, or terminally ill. There was no evidence to that effect. It has become sort of a cause celebre to promote these initiatives with huge amounts of money. And at first blush, I think people support some of these as possibly being compassionate, as we hear here. We have also heard here that the medical use of marijuana will relieve pain. Well, I can say also from chairing that subcommittee that that is not the case. In fact, anything that we do to encourage use, whether for this purpose or other purposes, will not relieve pain, it will cause pain. Certainly, I am sure if someone smoked enough marijuana or took enough crack or enough heroin or methamphetamines, they would not have any pain. What we did learn in our testimony and what I have learned over the several years that I have served on that committee in the Congress is, we did learn this one thing. We learned that the marijuana that we have on the market today, and we have heard this from the previous chairman, the gentleman from Indiana ( Mr. Souder ) and others, who cited that today's marijuana is not the marijuana we had some 20 or 30 years ago. There is a several hundred percent increase in potency in what is on the market. We also heard that marijuana is the greatest substance abuse of our teenagers, even exceeding, believe it or not, alcohol today. We also learned that there are more than 19,000 drug-related deaths in the United States, overdose deaths, which now exceed homicides. And everything we do towards trying to glorify or utilize marijuana for whatever use or whatever purpose does lead more of our young people to use this. Marijuana is a gateway drug, and so we end up with a death toll that we have seen so painfully across this Nation. So if the object here is to relieve pain, that is not what is being done. It will cause pain. Almost every police group opposes the Hinchey amendment. Let me just read some of the folks that oppose it. The Fraternal Order of Police, the world's largest police union, made up of 300,000 members of State and local enforcement officers nationwide, and the National Narcotics Officers' Association Coalition, with more than 60,000 members, have expressed strong opposition to the Hinchey amendment that would prohibit enforcement of Federal marijuana laws in some States but not in others. Police groups oppose the amendment because Federal enforcement of marijuana helps deter use and trafficking in harder drugs and also in related crimes against property and some of our most violent crime. Finally, some of those police groups that oppose the Hinchey amendment have said to us, we strongly encourage Members of Congress who support their local police officers and law enforcement to oppose this amendment. And we have letters from the National Narcotics Officers' Association Coalition and the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police stating their clear opposition. Again, I think the presentation of this amendment has been that this would relieve pain and be compassionate. My colleagues, this will cause pain, and there are many who confirm that. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire the remaining time? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York ( Mr. Hinchey ) has 16 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia ( Mr. Wolf ) has 11 minutes remaining. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California ( Ms. Woolsey ). Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I believe we should respect the State authority in regards to medical marijuana, and I remind my colleagues that we are not talking about illegal drugs, we are talking about medicinal marijuana, legally supported by 10 States. As my colleagues know, in my home State of California, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215, allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Like my constituents, I believe that doctors should be permitted to prescribe marijuana for patients suffering from cancer, or AIDS, or glaucoma, spastic disorders, and other debilitating diseases. The people that I represent from Marin and Sonoma Counties, Mr. Chairman, just over the Golden Gate Bridge, and my colleagues will not be surprised, it is a very progressive area in our country, but they want their doctors to be permitted to prescribe marijuana for their patients suffering from debilitating diseases; and they believe that the Federal Government should get out of the way. They should not butt in. And that is why I support this amendment, because it would stop the Justice Department from punishing those who are abiding by their State's laws. Please join me in supporting this important amendment so that those who suffer from debilitating diseases can get relief without the fear of Federal interference. Mr. Chairman, I call on all Members of this Congress, particularly those who believe in States' rights, to let States represent their voters. It is not okay to pick and choose where States can butt in and where they have the ultimate responsibility based on ideologies. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York ( Mr. Nadler ). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to begin by reading from an editorial that appeared in the New York Daily News this past Sunday, written by a Richard Brookhiser, who is a senior editor of the National Review, a very noted conservative magazine founded by William F. Buckley. He writes as follows: "Earlier this year, the New York State Association of County Health Officials, as cautious a bunch as you will find in the medical community, urged New York lawmakers to pass legislation to legalize the medical use of marijuana. It is past time to remove patients fighting cancer, AIDS, and other scourges from the battlefield of the war on drugs. "The legalization of medical marijuana would be a step forward for the health of all New Yorkers, the Association of County Health Officials declared. Marijuana has proven to be effective in the treatment of people with HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and those suffering from severe pain and nausea. "I discovered," that is, he did; I am quoting the article. "I discovered marijuana's benefits while receiving chemotherapy for testicular cancer in 1992. Part way through my treatment, the conventional antinausea drugs prescribed by my doctors stopped working. Marijuana was the only thing that kept my head out of the toilet. "I was lucky. As a member of the media elite, I probably wasn't at huge risk for a drug bust. Living here, I was able to obtain my herb under the cover of urban anonymity. But people shouldn't have to depend on professional status or the luck of geography. Putting such patients in jail for the 'crime' of trying to relieve some of the misery caused by their illnesses is cruel. "The consensus regarding marijuana's medical value grows every day. Just this May, The Lancet Neurology noted that marijuana's active components are effective against pain in virtually every lab test scientists have devised, and even speculated that it could become 'the aspirin of the 21st century.' "Marijuana does have risks, but so do all drugs. Recent researchers documented that relatively simple vaporizers can allow users to inhale the active ingredients with almost none of the irritants in smoke. "Ten States now have laws allowing medical use of marijuana with a physician's recommendation, and those laws have been successful. Last year, the General Accounting Office interviewed 37 law enforcement agencies in those States, reporting that the majority of those interviewed 'indicated that medical marijuana laws has had little impact on their law enforcement activities.' "As a conservative, I am not surprised that common sense is bubbling up from the State level while Federal marijuana laws remain stuck in the 1930s. Federal law will change eventually, because science, common sense, and human decency require it." That is the article. Mr. Chairman, I am not a conservative, as most of my colleagues know. I am a liberal. But I certainly agree with this conservative writer and editor. The fact of the matter is, we ought to let doctors prescribe the medicines they feel would be most effective for their patients. It is not up to us to stand up on the floor of this House and declare with the expertise of the politicians that we are that marijuana, or morphine, or tetracycline is not an effective drug. That is the job of the doctors and the medical professionals to make those judgments. We can prosecute doctors or others who may abuse this privilege. We allow morphine's use for medical purposes. No one has legalized the general use of morphine, or heroin, from which it is derived. But for medical purposes, we use it as a painkiller all the time. Most of our drugs, if misused, are dangerous and even toxic, but we allow their use to heal the sick under a physician's supervision. Why should marijuana be any different? Sure, it is a dangerous drug. I certainly do not deny that. But for certain diseases, for certain conditions, it can help people. It can make their lives bearable. Let the doctors make those decisions, not the politicians. Let the doctors decide what will work for someone's illness, and let them be subject to the normal medical discipline procedures for the normal uses of the law for those who would abuse their ability to prescribe a drug. Mr. Chairman, let marijuana be treated as a drug the way morphine is, the way other powerful drugs are. Let people be healed. Let them feel better. Let people with HIV or AIDS or cancer be able to hold their food. Let them survive longer. And let us fight the drug war on a different battlefield. 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=COPlus 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.htmlPart 3 & 4The Debate: Hinchey - Rohrabacher Amendmenthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16933.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help






 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on July 24, 2003 at 11:48:30 PT

Kegan 
I agree with you but what can we do about it? I just can't come up with anything.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by Kegan on July 24, 2003 at 06:43:23 PT

Congratulations!
Well, America...... these guys are wiping their butts with YOUR constitution.There are 350,000,000 of you. What are YOU gonna do about it?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by i420 on July 24, 2003 at 05:32:14 PT

How many times...
How many times have we heard the phrase "If you don't like the law change it?" well that is EXACTLY what the PEOPLE in 10 states have done but yet people like Mark Souder still cannot accept the fact this IS the will of the people. No wonder so many people are so upset with the government they won't even go vote. No wonder we have less than a 20% voter turnout in Mark Souders district. The only reason Mark Souder is still in office is because he hasn't had an opponent that the people of northeast Indiana would support. His last opponent was a jerked over democrate and his opponent before that was..... I won't even go there.
Still Mark Souders days in public office are numbered I surely hope he has his resume up to date.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment