|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Drugs |
|
US Rep. Tim Johnson Votes In Favor Of Medicinal Marijuana |
Current rating: 0 |
by green grass and high tides
(No verified email address) |
24 Jul 2003
Modified: 04:25:38 PM |
|
U.S Rep. Tim Johnson voted in favor of the Hinchey Amendment, which would have prevented the federal government from using any taxpayer money to prosecute or discrminate against patinets and doctors over the use of medicinal marijuana under laws in effect in nine states. This humanitarian amendment was, unfortunately, defeated today in Congress. |
U.S Rep. Tim Johnson voted in favor of the Hinchey Amendment, which would have prevented the federal government from using any taxpayer money to prosecute or discrminate against patinets and doctors over the use of medicinal marijuana under laws in effect in nine states. This humanitarian amendment was, unfortunately, defeated today in Congress.
Although he has been rightly criticized in many quarters for a sometimes duplictious voting record, where he has switched his votes to suit the political winds or advice from further up in the legislative leadership in both the Illinois House and the U.S. House, Johnson has been a long-time supporter of medical marijuana efforts.
\
Illinois is not one of the nine states that would have been most affected if the Hinchey Amendment had passed, as it's '70s era medical marijuana law was weak when passed and is basically moribund for the little protection that it provided.
Further information is provided in the following article:
Bill to Protect Medicinal Pot Users Falls Short in House
by Edward Epstein
WASHINGTON -- A surprisingly strong bid to shield medicinal pot smokers in California and nine other states from federal prosecution was defeated in the House on Wednesday after a spirited debate that centered on states' rights and even reached back to the pre-Civil War "nullification" debate.
Proponents of the proposal by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, got 152 votes, compared to the 94 votes for medicinal marijuana in a 1998 House vote. But pot opponents still won handily, with 273 votes, down from 311 in 1998.
Hinchey-Rorhabacher supporters cited such recent federal actions as the successful prosecution of San Francisco medicinal pot grower Ed Rosenthal as the actions of an over-reaching Department of Justice.
"It is a travesty for the federal government to send agents into my state and throw people in a cage for doing something that people in my state say is legal," Rohrabacher, a self-described libertarian Republican, told the House as it debated the measure late Tuesday night.
He choked up as he told colleagues that he wished legal pot had been available when his mother was dying from cancer.
California voters easily passed Proposition 215 in 1996 by 56 percent to 44 percent to allow patients to get marijuana with a doctor's recommendation to treat the pain of such ailments as cancer, AIDS or glaucoma. Ever since, federal authorities have made it clear that they don't view the law as valid. Through such actions as Rosenthal's prosecution or the raid last year on a Santa Cruz pot farm, the Drug Enforcement Administration has thrown a damper on Prop. 215.
Similar federal efforts have occurred in the other nine medicinal pot states: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
The Hinchey-Rohrabacher measure would have barred the Justice Department from challenging the state medicinal pot laws.
Opponents of the amendment to the Justice Department authorization bill say states don't have the right to unilaterally override a federal law.
"You can't have states passing laws to nullify some of the things we do here," said Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind. "If we want to change drug laws, you should come and change those laws."
Nullification is a constitutional theory, first championed in the 1830s by South Carolina's John C. Calhoun, that says a state can declare null and void any law passed by Congress that the state deems unacceptable. Southerners put the idea forward in the run-up to the Civil War.
"The implication is that the federal government does not have the right to legislate drug laws," said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz. He reminded pot advocates that states' rights advocates had used that argument to oppose civil rights laws.
But Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, said that civil rights laws were about ending segregation laws that disadvantaged a large group of Americans. "Medical marijuana is an issue of states' rights that will not harm others," she said.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, said her constituents wanted to be left alone. "I represent Marin and Sonoma counties, 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," she said. "And they believe that the federal government should get out of the way."
Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project said the growing support for medicinal pot "can be taken as a sign that this is an issue of compassion, not a sinister drug-legalization effort."
"The vote is clearly moving in our favor," he added.
But Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., has a different view. "This is a cultural issue, " he said. "It's about taking the culture in the wrong direction. Medical marijuana laws send the wrong message to our youth."
Among California's 53 members, only two others among the 20 Republicans -- Mary Bono of Palm Springs and Bill Thomas of Bakersfield -- sided with Rohrabacher. Two of the 33 Democrats, Dennis Cardoza of Modesto and Joe Baca of San Bernardino, voted against the measure.
Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, did not vote.
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
Proponents of the proposal by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, got 152 votes, compared to the 94 votes for medicinal marijuana in a 1998 House vote. But pot opponents still won handily, with 273 votes, down from 311 in 1998.
Hinchey-Rorhabacher supporters cited such recent federal actions as the successful prosecution of San Francisco medicinal pot grower Ed Rosenthal as the actions of an over-reaching Department of Justice.
"It is a travesty for the federal government to send agents into my state and throw people in a cage for doing something that people in my state say is legal," Rohrabacher, a self-described libertarian Republican, told the House as it debated the measure late Tuesday night.
He choked up as he told colleagues that he wished legal pot had been available when his mother was dying from cancer.
California voters easily passed Proposition 215 in 1996 by 56 percent to 44 percent to allow patients to get marijuana with a doctor's recommendation to treat the pain of such ailments as cancer, AIDS or glaucoma. Ever since, federal authorities have made it clear that they don't view the law as valid. Through such actions as Rosenthal's prosecution or the raid last year on a Santa Cruz pot farm, the Drug Enforcement Administration has thrown a damper on Prop. 215.
Similar federal efforts have occurred in the other nine medicinal pot states: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
The Hinchey-Rohrabacher measure would have barred the Justice Department from challenging the state medicinal pot laws.
Opponents of the amendment to the Justice Department authorization bill say states don't have the right to unilaterally override a federal law.
"You can't have states passing laws to nullify some of the things we do here," said Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind. "If we want to change drug laws, you should come and change those laws."
Nullification is a constitutional theory, first championed in the 1830s by South Carolina's John C. Calhoun, that says a state can declare null and void any law passed by Congress that the state deems unacceptable. Southerners put the idea forward in the run-up to the Civil War.
"The implication is that the federal government does not have the right to legislate drug laws," said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz. He reminded pot advocates that states' rights advocates had used that argument to oppose civil rights laws.
But Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, said that civil rights laws were about ending segregation laws that disadvantaged a large group of Americans. "Medical marijuana is an issue of states' rights that will not harm others," she said.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, said her constituents wanted to be left alone. "I represent Marin and Sonoma counties, 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," she said. "And they believe that the federal government should get out of the way."
Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project said the growing support for medicinal pot "can be taken as a sign that this is an issue of compassion, not a sinister drug-legalization effort."
"The vote is clearly moving in our favor," he added.
But Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., has a different view. "This is a cultural issue, " he said. "It's about taking the culture in the wrong direction. Medical marijuana laws send the wrong message to our youth."
Among California's 53 members, only two others among the 20 Republicans -- Mary Bono of Palm Springs and Bill Thomas of Bakersfield -- sided with Rohrabacher. Two of the 33 Democrats, Dennis Cardoza of Modesto and Joe Baca of San Bernardino, voted against the measure.
Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, did not vote.
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
How did your representative vote?
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=420 |
Comments
|
House Votes To Continue Attacks On Patients |
by MPP
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Jul 2003
|
WASHINGTON - July 24 - The U.S. House of Representatives voted today to allow the Bush administration's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to continue raiding and arresting seriously ill medical marijuana patients and caregivers in states that allow the medical use of marijuana. Nevertheless, patients and advocates were cheered by the growth in the number of congressional allies since the last House vote on medical marijuana in 1998 -- and by the fact that more than two thirds of House Democrats voted to protect patients. The overall vote was 152 in favor, 273 opposed, and 10 not voting.
Today's vote came on an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill introduced by U.S. Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). The amendment would have barred the Justice Department, including the DEA, from spending any money to raid or arrest medical marijuana patients and providers in states that have eliminated or reduced penalties for medical use of marijuana: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
"By defeating this amendment, the House today guaranteed that patients battling cancer, AIDS, MS, and other terrible illnesses who find relief from medical marijuana will continue to be rousted out of their beds by armed DEA agents, arrested, handcuffed, and jailed," said Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "This will happen even in states where the voters or state legislators have acted to protect patients from just this sort of cruelty and violence.
"It is particularly shocking that only 15 Republicans -- who regularly advocate for states' rights and reduced federal power -- voted to end the DEA's attacks on the sick," Fox continued. "Nevertheless, the 152 votes in favor or protecting patients represent a 62% increase over the last House vote on medical marijuana, so we've made major progress. We are encouraged that more than two thirds of Democrats voted to protect patients."
In 1998, the House passed a resolution condemning state medical marijuana laws by a vote of 311-94.
With nearly 13,000 members nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP works to minimize the harm associated with marijuana -- both the consumption of marijuana and the laws that are intended to prohibit such use. MPP believes that the greatest harm associated with marijuana is imprisonment. To this end, MPP focuses on removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, with a particular emphasis on making marijuana medically available to seriously ill people who have the approval of their doctors. For more information, please visit MarijuanaPolicy.org |
|
