By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
The 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
Sources:
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.
I am always puzzled, amused, frustrated and angry when I hear members of t he House who have no real love for freedom or liberty when it comes to women or gays or spying or warrantless searches thunder about freedom. I support prohibiting prosecution of medical marijuana uses and providers but please spare me the speeches about FREEDOM.
” see inalienable right to pot in there anywhere [in the constitution]?”
Its in there with all the other rights not specifically mentioned.
Besides, I will bet there are many who believe you have the same right to a valid medical treatment, appropriate to your physical condition, as you have for self defense. Though not identical, the principles involved seem very similar.
Despite the questionable past it seems states rights really are useful in our system of government.
On a personal note, my memory is short enough as it is. I really like remembering what I am in the middle of doing so I can complete the task without starting over.
bfm –
I find sticky notes or Trello are a big help.
bigfatmike wrote: “I will bet there are many who believe you have the same right to a valid medical treatment, appropriate to your physical condition, as you have for self defense.”
I would argue against that. With “valid medical treatment,” you require the services of someone else. Nobody has the right to force someone else to serve him. That kind of thinking has led some in the past to embrace slavery.
Do I have the right to force people to sell me gasoline so I can run my automobile? No. When I buy a vehicle, I expect there will be people who will want to sell me gasoline, but I have no inherent right to that service or product.
@davidm2575 “I would argue against that. With “valid medical treatment,” you require the services of someone else.”
Interesting point and I agree that there is an important issue of ‘to what extent one may require the action or cooperation of another in medical matters.’
However I do not agree that is on point to the issue of a right to use product with medicinal properties.
I have no idea whether marijuana has medical properties. But, assuming it does, I think ‘using marijuana’ falls well withing reasonable meaning of ‘valid medical treatment’. The last I heard most anyone anywhere can grow, dry and consume marijuana all by themselves.
I don’t see that a right to use medical marijuana interferes with a right not to perform. Seems to me to be two different issues.
bigfatmike wrote: “I do not agree that is on point to the issue of a right to use product with medicinal properties.”
I agree. However, the right to use cannabis is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Cannabis contains poison, and it is a substance known to be abused, especially by young people. In my opinion, it should not be criminalized, but regulated like other opiates that we regulate. If the benefits outweigh the negatives for a particular person’s situation, who is the State to deny them those benefits?
What poison? You Sir ; are full of a bovine excrement. I have had a Quintouple BY-Pass and I was told by all of my doctors that I needed to quit smoking ciggaretes immediately but I could gpo pon smoking Marijuana witpout fear of it having a negative effect on my health. In fact; they said that the only reason 40 yuears of cigarette smoking had done so little damage to my lungs was the 35 years of Marijuana smoking I did along with it.
When you speak about Marijuana containing poison and addicting young people you sound like someone out of a “Reefer Madness” film.
Really? Don’t you think you should check to be sure you are speaking to fools before you spout such nonsense?
Nothing personal. Strictly business.
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:33 PM, JONATHAN TURLEY wrote:
> davidm2575 commented: “bigfatmike wrote: “I do not agree that is on > point to the issue of a right to use product with medicinal properties.” I > agree. However, the right to use cannabis is not guaranteed in the > Constitution. Cannabis contains poison, and it is a substance k” >
Darren is just messin’ w/ us.
For those on a mac, Command + increases page size which will automatically increase the font. Windows users Ctl + produces the same result. Use Command – (for mac) to decrease or Ctl – (for windows.) I suspect the font size issue is from WordPress.
paulette – the issue is only on this thread, not the entire blog. All other threads have the normal typeface.
Could the end of our insanity be in sight? Let’s hope so.
Write you Senators and tell them what you think. If you want change, you must tell your elected officials what you think both with letters and by voting.
Annie; let’s hope it gets to the Senate floor and that Harry Reid doesn’t prevent it from happening.
Eric Holder’s DOJ went after the dispensaries in San Diego County. A political type US Attorney, Laura Duffy, proudly closed EVERY dispensary in the county, forcing patients like myself to scramble. The county had almost 100 dispensaries when she started in 2011, and there were non in August 2012. She has backed off and now there are 30 or so dispensaries back up.
There is abuse of this product and prescriptions by docs are easy. However, over the 5 years I’ve been a patient I’ve gotten to know many legit patients like myself. Cancer patients, MS, Parkinson’s, pain, etc. find relief in this natural product. We have a loose knit group of older patients like myself. When Holder was closing down dispensaries we pooled together and made runs to dispensaries that were 50 minute drives away for the folks unable to drive. So, the disrespect of Holder and Duffy’s callous actions led to acts of love among people who knew little of each other, only that we needed medicine.
