House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday

According to Marijuana Policy Project, a critical vote in the House on medical marijuana will take place Tuesday. Take a moment to visit MPP or NORML and urge your Representatives to support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment to the Justice and other departments' appropriations bill when it comes to the House floor on Tuesday, June 14. The Amendment would:

....prohibit the DOJ and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from spending taxpayers' dollars for the purpose of pursuing "any criminal or civil penalty or remedy against any person for the production, distribution, or use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in a state that authorizes that production, distribution, or use."

Background here. Marijuana Policy Project's action page is here.

< Is Newest Bush Nominee a Bigot? | Geldof Live 8 Conference Call Audio Now Online >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Re: House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    Yeah well the fundy wackjobs will probably start another rare coin investment and "lose" enough to fund their Prohibition in perpetuity.

    Re: House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    write your reps, people. this prohibition serves NO purpose except to further the disconnect between power and reality. thanks from your neighborhood gimp, who now has to buy his herb off the street again.

    Re: House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday (none / 0) (#3)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    And the show must go on! what is the point of this bill? if a person is using Marijuana and that person will be dead within one year, why is the government into what its doing? it is pointless and it shows what an insane government we really are forced to live under...insane and totally pointless, but bush is running things and that is sad.

    Re: House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    Gotta admit, you guys have convinced me. If there are medicinal benefits from mj, and it appears there are, and an inidivdual state permits medical mj, the feds should not prosecute its medical use in that state.

    Re: House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    Hopefully, Congress will step up and do the right thing. I won't hold my breath.

    Re: House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    I'll smoke to that!

    Re: House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    Sarcastic, I've had my views modified a couple of times by postings on this site. Thanks for keeping an open mind. BTW, can a lawyer or reasonable fascimile, explain the logic, strike that, the legal reasoning on how something that is completely in state (growing, distro, using) can have the interstate commerce applied? I've read the opinion and I still can't wrap my head around "Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established" WTF does that mean?

    Re: House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    That is not quite correct. In California, seriously ill Californians can get a recommendation for stress, anger management, shoulder pain, or any other medical condition where marijuana provides relief. Whether you support medical marijuana (And I do not oppose it) or not, there is no true requirement that the person be "seriously ill." And the recommendation requirement is nowhere near less than 1 year to live. The way I understand it is there is enough concern that excess marijuana and people using the medical laws as a cover will have enough effect on the illicit market via supply and demand that even the intrastate use, possession and cultivation can have an impact on interstate use, possession and cultivation... Whether you agree with it or not, there are people in California cultivating marijuana under the guise of medical marijuana and selling it commercially. Sarcastic, The people in this case, Angel Raich and Diane Monson were not being prosecuted. They were proactively suing the Gov't and lost. People in California can still be prosecuted at the state level if it is shown there was possession outside of the medical marijauna laws.

    Re: House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    Thanks Patrick. I was responding to the quote from the amendment to the appropriations bill posted by Jeralyn at the top of the thread regarding preventing the DOJ and DEA from prosecuting medical mj users in states that allow medical mj use. Did I missing something?

    Re: House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday (none / 0) (#10)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    Sarcastic, I can only speak for my experience, and I'm sure there stories to the contrary, but the DEA has threshold limits in California and does not normally target people who would fall into the exemptions of the medical marijauna law. They will of course respond to assist local agencies if requested by that agency. They also provide funding to local agencies for marijauna eradication. In my agency we pretty much focus our eradication efforts towards cultivation on public lands and illegal cultivation on private lands (i.e. without the property owners permission or commercial scale) Both of which are prima facia cultivation outside the protections of the medical marijauna laws. That said, I think California has a pretty fair balance in the enforcement of marijauna laws despite the fact that the laws have numerous loopholes which are being worked on. I do not support recreational legalization for reasons I've explained here ad nauseum, but I also do not support sending people to prison for simple possession (Which California does not do, despite some comments to the contrary). I've flown overflights for marijuana eradication for several years. I cannot count the number of backyard marijuana gardens I've seen and done nothing about. Our philosophy is that if a person is going to cultivate it in a manner which clearly shows possession (in their backyard or on their clearly marked property) and it appears to be anywhere near the legal limits (12 plants per person) we don't even verify it, we just move on. I dare say we don't have the resources to verify every garden I spotted in just one day of flying. I don't think you missed anything as much as I don't believe it can be that cut and dry. Simply claiming medical marijauna should not immunize someone from prosecution. There should be some requirement of an evidentiary showing. An affirmative defense so to speak. That way the federal law would nearly mirror the state law. I also think persons who want to cultivate marijuana should be required to allow some type of inspection either by law enforcement or public health or some agency. I know this stinks of a 4th issue, but there has to be some control lest the unscrupulous ruin it for everyone.

    Re: House Medical Marijuana Vote Tuesday (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    Patrick, I don't understand how someone in law enforcement, despite the fact I respect your intellect and even-tempered manner on this site, can suppot the utterly hypocrital, puritanical, illogical, counter-productive, wasteful, etc., prohibition against pot in AHY form. Absoultely NO purpose is served. Not one. The only thing that is served is to further misinformation and discrimination. Alcohol is the most dangerous, addictive, deadly drug this nation legally uses. Pot does not even come close. If it did, you would see stat after stat regarding crimes committed solely under the influence of pot. You don't because they don't exist. At a certain point, a person of reason MUST realize their is NO reason behind this prohibition but puritanical prejudice and raw stupidity. Ibuprofen causes heart attacks and liver damage. No one is up in arms about that. Godd*amn we are a silly nation!! Beautiful and silly and so full of sh*t it's a wonder we can breathe. And we're supposed to be self-aware and enlightened compared to the rest of the world.