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.
Schulte, you have this wrong:
“Drugs did not become illegal until the Pure Food and Drug Act”
The pure food and drug act of 1906 required the labeling of any remedy with cannabis in it. Pot was made illegal until people started lying about it for racist reasons in the 30s.
“Normally I would not avail myself of Wikipedia”
That’s odd. I’ve been hanging out here for a week or so, and I’ve now seen you twice quote from the source you ridiculed me for using, and one of those times you failed to cite it. In this case, you failed to provide a link to the page to which you referred.
“Alcohol, morphine and opium, and cannabis were all included on the list of “dangerous” drugs. ”
And right above that: labeled. Just as I said before, which you, apparently and predictably, ignored.
“had to list any of 10 ingredients that were deemed “dangerous” on the product label”
On the label. Ergo, in the product being sold. Legally.
I am going to walk back part of what I have written. The Pure Food and Drug Act seems to have named the drugs. The Harrison Act did make most drugs controlled, although cannabis seems to have been off the list. In 1937 it became a controlled substance after at least 25 state were regulating it at some level. Unlike other controlled substances where a doctor could prescribe it, marijuana never reached that level.
I am still taking the stand that it was never ‘legal’ unless some of the 25 states said it was legal to sell the drug and there is nothing in the Constitution to have a right to possess or ingest in any form, cannabis.
I also take issue with whomever it was that said that the 1937 law was racist. I cannot find any evidence for that.
Paul Schulte wrote: “I also take issue with whomever it was that said that the 1937 law was racist. I cannot find any evidence for that.”
Although industry and newspapers appear to be the primary mover of this legislation, it does appear that racism was used to further it along. Just using the name “Marihuana” for the Act is a bit strange, because that word was Mexican slang at the time for Cannabis. There must have been a good reason for doing that. Also, consider the fact that it was a Democrat who introduced the law to the House of Representatives (Robert Doughton). We know how racist Democrats could be back then. 🙂
There is an interesting quote regarding the constitutionality of regulating Cannabis in Wikipedia:
“Since the federal government had no authority under the 10th Amendment to regulate medicines, that power being reserved by individual states in 1937, a tax was the only viable way to legislate marijuana.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States
Paul: “Drugs did not become illegal until the Pure Food and Drug Act, but that has nothing to do with a Constitutional right to drugs.”
The Pure Food and Drug act did not make drugs illegal. Nothing like that happened until 1914 with the Harrison Act.
Prof. Charles Whitebread: “It was called the Harrison Tax Act. You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve. They had two goals. They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs. They had one problem. Look at the date — 1914. 1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call “states’ rights” and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law. That’s why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently.”
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/whiteb1.htm
Per the “constitutional right,” an analysis of that dimension would require you familiarizing yourself with the principles discussed by Hamilton in Federalist 84. You know, those SELF EVIDENT principles upon which our entire republic was founded.
bigfatmike…
OK, anectdotal, but I have a friend who ran a medicinal marijuana research operation in Montana. He tells me they do great work at the federal facility in MS.
“but it occurs to me that a federal program could be little more than a sop to sidetrack any move for wide ranging research.”
I posted a link to the story of how the government wants 1000 more pounds developed every year. They’re very serious about increasing research. All the people who want props for the 22% of Republicans who voted for this in the house should also be giving props to the Obama administration for greatly increasing the amount of pot grown legally by the feds for legitimate research.
“I will bet it is easier to get approval and samples to do research on anthrax than marijuana.”
Pot is schedule one. It’s tough to deal with those rules, but it’s easier than anthrax.
“But the fact that there is a federal program does not fill me with confidence if real researchers have trouble getting their projects approved. How many tries with google do you suppose it would take to find respected researchers who have had trouble getting appropriate federal approval for research?”
Well, I just searched “trouble getting pot for research” and the first result was a good one.
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140325/BENEFITS06/303250057/Research-OK-d-into-effects-pot-PTSD-symptoms
“On March 12, a proposed formal study of how effective the plant might be for treating PTSD in veterans took a giant leap forward when it received approval from the Health and Human Services Department.”
Again, I expect to hear some attaboy’s for the Obama administration from the people here who expect props for the 22% of Republicans who voted for this bill.
Here’s the hoops you have to jump through to do research on marijuana, which is, I think, is like the story you found through Yahoo.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/why-its-so-hard-scientists-study-pot
Schulte:
“Bob, Esq. – pot was not legal as you state, just not illegal.”
Bob, Esq: “Promulgating duties of virtue as duties of right with regards to drugs is a 20th century phenomena with no basis in morality whatsoever.”
Heh. And when something isn’t illegal, it’s legal. I believe there’s a fundamental principle at work there. You want something to be illegal, you have to pass a law and use men with guns and prisons to enforce it.
Since cannabis products were openly sold over the counter, and there was a law saying they had to be labeled as having cannabis in them (1906), then it was legal.
Bob: “your lack of familiarity with an argument is not determinative as to its soundness.”
It is to him. And that’s all that matters to him.
Paul,
Promulgating duties of virtue as duties of right with regards to drugs is a 20th century phenomena with no basis in morality whatsoever.
Furthermore, your lack of familiarity with an argument is not determinative as to its soundness.
Bob, Esq. – I never spoke of morality, only legality or illegality. Drugs did not become illegal until the Pure Food and Drug Act, but that has nothing to do with a Constitutional right to drugs. Normally I would not avail myself of Wikipedia, but in this case, I think their info is pretty solid.
Let’s just say if the reckoning came tomorrow, I wouldn’t want to be among those who supported imprisoning people for lacking virtue.
Paul: “there is not an inalienable right to pot. I do not remember that anywhere.”
Simms: “it doesn’t have to be spelled out.
“Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
===
Simms is absolutely right.
As I stated before: When it comes to imprisoning people for pot use, I’m afraid you don’t have any of the Founders on your side.
John Locke (the guy Jefferson plagiarized in the Declaration of Independence):
“We have already proved that the care of souls does not belong to the magistrate. Not a magisterial care, I mean (if I may so call it), which consists in prescribing by laws and compelling by punishments. But a charitable care, which consists in teaching, admonishing, and persuading, cannot be denied unto any man. The care, therefore, of every man’s soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills. Let us suppose, however, that some prince were desirous to force his subjects to accumulate riches, or to preserve the health and strength of their bodies. Shall it be provided by law that they must consult none but Roman physicians, and shall everyone be bound to live according to their prescriptions? What, shall no potion, no broth, be taken, but what is prepared either in the Vatican, suppose, or in a Geneva shop?” (A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke, 1689)
Paul: “Simms – if this is true, why have we not had legal pot before?
if this is true, why have we not had legal pot before?”
It was completely legal from the beginning of time until the early 20th century.
The idea of putting people in prison for lacking virtue is a product of modern ignorance of basic moral principles.
“All duties are either duties of right, that is, juridical duties (officia juris), or duties of virtue, that is, ethical duties (officia virtutis s. ethica). Juridical duties are such as may be promulgated by external legislation; ethical duties are those for which such legislation is not possible. The reason why the latter cannot be properly made the subject of external legislation is because they relate to an end or final purpose, which is itself, at the same time, embraced in these duties, and which it is a duty for the individual to have as such. But no external legislation can cause any one to adopt a particular intention, or to propose to himself a certain purpose; for this depends upon an internal condition or act of the mind itself. However, external actions conducive to such a mental condition may be commanded, without its being implied that the individual will of necessity make them an end to himself.” (Immanuel Kant, “Introduction to the Metaphysics of Morals”)
Or as Locke put it: “Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills.”
It’ll be the ER’S that’ll decide the wisdom of this decision.
paulette, I am sorry for your husbands problems. I thank both him and you for his service. I know the toll it takes on spouses. I was heartened when the VA, about a year ago, opened a study allowing vets to be prescribed cannabis, but only for PTSD. Anxiety is another area where cannabis has shown good results. However, other than this PTSD study, VA docs are not allowed to prescribe cannabis. Money and bureaucratic ignorance probably both play a role in your husband’s plight. The VA is the best reason I know to question govt. controlled medicine.
It’s troubling that my husband’s VA doctor will not prescribe mj for his acute pain (bilateral ak) but instead prescribes two Schedule 1 drugs taken daily. Do you suppose there’s a financial component to this?
Sorry for the typos. This ticked me off just a bit and I neglected to make corrections. Again; Sorry .
Paul wrote:
“Darren – there is something screwy with the typeface on your thread. The typeface is very very small.”
~+~
Yeah, I missed that one. I typo’ed a font close tag. I wrote <font> when I should have wrote </font>. And, as a result it cascaded down into the comment section.
Bob, Esq. – pot was not legal as you state, just not illegal. If this argument worked don’t you think HiTimes would have been all over it years ago? Pot was neither legal or illegal. For instance, alcohol consumption for people over 21 is legal, under 21 illegal. You can say the same thing about slavery. It was neither legal or illegal. It was actually the states who made it so.
“private growers are exponentially more creative and diligent than some bureaucrat govt. botanist.”
This was true long before legalized medicinal weed. Ask Willie Nelson.
paulette, I did. I always found it amusing that Mississippi was the depository. It was always reported they had the most powerful cannabis. Maybe they did years back. But, since cannabis began going private in Ca. cannabis cultivation has become cutting edge. And, you know private growers are exponentially more creative and diligent than some bureaucrat govt. botanist. I’ve gotten to know some growers. They are like winemakers in their absolute love of their creations. One grower told me his plants are like having his own children.
davidm2575:
“Nobody has the right to force someone else to serve him. ”
bigfatmike isn’t talking about forcing his doctor to prescribe pot. Doctors will gladly prescribe it given that you meet the legal requirements. And if a Doctor won’t prescribe the best medicine, they can take it up with the AMA while the patient finds a doctor who will.
Schulte will call this Doctor Shopping, but he has no clue.
angrymanspeaks:
“The Constitution was not intended to be a comprehensive list of the rights of the American citizen.”
Yep. That’s why we have the 9th.
“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.”
It is for Schulte. Heck, he thinks the government should have the right to torture people.
“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.”
Bob, Esq tried explaining that to him in another thread, to no avail. Authoritarians gotta get their torture on.
“Schulte
angryman and oete – see inalienable right to pot in there anywhere?”
See how he just ignored EVERYTHING you said?
Spinelli:
“John, You sound radical. Like our founding fathers. I see the pendulum swinging back toward personal responsibility and less government in the coming elections. ”
Yeah, if we stop voting for the authoritarian Republicans who vote against bills like this and for renewing the Patriot Act.
paulette92122:
“Nick ~ Did you know that the U of Miss is home to the feds stash”
And this “thugish” Obama Administration just ordered another 1000 pounds be grown there for reasearch purposes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/05/obama-just-ordered-a-thou_n_5268647.html
—-
On Monday, the Drug Enforcement Administration issued a new rule that increases the U.S. government’s production quota for medical marijuana from an annual 21 kg to 650 kg. That’s about 1,433 pounds of pot in total.
The U.S. government grows marijuana for research purposes at the University of Mississippi in the only federally legal marijuana garden in the U.S. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) oversees the cultivation, production and distribution of these crops.
“NIDA recently notified the DEA that it required additional supplies of marijuana to be manufactured in 2014 to provide for current and anticipated research efforts involving marijuana,” reads a recent Federal Register’s statement from the DEA.
—-
OK, maybe there is a federal research project. But I wonder how committed and useful it really is. I don’t know, but it occurs to me that a federal program could be little more than a sop to sidetrack any move for wide ranging research.
I will bet it is easier to get approval and samples to do research on anthrax than marijuana. OK, I don’t really know.
But the fact that there is a federal program does not fill me with confidence if real researchers have trouble getting their projects approved. How many tries with google do you suppose it would take to find respected researchers who have had trouble getting appropriate federal approval for research?
Actually that was a trick question. It took one Yahoo query to turn up this:
“To study marijuana, research must be approved by four federal agencies: FDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and Health and Human Services.
If a study is approved, researchers must get their marijuana from a special farm at the University of Mississippi, the only federally sanctioned source in the United States.
One of the biggest roadblocks in that complicated process, critics say, is that Health and Human Services has been reluctant to approve any studies looking at possible medical or beneficial uses for the marijuana.
“This process (with the four agencies) was started in 1999,” said Brad Burge, a spokesman for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a research group that is pushing for more scientific study of the plant. “There wasn’t any research at all looking at the benefits in the United States before that. There were plenty of studies looking at the risks.””
It seems to me that a fair minded person would have to conclude that the Federal government is still fighting a rear guard action trying to prevent scientific evidence of positive or medicinal effects of marijuana.
John, You sound radical. Like our founding fathers. I see the pendulum swinging back toward personal responsibility and less government in the coming elections. However, we are prisoners of the duopoly. No real change will occur until we rid ourselves of those shackles.
Warspite:
“How do we elect 189 morons who vote against this?!”
Gerrymandering, hippie punching, and ignorance.