Holder’s DOJ has gone after cannabis dispensaries MUCH more aggressively than Bush. The forces against cannabis are powerful. They are in both the private and public sector. Private are liquor and big Pharma. One of the Senators most against cannabis is Feinstein. Winemakers are a big contributor. Then there’s big Pharma. They would rather sell addictive pain meds and other expensive products that don’t work as well as natural cannabis. Public sector, US Attorneys, cops, probation, public sector unions, prisons[public and private] all are against legalization. But, this is becoming a bipartisan issue. It was a Rep Dana Rohrbacher who wrote this into the Appropriation Bill. I think it will pass the Senate. Then, we have to wait and see if our lawless AG abides the law.
Time to give the Republicans in the House some credit here. I am so tired of the war on drugs. Drugs are very bad in society, but I prefer education to throwing flash bombs on toddlers. Let’s hope the Democrats in the Senate and the President have the fortitude to follow through with this.
paul
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
FYI, as Paul and Annie said, something is wrong with the font size. It looks like warranty fine print. Bump it up to font size 10 or 11.
Next question. Is somebody smoking something and then reduced the font size?
Leny – it is at least 6 fonts larger than warranty fine print. 😉
And here I thought I would just get to read this lovely article and keep quiet.
Paul C. Schulte
“there is not an inalienable right to pot. I do not remember that anywhere.
Of course there is no inalienable right to Pot in the Constitution.
The Constitution was not intended to be a comprehensive list of the rights of the American citizen.
The Constitution is a general framework for an experiment in self-governance. It is an envelope within which exists the possibility of freedom without the ability for those who would abuse it to do so at the expense of the whole nation.
There is no right to eat peaches listed either. Nor the right to walk in circles. Yet the right to do those things would not be questioned.
Freedom is not a substance like apple sauce that you can dole out by the spoonful when it pleases you and when all is in agreement with your philosophy.
Freedom is a right. It exists with or without our approval.
Freedom is like the air. anyone who opens their mouth can breathe it in and live in its warmth.
It can’t be done away with. One can only deny access to it.
The Constitution doesn’t give me any; read that not even one right.
My rights are my own from birth. The Constitution merely attempts to express the nature of that freedom and protect us from being denied access to Freedom.
i.e. You already possess an inalienable right to Pot.
The only question is whether we can end the practice; of those who use the Constitution as a club rather than a crutch; of denying us access to one more thing we have un-constitutionally been denied.
This notion that the Constitution gives our representatives the authority to pick and choose which rights we will be allowed to exercise is offensive to me as it is to all who truly believe in the concept of freedom.
*********World English Dictionary
freedom
— n
1. personal liberty, as from slavery, bondage, serfdom, etc
2. liberation or deliverance, as from confinement or bondage
3. the quality or state of being free, esp to enjoy political and civil liberties
4. ( usually foll by from ) the state of being without something unpleasant or bad; exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation
5. the right or privilege of unrestricted use or access: the freedom of a city
6. autonomy, self-government, or independence
7. the power or liberty to order one’s own actions
8. philosophy the quality, esp of the will or the individual, of not being totally constrained; able to choose between alternative actions in identical circumstances
When I was a child, freedom was explained to me this way:
“Freedom means that your right to swing your fist; only ends at that point where; your fist contacts someone else’s face.”
In fact we say that it ends at that point where someone else believes that your fist is going to hit them; if the swing is intentional etc.
The point is that Freedom is and was conceived as the right to swing if you want; as long as you don’t hit anyone.
I like to define Freedom as: “The state of being where one can exercise ones rights up to the point where you begin to deny another of their rights.”
Britannica defines it thus:
freedom
“in humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints.”
Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008.
Therefore I will accept your sword at your convenience.
angryman and oete – see inalienable right to pot in there anywhere?
Great news!
Oh thank God! I thought it was my eyes going on me.
Darren – there is something screwy with the typeface on your thread. The typeface is very very small.
A surprising development and a better direction.
Maybe we will now fall out of first place for being the nation with the most people in prison.
Dredd – it is against medical marijuana, not all marijuana. Geez.
How do we elect 189 morons who vote against this?!? I guess it’s the continuing obsession of many to poke into people’s privacy. Damn, ain’t these here folks ever hear of the Second Amendment? Or the Third? Or Fourth? Or First? Wait a sec. That’s the first four Amendments of the Bill of Rights. You think James Madison was trying to make a f***ing point!!
Warspite – there is not an inalienable right to pot. I do not remember that anywhere.
Darren, I like it that you used both the Washington Times and Think Progress as sources. 🙂
Good news for many chronically ill people. Hope it makes it through the Senate. It will be interesting to see who votes against it.
I think anything that will cramp the style of the DOJ will have trouble getting through the Senate and signed by Obama.
It’s about time. I’m sure the DEA, ATF, FBI, and other interested security state parties are angry that they won’t be receiving funding for these medical marijuana investigations and prosecutions. Maybe they will have to focus on real crime with their bloated budgets.
It’s still amazing that so many House members voted against the bill, but I I guess they don’t want to be seen as soft of drugs in an election year. Begrudgingly and sporadically, US is moving in a less puritanical, conservative direction.
New Record Highs in Moral Acceptability http://www.gallup.com/poll/170789/new-record-highs-moral-acceptability.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics