Pubdate: Tue, 14 Jun 2005
Source: Times Record News (Wichita Falls, TX)
Copyright: 2005 The E.W. Scripps Co.
Contact:  http://TimesRecordNews.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/995
Author: David Whitney
Cited: Gonzales v. Raich ( www.angeljustice.org/ )
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project ( www.mpp.org )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

HOUSE SNUFFS OUT MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVISION

A week after the Supreme Court ruled that medical marijuana laws in
California and nine other states are no bar to federal drug
prosecution, the House voted down an amendment that would have stopped
the Justice Department from bringing such cases.

While medical marijuana advocates never thought they would have the
votes to bar federal prosecutions, some had predicted that, because of
the heightened interest after the Supreme Court's ruling, they would
do better than the 264-161 vote they received Wednesday.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said Tuesday that House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi had been working the issue hard among Democrats and that
he felt certain there would 180 or more votes for the amendment to a
2006 Justice Department funding bill.

Still, there was some comfort in Wednesday's vote for medical
marijuana advocates. Since 2003 when the chamber took its first vote
to bar spending money on federal prosecution of medical marijuana
users, the number of members saying no to that idea has dropped by
11.

"We pick up votes each time as we continue to educate the public,"
said Steve Fox, communications director for the Marijuana Policy
Project. "This is just a matter of time."

Last week the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that state laws permitting
marijuana possession and cultivation by sick persons with a doctor's
recommendation are not a bar to federal enforcement of drug laws
making the weed.

But in the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high
court expressed sympathy for the sick for whom marijuana has been
recommended by their doctors. The opinion urged a congressional review
of the treatment of marijuana under federal drug laws.

Marijuana is now treated like heroin or other street drugs that are
flatly illegal under any circumstances because they are not classified
for medical use. Other highly addictive drugs having medical use are
classified differently and possession is not illegal if prescribed by
a doctor.

In many ways, the debate over medical marijuana reflects a clash of
cultures. While many advocates cite studies showing marijuana can be
highly effective in treatment the harshest symptoms of cancer, AIDs
and other deadly diseases, opponents see the substance as merely a
dangerous recreational drug and its medical uses a ruse for its
eventual legalization.

Calling it a backdoor attempt to legalize marijuana, Rep. Mark Souder,
R-Ind., said it was "shysters and quacks" that were prescribing it.

"This is a camel's nose under the tent" for legalization, declared
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

But among the key sponsors of the amendment was Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,
R-Calif.

Rohrabacher said that many drugs are harmful but still have medical
benefits when taken under the guidance of a physician.

"Marijuana is no different than that," he said. "Let's not have a
power grab by the federal government at the expense of these patients."

Pelosi, D-San Francisco, called the vote "a state's rights issue"
because it put the federal prosecution ahead of state laws that in
eight instances, including in California, had been
voter-approved.

"We must not make criminals out of seriously ill people," she
declared. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake