cannabisnews.com: Congress Shoots Down Hinchey Amendment





Congress Shoots Down Hinchey Amendment
Posted by CN Staff on July 09, 2004 at 12:45:58 PT
By David Borden, AlterNet
Source: AlterNet
The House rejects an amendment that would have forbidden the DOJ from using its resources to undermine state medical marijuana laws. Two pieces of news this week serve to highlight the extraordinary stupidity inherent in aspects of US anti-drug policy:* On Wednesday, the House of Representatives rejected, for a second time, an amendment originally offered last year by Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) that would have forbid the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using its resources to undermine state medical marijuana laws.
* On Thursday, the Bush administration announced that Bin Laden is organizing to attack the United States again, this year.I'm not in a position to evaluate the Bin Laden claim, but it is certainly plausible. So why would Congress vote down the Hinchey amendment? If they're serious about protecting the nation, they should be shifting as many of their agents to that task as they possibly can. As drug reform elder statesman Arnold Trebach pointed out in a recent interview, "It is absolutely obscene to think we are wasting one second of law enforcement time on drugs" while there are dangerous people in the world who are determined to kill Americans on our own soil and who have a track record for doing so.Not that all conventional law enforcement can be scrapped, of course. But the drug fight was lost before it began. Seventy-three years ago this Tuesday, governments of the world convened the "Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs," purportedly attempting to stop the non-medical use and abuse of drugs through global prohibition. Yet three score and thirteen years later, estimates for the annual flow of money through the illicit global drug trade range from $150-$400 billion per year.Those who allow themselves to think outside the box on this issue understand that these vast funds fuel the criminal underground because of prohibition, not in spite of it or for lack of enough of it. How much crime and violence, how much disorder, how much corruption flows from this warping of the global economy? Though the government's "drugs fund terrorism" ads are fundamentally flawed, they do point to a scary truth: The unregulated profits generated by drug prohibition provide an easy source of revenue for terrorist organizations, some experts think perhaps as much as a third of their money – another reason that the terrorism problem cries out for a move to some form of legalization of drugs as one part of a strategy to address it.How much more extremely do these reasons apply to medical marijuana patients and their providers, in states that consider medical marijuana legal under their own laws no less? And with at least one court just one step under the Supreme Court's level, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, considering federal prohibition of medical marijuana to be unconstitutional and therefore illegal?Such concerns didn't stop DOJ from sending numerous personnel to raid one of California's well known medical marijuana coops less than two weeks after September 11. Nice timing! Congress did nothing to address that bizarre and offensive misallocation of resources. So it's not surprising, even in the face of overwhelming public support for medical marijuana that they would again opt to allow the feds to waste resources attacking sick people who need to use it and disrupting their supply systems.Any member of Congress who voted against the Hinchey amendment must not be truly serious about security or public safety – or the Constitution. Sidebar: Tommy Chong Walks Out of Prison Counterculture icon Tommy Chong walked out of federal prison Tuesday after serving a nine-month sentence as part of the Justice Department's crackdown on bongs, known as Operation Pipedream. Chong was released from the federal Bureau of Prisons Taft Correctional Facility in California.Tommy Chong went to prison because his company, Chong Glass, made the mistake of selling bongs to head shops in Western Pennsylvania, home to one of two US Attorneys who build careers on bong busts. (The other is in Des Moines.) But he also went to prison in part because of his history as an actor, along with Cheech Marin, in a series of pro-marijuana films in the 1970s and early 1980s. At his sentencing, prosecutors urged that his prior conduct be taken into account.Attorney General John Ashcroft crowed at the time of Chong's arrest. "Quite simply, the illegal drug paraphernalia industry has invaded the homes of families across the country without their knowledge," he claimed. "This illegal, billion-dollar industry will no longer be ignored by law enforcement."It largely had been before. But for Ashcroft the bong-makers of America apparently were a threat worthy of the Justice Department's limited resources, and Tommy Chong the perfect symbolic victim. So what if the federal prosecutors, in all too familiar fashion, had to threaten his wife and children to get him to accept a plea deal. That's the American prosecutors' way.Welcome back to the land of the living, Tommy Chong.David Borden is executive director of DRCnet. -- http://www.drcnet.org/Related Articles:He's Taking One Big Hithttp://freedomtoexhale.com/tommy.htmChong Family Values http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17916.shtmlSource: AlterNet (US)Author: David Borden , AlterNetPublished: July 9, 2004Copyright: 2004 Independent Media InstituteContact: letters alternet.org Website: http://www.alternet.org/DL: http://alternet.org/drugreporter/19195/Related Articles & Web Site:The Debate: Hinchey - Rohrabacher http://freedomtoexhale.com/dofcomm.htmReefer Madness - The Gazettehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19156.shtmlLawmakers Say No To Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19152.shtmlHouse Opposes Effort by States To Allow MMJhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19149.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #17 posted by greenmed on July 13, 2004 at 10:42:00 PT
votes: Hinchey (2003) and Farr (2004) Amendments
Comparing the recorded votes for these two amendmentshttp://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2003&rollnumber=420http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2004&rollnumber=334shows some interesting facts.First, the "good guys" who have gained some compassion in the past year, changing a NO vote on Hinchey to a YES on Farr:Bartlett (R-MD), Bell (D-TX), Boehlert (R-NY), Davis (D-FL), Dingell (D-MI), Evans (D-IL), Graves (R-MO), Hoyer (D-MD), LaTourette (R-OH), Leach (R-IA), and Simmons (R-CT).Secondly, those who in the past year have decided that prosecuting medical cannabis users is acceptable, having voted YES on Hinchey, but NO on Farr:Bereuter (R-NE), Brown (D-FL), Meeks (D-NY), Murtha (D-PA), Rahall (D-WV), Stupak (D-MI), Thomas (R-CA), and Thompson (D-MS).Among those who abstained from voting on Hinchey (or were not present) include those who recently supported Farr:Berkley (D-NV), Gephardt (D-MO), and Miller, George (D-CA),and those who opposed Farr:Bishop (R-UT), Ferguson (R-NJ), Ford (D-TN), Neugebauer (R-TX), Pearce (R-NM), and Sullivan (R-OK).Thirdly, those who had an opinion on Hinchey, but who did not vote on Farr, include supporters of the Hinchey amendment:Blumenauer (D-OR), Carson (D-IN), Deutsch (D-FL), Hastings (D-FL), Hinchey (D-NY)!, Honda (D-CA), Jones (D-OH), Matsui (D-CA), and Meek (D-FL),as well as opponents of Hinchey:Boucher (D-VA), Cardin (D-MD), Collins (R-GA), LaHood (R-IL), Tauzin (R-LA), Young (R-AK), and Young (R-FL).Finally, of the seventeen members who did not vote on the Farr amendment, all but two were also absent for roll calls 333 (10:58PM) and 335 (11:12PM). Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Hall (R-TX) were present for those two votes, but did not lodge votes on roll call 334 (the Farr amendment) at 11:05PM.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Max Flowers on July 10, 2004 at 08:51:09 PT
Kapt, his last words were classic
As they went to commercial at the end, Chong quickly said--to Leno's visible discomfort--"Oh and that `Bubba' thing... it doesn't happen."He was referring of course to prison rape, and while I'm glad it didn't happen to him, he's wrong of course in the general sense. It didn't happen to a millionaire celebrity in a federal low-security prison is the reality.There was another funny moment earlier when he was asked what was the worst thing that happened in there, and he said that one day while he was sunbathing, some wind came up and blew dirt onto his oiled body. That was good. I read that as "F you feds, you didn't hurt me at all with your piddly nine months."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by kaptinemo on July 10, 2004 at 04:44:59 PT:
Unfortunately, I missed it.
I hope some 'kind soul' (pun intended) can locate the transcript.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by ekim on July 09, 2004 at 23:35:29 PT
make the movie
Tommy and Cheech defang the commerce claws.
http://www.leap.cc
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on July 09, 2004 at 21:37:10 PT
I Couldn't Stop Laughing
Bless his heart he hasn't lost his sense of humor. I think he will see the whole cannabis culture differently now. He took the rap so his family wouldn't be charged. I knew that but it was great to hear him say it. I know that political campaign people watch Jay Leno so someone important will find out about this show too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Virgil on July 09, 2004 at 21:34:14 PT
Chong's reception was highly uplifting
Jay Leno used the word pissed in regards to Chong's injustice before he ever came on stage. Jay gave him the most warming segment of his monologue saying he had come in on the Red Eye. The crowd could not have been more worshiping of Chong's ordeal and it was almost like love pouring out from the audience.The feds took a beating on this one. They took an old man and made a hero of him. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by SoberStoner on July 09, 2004 at 21:28:17 PT
I want that movie
I hope that Tommy continues to do the right thing and learns from the success of Fahrenheit to make the next C&C movie about how absurd our laws are. The next C&C movie is guaranteed to bring in millions of viewers just because it is a C&C movie.I truly hope that the arrest of Tommy Chong ends the culture war against cannabists. He is as close to a cultural jesus that our community has (for better or worse) and it seems only fitting that he be the one that brings the whole sham down for his false arrest and imprisonment.I'm glad he's finally out. I wonder how many more interviews he will do and how many more millions of people will hear how he was jailed just because of who he is. I really liked the line when jay asked him if his arrest was entrapment and he was like "Well, yeah, but this is America."Welcome back Tommy
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by cloud7 on July 09, 2004 at 21:21:18 PT
I watched it too...
anyone who serves time for a cannabis noncrime is a martyr. His case is especially tragic since he was obviously a political pawn for someone's advancement and immoral agenda. Good show.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on July 09, 2004 at 21:11:42 PT
SoberStoner 
It's Great!!!! I love it!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by SoberStoner on July 09, 2004 at 21:04:54 PT
Go Tommy!
Great show so far, and jay is just letting him talk. Excellent!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on July 09, 2004 at 20:08:07 PT
Friendly Reminder: Tommy Chong on The Tonight Show
I can't wait to hear what he has to say.http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/index.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by shrox on July 09, 2004 at 15:49:53 PT
Starting point for class action lawsuit
Check this, I had an idea about it, it think it could be a strong starting point for a case. I think I have found an argument for medical cannabis. There is a direct analogy to the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. This is from the US CDC site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/tuskegee/minfo.htm-----------Frequently asked questions regarding Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment Q. What period was the study conducted? A. 1932-1972 Q. Was the study only done in (Macon County) 
Alabama? A. Yes Q. Were the men purposely infected with the disease? A. No Q. Was the Tuskegee community aware of the study? A. Yes Local black and white physicians were recruited not to treat the men . 
Autopsy and physical assessments were done at local hospitals. 
A number of faculty and staff of Tuskegee University were involved in the study. Q. When did the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment 
become clearly unethical? A. 1947 when penicillin was the treatment of choice 
and readily available. Q. How did revelations about the study change the 
way we do Public Health Research today? A. Federally supported studies using human subjects 
must be reviewed by Institutional Review Boards. 
Regulations governing confidentiality were 
developed. 
Researchers now must get voluntary informed 
consent from all persons taking part in studies. The key question here is:"When did the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment become clearly unethical? The answer is: "1947 when penicillin was the treatment of choice and readily available. There are a substantial number of doctors for whom the "treatment of choice" for many ailments is medical cannabis. There are numerous credible studies supporting medical cannabis, many from other first world countries. Penicillin was first discovered by bacteriologist Alexander Fleming at St. Mary’s Hospital in London in 1928. It was not until 1939 that Dr. Howard Florey, a future Nobel Laureate, and three colleagues at Oxford University began intensive research and were able to demonstrate penicillin's ability to kill infectious bacteria. The US government actively seeks to stop research into medical cannabis, thus setting themselves up to charges of unethical behavior paralleling the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. While the government in the vast majority of cases has not purposely caused or inflicted a condition upon the populace, it clearly does stand in the way of a credible and effective treatment, much like it prevented the treatment of the subjects in the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, and actively pressured physicians not to inform or treat them for their condition. shrox
http://www.shrox.com/spiceflow.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by billos on July 09, 2004 at 15:12:32 PT
             BIG NEWS
CONGRESS GRANTS BUSH ADMINISTRATION RIGHT TO BREAK LAWS OF PHYSICSPresident Bush today announced that his administration would begin to recruit top scientists around the world in hope to discover how to break the laws of physics.
Bush said that America could not go any further in the war on terrorism until Attorney General Ashcroft is granted the power to break the laws of physics.
Bush said in a closing statement, “We will then begin to be able to rule, I mean control, anything those bastards do.Then he was heard saying, “Then we will go after the terrorists!”
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Virgil on July 09, 2004 at 14:40:02 PT
The link took me to a map too
Here is th link to UK420http://www.uk420.com/boards/index.php?s=b4ef6bc858fc3ec41ccb3f46f7d5dd0f&showtopic=26361
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on July 09, 2004 at 14:11:02 PT
Virgil
The tiny url took me to a Map.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on July 09, 2004 at 14:08:59 PT
Virgil Here's a Related Article
Court Orders Hash off the Streets: http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_1262763_1_A,00.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Virgil on July 09, 2004 at 14:02:51 PT
German Court takes 10 years to go backwards
This is up at UK420- http://tinyurl.com/6The German Federal Constitutional Court has reviewed its previous ruling on the possession of cannabis and returned the carrying of small amounts to the criminal realm.The Federal Constitutional Court (BVG) in Karlsruhe ruled Friday that the possession of small amounts of hashish and carrying cannabis paraphernalia will remain a punishable offence.The ruling dashes the hopes of Germany’s estimated three million pot-smokers that the BVG would reform the laws concerning the drug in its first review since 1994. An official statement said "nothing has changed in the evaluation that cannabis consumption carries substantial dangers and risks" and that there was no reason to change the law.In April 1994, the BVG decided that cannabis possession in small quantities for occasional personal consumption should not be treated as a criminal offence. However, after struggling to find a consensus on how much hash constitutes a "small" quantity and how often is "occasional use," the BVG had decided the simplest solution would be to re-criminalize these gray areas.Greens call for reviewJerzy Montag, the Green Party’s speaker on legal issues in the Bundestag, demanded a review of the judgment. "Hashish is no more dangerous than nicotine and alcohol. Therefore, hashish consumers might not be in any more danger than a smoker or a heavy drinker."The Christian Social Union’s Health Minister Werner Schnappauf held a different view "The gossip around cannabis as a supposedly harmless drug has led to a dangerous increase in youngsters’ consumption," he told reporters. This playing down of the drug is irresponsible, explained Schnappauf and he warned that a new 'entrance culture' where youngsters would try other drugs after smoking dope would be the result of liberalization.Experts' study show risk factor lowHowever, three leading European experts on addiction, who had been charged by the Federal Health Ministry to compile definitive information on the effects of cannabis, came to the conclusion that cannabis consumption was far less risky than first thought. Despite an estimated three million users, fatalities attributed to hashish were lower than the 40,000 deaths through alcohol every year.The study also found that cannabis has a low dependency rate of one to two percent among all users. When presented to the BVG in 1994, the study helped in the decision to decriminalize the possession of small quantities of the drug.But when reviewing the situation, the BVG concluded that the claim that there had been no deaths through cannabis use was unsubstantiated and that the drug remained a risk to youngsters who could still damage themselves while under the influence of the drug, while not actually being harmed by the drug itself.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment