The House of Representatives once again failed to pass the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would have prevented the US Justice Department and particularly the Drug Enforcement Administration from going after legal medical marijuana dispensaries. The Associated Press reported on June 29, 2006
("House Votes To Continue Allowing Federal Prosecution Of Medical Marijuana Users") that
"By a 259-163 vote, the House again turned down an amendment that would have blocked the Justice Department from prosecuting people in the 11 states with such medical marijuana laws."
According to AP,
"The vote came as the House debated a $59.8 billion bill covering the departments of Commerce, Justice and State.
'If the voters have seen to it and a doctor agrees, it's a travesty for the government to intercede ... to get in the way of someone using something to alleviate their suffering,' said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. 'This is something that should be left to the states as American tradition dictates.'"
Following is the
full text of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment:
At the end of the bill ( before the short title ), add the following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may used by the Department of Justice to prevent the States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana, and the Attorney General shall transfer from available appropriations for the current fiscal year for the Department of Justice any amounts that would have been used for such purpose but for this section to ``Drug Enforcement Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', for the Drug Enforcement Administration to assist State and local law enforcement with proper removal and disposal of hazardous materials from illegal methamphetamine labs, including funding for training, technical assistance, a container program, and purchase of equipment to adequately remove and store hazardous material.
The results of the roll-call for the amendment are available from the
House website.
A transcript of the House debate over the amendment is available through
MAPinc.org website. Some excerpts follow.
Rep. David Obey, D-WI: "Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the authors of this amendment. I simply want to say this: If I am terminally ill, it is not anybody's business on this floor how I handle the pain or the illness or the sickness associated with that illness.
With all due respect to all of you, butt out. I did not enter this world with the permission of the Justice Department, and I am certainly not going to depart it by seeking their permission or that of any other authority.
The Congress has no business telling people that they cannot manage their illness or their pain any way they need to. I would trust any doctor in the country before I trust some of the daffy ducks in this institution to decide what I am supposed to do if I am terminally ill.
The idea that somehow this is a gateway that we are creating for a drug like meth is a joke. I detest meth. I have seen what it does. It is a plague on my district. It is especially horrendous in the midwest, and it is getting worse every day. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the management of pain and misery for people who are sick and who are dying.
When is this Congress going to recognize that individuals in their private lives have a right to manage their problems as they see fit without the permission of the big guy in the White House or the big guy in the Justice Department or any of the Lilliputians on this Congressional floor? Wake up."
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-NY: "Our coalition of freedom-minded Republicans and Democrats on this issue is based on compassion for those who are suffering, a commitment to personal liberty and a firm belief in the principles of federalism.
The use of marijuana to relieve the pain of victims of a wide variety of medical conditions is well known and increasingly documented in the media and in medical journals. For many of these people, medical science has not been able to relieve their pain.
Just recently a friend of mine and a friend of many years passed away, Lyn Nofziger, and many of you here probably know him. He was Ronald Reagan's first press secretary. I went to see him after he got out of the hospital with his treatments for cancer.
He had his good days and his bad days. I saw him about a week before he died. And I asked Lyn about it, and he said, yes, sometimes it is bad, and other times it is not, but I could not get myself to eat, and I had the pain no matter what they did for me.
And I said, well, did you ever try that medical marijuana that we have been talking about and debating about? And he got a twinkle in his eye, and he said, yes, I did. And it brought my appetite back, and I slept like a baby. Do not tell me that we should have Federal law enforcement people come into a State where the people have voted to approve that if a doctor agrees and get in the way of Lyn Nofziger or anyone else who is suffering and use Federal money and Federal resources that should be going to fight crime in order to create that obstacle.
That is a travesty. Individuals who live in the 11 States affected by the amendment have been granted by the voters of these States the legal right to use marijuana to alleviate their pain if a doctor agrees. If the voters have so voted and a doctor agrees, it is a travesty for the government to intercede, the Federal Government, allocating our scarce resources to fighting this, getting in the way of someone using something to alleviate their suffering.
This is something which should be left to the States as American tradition dictates. Sandra Day O'Connor stated it best, and she stated that States should serve as a laboratory so that people can try certain new ideas out to see how they work.
Well, the Federal Government should not get in the way of what is going on in these 11 States to see how this works."
Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-NY: "Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with two things: It has to do with compassion, compassion for people who are very seriously ill and/or dying, and the ability of States in which those people live to provide means by which their suffering can be relieved.
It also has to do with one other point, and that is the issue of States' rights, the ability of the States to determine how medical care will be regulated in those States.
We have 11 States in our country, Mr. Chairman, that have determined that it is in the interests of the people of those States that they be allowed to use marijuana for medicinal purposes to alleviate the suffering from such things as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. However, the Federal Government has decided that they are going to intervene and prevent those States from carrying out the laws which were passed in two cases by the State legislatures and in nine cases by referenda by the people of those States.
We will hear from the people who oppose this amendment that marijuana has something to do with a gateway drug. In other words, it introduces people to other drugs. This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with that. This amendment has nothing to do with drug addiction. This amendment has nothing to do with the potential for drug addiction. This amendment simply has to do with the ability of States to relieve the suffering of their citizens without Federal intervention and the right of States to pass laws regulating medical practice without Federal intervention. It is a very simple amendment, and it ought to be passed. Those people here who believe in small government should support it. Those people here who believe in the issue of States' rights ought to support it. And those people here who believe that State governments and the people in those governments have the right to take care of their citizens and alleviate their suffering, those people in this House ought to support this amendment as well."
