House of Representatives Votes To Stop Federal Prosecutions Against Medical Marijuana

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

the-thin-line-of-medical-marijuanaThe United States House of Representatives passed a bill preventing federal prosecutions against patients who use prescribed marijuana and cultivation where it is legal in the various states. If passed by the Senate and signed by the President it would mark a profound reversal in federal marijuana policy.


The House voted 219-189 in favor to an amendment of an appropriations bill. The amendment strips the Department of Justice of all funds for enforcing marijuana laws in states where medical marijuana is legal. This would not only include the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) but all other agencies as well as DOJ prosecutions, theoretically if signed into law prosecutions already in process must halt as well. With the recent signature by Minnesota’s governor, twenty two states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana statutes.

During debate on the House floor, California Representative Dana Rohrabacher called for compassion, saying: “Some people are suffering, and if a doctor feels that he needs to prescribe something to alleviate that suffering, it is immoral for this government to get in the way.”

In addition, the House also passed two amendments that would strip funds in federal intervention of state hemp cultivation and research.

Aaron Houston, a marijuana lobbyist and advocate, called the vote a “tipping point” on marijuana. He noted that this amendment has been offered six times before over the course of 11 years and never before gained traction.

Marijuana Majority Chairman Tom Angell stated “It’s clear that more politicians are beginning to realize that the American people want the federal government to stop standing in the way. If any political observers weren’t aware that the end of the war on marijuana is nearing, they just found out.”

It seems inertia is now favoring the end of Refer Madness.

By Darren Smith


Think Progress
Washington Times
Amendment to HR 4660 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

127 thoughts on “House of Representatives Votes To Stop Federal Prosecutions Against Medical Marijuana”

  1. Scott:

    I approved your last two pending comments but you should know there is an automatic hold when you cite more than one website in your comment.

  2. “We Republicans have no policies that are racist or homophobic.”

    That’s funny. Do you support gay marriage? Gay adoption? Half of Mississippi Republicans would ban interracial marriage again if they could. You push voter ID policies that affect minorities more (spare me your spin). You push stop and frisk policies, racial profiling… I could go on all day.

    You might have some nice words in your platform, but party platforms don’t mean much to you guys, unless you’re torturing women in labor by not allowing emergency abortions after 20 weeks.

    “Our party was started to combat racism. We ended slavery.”

    I’m so sick of this…

    Let me give you a hint. If you guys have to keep reaching back to Lincoln to make yourselves look good on race, then you’re doing something wrong.

    But you don’t care about facts, do you?

    “Look in the mirror. ”


    “Republican and Democratic political strategists both engage in these kinds of strategies of how to talk to garner votes for your party.”

    Bull. All Democrats have to do is let you guys keep talking. Here, you look in the mirror:

    He ran for President!

    This guy is my favorite:

    This guy won’t even apologize:

    I could go on all day. But I have better things to do than listen to Republicans deny what Republicans have been doing for the last 50 years.

    Here’s a little hint, guys: If you have to keep going back to 1964 for something Republicans did right on race, you might want to think your policies, because the demographics are going to eat you alive.

    That’s why I say keep talking.

    1. Scott, you offer an edited tape to make Santorum say something he didn’t say, and then an article that is not about a Republican but rather a Libertarian. Your third resource is a broken link. This is not very solid criticism of the Republican party.

      Do Republicans support gay marriage? Of course not! There is NOTHING homophobic about that. Gay marriage destroys the family structure of society.


      Renewing American Values to Build Healthy Families,
      Great Schools and Safe Neighborhoods

      We are the party of independent individuals and the institutions they create—families, schools, congregations, neighborhoods—to advance their ideals and make real their dreams. Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of our society and the first level of self government. Its daily lessons–cooperation, patience, mutual respect, responsibility, self-reliance – are fundamental to the order and progress of our Republic. Government can never replace the family. That is why we insist that public policy, from taxation to education, from healthcare to welfare, be formulated with attention to the needs and strengths of the family.

      Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage

      The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage.

      The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.

    2. Bully Sir. Bully.

      I don’t know how I missed this but you hit the target.

      On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:55 PM, JONATHAN TURLEY wrote:

      > Scott Supak (@ssupak) commented: “”We Republicans have no policies > that are racist or homophobic.” That’s funny. Do you support gay marriage? > Gay adoption? Half of Mississippi Republicans would ban interracial > marriage again if they could. You push voter ID policies that affect > minorit” >

    1. Interesting. I am dissatisfied with the Democrats because they are too much like Republicans.

      On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:56 PM, JONATHAN TURLEY wrote:

      > Byron commented: “DavidM: I have rejected them because the leadership > in the republican party is too much like the democrats. Why do people make > statements like that? The NSM has much in common with the party platform of > the democrats.” >

    2. Byron wrote: “The NSM has much in common with the party platform of the democrats.”

      Wow. Did you notice number 4?

      “4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the state. Only those of pure White blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. Non-citizens may live in America only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens. Accordingly, no Jew or homosexual may be a member of the nation.”

      I don’t see Democrats talking like that, but I guess you see their alternative to the “Southern Strategy” is in play?

  3. Bob, Esq.


    Not really. But this is:

    “The UN special rapporteur on torture recently recognized that outdated and unnecessarily restrictive drug control laws contribute to widespread failures of states to provide pain relief to patients in moderate and severe pain. The special rapporteur further categorized the “de facto denial of access to pain relief, where it causes severe pain and suffering” as CIDT, saying that “all measures should be taken to ensure full access and to overcome current regulatory, educational and attitudinal obstacles to ensure full access to palliative care.”

Comments are closed.