cannabisnews.com: Lawmakers Say No To Medical Marijuana





Lawmakers Say No To Medical Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on July 08, 2004 at 14:34:36 PT
By Todd Zwillich, WebMD Medical News  
Source: WebMD
The House of Representatives has defeated a measure that would have barred drug officials from enforcing federal anti-marijuana laws. The federal government can prosecute people who use marijuana for medical reasons in states that allowing medical use of the drug. Lawmakers voted down the amendment, which would have allowed states with medical marijuana laws to regulate the practice without federal interference.
Nine states -- California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Nevada -- have laws allowing patients to legally use marijuana if it is recommended and supervised by a physician. California officials have clashed with federal drug enforcement agencies in recent years over federal raids of marijuana growing and distribution operations that were operating with a state license. Federal officials have said that national drug laws override states laws or referenda supporting medical marijuana and that the raids are an important part of national drug control strategy. The amendment had limited bipartisan support among lawmakers but was strongly opposed by the White House and several anti-drug groups. "The legalization of medical marijuana is simply the first step in a scheme to overturn all the substance abuse laws that we work hard to enforce today," says Rep. Max Burns (R-Ga.) Some patients use marijuana for its ability to relieve a variety of symptoms, including pain and nausea associated with chemotherapy, muscle spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis, and extreme weight loss caused by AIDS. A report from the Institute of Medicine in 1999 says marijuana holds promise for treating some symptoms but that smoking is an unreliable and dangerous form of drug delivery. Supporters in the House say state medical marijuana laws have allowed doctors and patients to use the drug more responsibly. "Because of these state laws, thousands of patients are able to alleviate their pain and suffering without fear of arrest by state or local authorities," says Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) Courts Involved The House rejected a similar measure last year. But a handful of federal courts have sided with states asking in effect to be exempt from federal marijuana laws when it comes to medical use. The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to hear a case challenging the federal government's enforcement of anti-marijuana laws in states with medical legalization. The court is expected to hear the case in November or December, with a decision following in spring or summer of 2005. Lawmakers' action on the medical marijuana question is "disheartening," especially for Californians, who have seen the most federal marijuana raids, says Eric E. Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a group advocating for looser drug laws. "But [medical marijuana supporters] have a fair reason to be optimistic that the Supreme Court may rule in their favor in this case," he tells WebMD. Arthur T. Dean, chairman of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, tells WebMD that his group lobbied hard against the House amendment and would also contribute briefs in the upcoming Supreme Court case. The group maintains that medical marijuana legalization sends mixed messages to American children and teens about the risks of drug use. "We believe that if the justices fully understand the impact from a health perspective that smoked marijuana has, we're hopeful that they'll rule on the side of kids," Dean says. SOURCES: Rep. Max Burns (R-Ga.). Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.). Eric Sterling, president, Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. Arthur T. Dean, chairman, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. Note: House Rejects an Amendment Barring Feds From States With Legalization.Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MDSource: WebMD (US)Author: Todd Zwillich, WebMD Medical News  Published: Thursday, July 08, 2004 Copyright: 2004 WebMD Inc.Contact: Sswint webmd.net Website: http://www.webmd.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:CJPFhttp://www.cjpf.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Drug Policy Alliancehttp://www.drugpolicy.org/House Opposes Effort by States To Allow MMJhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19149.shtmlCongress To Vote on Medical Marijuana Raids http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19144.shtmlFeds' Wayward Path on Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19142.shtml 
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by hubbs on July 11, 2004 at 22:01:11 PT
Friends and Foes of the Farr Amendment
Friends and Foes of the Farr AmendmentA quick background: Roll Call 334 on July 7th in the House was a vote that, if passed, would "... prohibit the use of funds in the bill to prevent the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont or Washington from implementing state laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana." A vote for this amendment is a good thing (keeps sick people out of jail) and a vote against it is a bad thing (puts sick people in jail). Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont and Washington are states that have medical marijuana laws, here after listed as "MM States". Medical marijuana will also be shortened to "MM"Here's a list of "friends" and "foes": The "Friends"The "friends" are Congressmen that live in a "MM State" and voted for the amendment. IF your Congressman is listed as a "friend" PLEASE take a minute to call them and thank them for voting for the way they did (and trying to keep the sick and dying out of jail)."Special Friends""Special friends" are Republicans that voted for this amendment and do not live in a state with MM laws. They did the right thing. They'll take "heat" for their vote from conservative constituents so they need our support. They could've easily screwed us for points back home but they didn't. Please thank them.The "Foes"The "foes" are Congressmen that live in a "MM State" and voted to allow the Department of Justice to jail the sick and dying FROM THEIR OWN STATE. If your Congressman is listed as a "foe" PLEASE take a minute to call them at their Washington office and tell them that you believe it is wrong for them to want to jail his sick and dying constituents. Please be polite as an irrational caller will be quickly dismissed. After that, call his local (in your state) office and find out when he's making a public "question and answer" appearance. Don't mention the MM vote as they may "misinform" you of the time and date. Go to that appearance, bring a few friends and publicly shame him, but be polite. If possible, have someone (lurking in the back somewhat out of sight) there with a video camera. There are places that will air the exchange like Pot TV (pottv.com). Ask a question like (btw, write it down and practice in advance the possible exchange with someone): For those in a MM State but California: "Congressman Scumbag, on July 7th, in Roll Call 334, you voted to allow the Department of Justice to continue arresting and prosecuting the sick and dying that are correctly following this State's medical marijuana laws. Do you feel that prison is the best place for your chronically and terminally ill constituents?"For those in California: "Congressman Scumbag, on July 7th, in Roll Call 334, you voted to allow the Department of Justice to continue arresting and prosecuting the sick and dying that are correctly following California's Compassionate Use Act. Do you feel that prison is the best place for your chronically and terminally ill constituents?"This question makes for a nice sound bite for the the media and should catch him off guard. The point is there is no good reply to it. If he "dances" around the question and doesn't answer restate the latter part "Do you feel that prison is the best place for your chronically and terminally ill constituents that are following State law?". If he says something like "Federal law overrules State law" remind him that is true only in matters of "interstate commerce" and the Supreme Court in "United States v. Lopez" (1995) and "United States v. Morrison" (2000) ruled both times that laws against noncommercial intrastate activity are not valid. Then again ask him "I think that your constituents would like to know if you feel that prison is the best place for the chronically and terminally ill that are correctly following State law?" Don't let him avoid answering the question!
At a latter date I'll make up some posters in pdf format expressing the above sentiment. Hopefully people living in the districts represented by those on the "foes" list can post them on local school campuses, bus stops, book stores or anyplace you can.Please confirm your Representative's vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll334.xml before calling. Remember: "AYES" good and are our "friends", "NOES" bad and are our "foes". Even if your Representative is not listed on my post check out the list and either thank or chide them for their vote. They need positive or negative feedback.-The "Friends" list (listed by State). These people did the right thing:Alaska: A lonely place without a friendCalifornia: Becerra, Xavier; Berman, Howard; Bono, Mary; Capps, Lois; Davis, Susan; Dooley, Cal; Eshoo, Anna G.; Farr, Sam (Extra thanks since he was the Author of the Amendment.); Filner, Bob; Harman, Jane; Lantos, Tom; Lee, Barbara; Lofgren, Zoe; Millender-McDonald, Juanita; Miller, George; Napolitano, Grace; Pelosi, Nancy; Rohrabacher, Dana; Roybal-Allard, Lucille; Sanchez, Linda; Sanchez, Loretta; Schiff, Adam; Sherman, Brad; Solis, Hilda; Stark, Fortney Pete; Tauscher, Ellen; Thompson, Mike; Waters, Maxine; Watson, Diane E.; Waxman, Henry; Woolsey, LynnColorado: Beauprez, Bob; DeGette, Diana; Tancredo, Tom; Udall, MarkHawaii: Abercrombie, Neil; Case, EdMaine: Allen, Tom; Michaud, MichaelMaryland: Bartlett, Roscoe; Gilchrest, Wayne; Hoyer, Steny H.; Ruppersberger, Dutch; Van Hollen, Chris; Wynn, AlbertOregon: DeFazio, Peter; Hooley, DarleneVermont: Sanders, BernieWashington: Baird, Brian; Dicks, Norman D.; Inslee, Jay; Larsen, Rick; McDermott, Jim; Smith, Adam-The "Special Friends" (and their State). Please thank them: Flake, Jeff (AZ); Johnson, Nancy L. (CT); Simmons, Rob (CT); Leach, Jim (IA); Otter, Butch (ID); Simpson, Mike (ID) (There are only two Representatives from Idaho, both Republicans, and they both voted the right way! This is good news.); Johnson, Timothy V. (IL); Graves, Sam (MO); Garrett, Scott (NJ); Porter, Jon (NV); Boehlert, Sherwood L. (NY); LaTourette, Steven C. (OH); Paul, Ron, MD (TX); Culberson, John (TX)-The "Foes" list (listed by State):Alaska: Young, Don (Didn't vote and should be asked why.)California (Because of the clarity of California's Compassionate Use Act it is of the utmost importance that these "foes" get telephoned and, if possible, publicly shamed. They know that their "no" vote will help put their constituents IN JAIL. If your Congressman is listed here PLEASE help us): Baca, Joe; Calvert, Ken; Cardoza, Dennis; Cox, Christopher; Cunningham, Randy "Duke"; Doolittle, John; Dreier, David; Gallegly, Elton; Herger, Wally; Hunter, Duncan; Issa, Darrell; Lewis, Jerry; McKeon, Buck; Miller, Gary; Nunes, Devin; Ose, Doug; Pombo, Richard; Radanovich, George P.; Royce, Ed; Thomas, Bill; Honda, Mike (Didn't vote and should be asked why.); Matsui, Robert (Didn't vote and should be asked why.)Colorado: Hefley, Joel; McInnis, Scott; Musgrave, MarilynHawaii: No foes!Maine: No foes!Maryland: Cummings, ElijahOregon: Wu, David; Blumenauer, Earl (Didn't vote and should be asked why.)Vermont: No foes!Washington: Dunn, Jennifer; Hastings, Doc; Nethercutt Jr.-Please, if your representative is listed above PLEASE call them. Be polite, thank our "friends" and chide our "foes". There's the belief that every call represents the opinion of at least 100 voters. Please make your voice heard. Make copies of this posting, give them to your friends and get them to call.To get more information like phone numbers go to: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html and find your Representative.Thanks for reading such a long winded post.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by shrox on July 08, 2004 at 16:23:18 PT
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
"For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all."The government claims there is no need to research medical cannabis. What possible good could have been obtained from such horrifying mistreatment of American citizens? How then could The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment have been allowed? It lasted until 1972! If my case continues, I intend to bring this up in my arguement. The government has demonstrated an inability to distingish what will do a person good or what will do a person harm.I would describe President Bush like this, if there was a bad storm coming, he would run to your storm shelter, lock himself in and then praise you for your nobel sacrifice through the locked door. He is a coward.shrox 
http://www.shrox.com/spiceflow.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on July 08, 2004 at 15:08:09 PT:
In the immoratl words of Chumbwumba
"I get knocked down; but I get up again! You're never gonna keep me down!"We will keep coming back, year after year, if it that's what it takes, until the dinosaurs die off or are replaced with those whose minds have not been calcified so much they are able to see the cost/benefit analysis clearly.And, and of course, the children: we can't forget the fact that the majority of drugs any child purchases are generally bought from peers...on the playground...in school.If you can't keep it out of prisons - and take a look at modern schools; they resemble the former institutions more and more in construction and operation - then you can't keep it away from anyone. And the kiddies are laughing up their sleeves at their anti parents. Laughing at Mr. Dean, who evidently thinks he is making a difference. So sad.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment