PART 2 - THE DEBATE: HINCHEY/ROHRABACHER MEDICAL MARIJUANA AMENDMENT

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time,
and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment and in very strong
disagreement with the last speaker.

The reality is his point would be well taken if indeed there were medical
evidence that medicinal marijuana helped people, but there is none. In his
entire testimony there was not a single citation to a study that showed
medical marijuana, in fact, helps, as my colleague, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder), pointed out earlier where indeed the medical evidence
is to the contrary. And that leads me to an important part of the case
against this amendment I think it is very important for people to
understand, and that is, how did we get where we are?

We got to this position because in a handful of States across the country,
valiant initiatives have been raised to legalize medical marijuana. My
State happens to be one of those States, but let me make it clear to my
colleagues what happened in those campaigns in those States.

First, make no mistake about it, law enforcement agents in every single one
of those States opposed the medical marijuana initiative. They did so for
good and solid reasons: number one, there is no medical benefit; but,
number two, marijuana is a precursor drug.

Make no mistake about it, today's marijuana is not the marijuana that we
had 40 or 30 or 20 or even 10 years ago. The potency of today's marijuana
is dramatically higher, shockingly higher than the marijuana that existed
and was around in the 1960s. But what else happened in those campaigns?

The other important thing that happened in those campaigns is that the
people were led astray by massive spending. My colleague, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder), pointed out that some proponents of this idea,
including one who happens to be a resident of my State, have spent many
millions of dollars advocating the legalization of marijuana; and they have
outspent the opponents of these measures by two, three, four, five, 10
times. In my State of Arizona in two different campaigns the proponents of
legalizing medical marijuana outspent the opponents by a dramatic amount of
money. When we stack the debate, when only one side of the argument gets
out, of course they are going to win.

Let us talk about what happens with this marijuana, and I disagree so
strongly with my colleague who spoke just a moment ago. The reality is that
in this Nation we have a serious drug problem confronting our youth, and
why do we have that drug problem? We have that drug problem because of this
very debate, because as a Nation we have not decided that drugs, illegal
drugs, marijuana for one and many others, are bad. Indeed, we have leaders
of the Nation saying, oh, it is all right, we are not really going to go
against it; we are not really going to enforce these laws; we do not care
about these laws. How do my colleagues think kids react to that?

I will tell my colleagues how I raised my kids. I raised my kids to see
these are the rules, you violate these rules, you will be punished. You
know what? My kids understood the rules because when they violated them, we
punished them.

That is not what we do with drugs in America. We say if it is a drug we
will look the other way; we will let it go; we are not really committed to
enforcing our Nation's drugs law. Now look at the hypocrisy, the outrageous
hypocrisy of this proposal. Now we are going to say, yeah, we have Federal
laws against these drugs; we have Federal laws against marijuana; we
believe that those laws are valid and good and appropriate, but you know
what, in some States we will not enforce them because in some States we do
not want to enforce them.

So if the FBI is dealing with a person and they happen to be in Maryland,
they get one set of rules; but if they happen to be in Arizona, they get
another set of rules.

What about those States that border each other? What about New Jersey right
next to New York? What about Arizona right next to California? What about
all kinds of other border jurisdictions?

We want the laws of this Nation to say that in this State the Federal
antidrug laws on marijuana will be enforced, but right across the river in
Kansas City, Missouri, versus Kansas City, Kansas, we are not going to
enforce that law? Do my colleagues not think that will send a confused
message to our kids about our Nation's policy on illegal drugs? Do my
colleagues not think that will lead to more kids getting involved in drugs?

The most outrageous statement made on this floor on this House tonight was
the statement that sending the message to our kids that some drugs are okay
will not lead them to use those drugs or other drugs and will not lead to
an increase in the use of illegal drugs. That is the most outrageous and
absurd concept we can possibly embrace, and I hope this House will reject it.

We cannot afford to confuse our Nation's children. We cannot afford to tell
them that marijuana is okay. We cannot afford to let them begin to use the
dramatically more potent marijuana that is on the streets today and coming
through my State of Arizona, to your State and your district by some
confused policy that says, well, we think it is bad in some States, but we
do not think it is bad in others.

The truth is, the gentleman who spoke before me believes we should legalize
all drugs, and that is a valid and fair position; but take that issue
directly to the substance of this Congress, propose it as a law, propose to
amend the Federal laws that prohibit the possession and the use and the
sale of marijuana and talk that debate straight up. Do not do it by
subterfuge. Do not do it under the table. Do not do it by saying in one
State we are going to enforce the Federal law and in another State we are
not, because if we want to confuse a generation of America's children, that
is the way to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

There is a context here which is worth reflecting on, and that is the law
enforcement policies of an administration which cannot effectively meet the
challenge of international terrorism, but is ready to wage a phony drug
war, including locking up people dying of cancer simply because those poor
souls seek relief from horrible pain.

I ask, can we truly be so lacking in compassion? This is not about
legalizing marijuana. That is just a smoke screen. It is an amendment to
end Federal raids on medical marijuana patients and providers in States
where medical marijuana is legal. Despite marijuana's recognized
therapeutic value, including a National Academy of Science Institute of
Medicine report, recommending its use in certain circumstances, Federal law
refuses to recognize the importance and safety of medicinal marijuana.

Instead, Federal penalties for all marijuana use, regardless of purpose,
include up to a year in prison for the possession of even small amounts.

Let us reflect again on how cynical and how dark it is to even contemplate
sending someone to prison for a year when they may not even have that much
time left in their life; but since 1996, eight States have enacted laws to
allow very ill patients to use medical marijuana in spite of Federal law.
The present administration has sought to override such State statutes,
viewing the use of medicinal marijuana for purposes in the same light as
heroin or cocaine.

Last year, Federal agents raided the Women and Men's Alliance for Medical
Marijuana, an organization that under California State law legally
dispensed marijuana to patients whose doctors had recommended it for pain
and suffering. Eighty-five percent of this organization's 225 members were
terminally ill with cancer or AIDS.

This is about compassion. The Federal Government should use its power to
help terminally ill citizens, not arrest them. And States deserve to have
the right to make their own decisions regarding the use of medical
marijuana. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me
this time.

I had the opportunity in Congress some 2 1/2 years ago to chair the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources for some
2 years. During that time, I held the first hearings, really, in Congress
on the question of legalization of marijuana; and I tried to approach the
issue of the medical use of marijuana from an open standpoint.

We conducted hearings and brought in what we considered were the best
medical experts, and we dug into all of the testimony. And, my colleagues,
I can say here tonight that we did not find one scintilla of evidence that
there was any medical benefit by consuming marijuana, whether an individual
was healthy or whether they were ill, or terminally ill. There was no
evidence to that effect.

It has become sort of a cause celebre to promote these initiatives with
huge amounts of money. And at first blush, I think people support some of
these as possibly being compassionate, as we hear here.

We have also heard here that the medical use of marijuana will relieve
pain. Well, I can say also from chairing that subcommittee that that is not
the case. In fact, anything that we do to encourage use, whether for this
purpose or other purposes, will not relieve pain, it will cause pain.
Certainly, I am sure if someone smoked enough marijuana or took enough
crack or enough heroin or methamphetamines, they would not have any pain.

What we did learn in our testimony and what I have learned over the several
years that I have served on that committee in the Congress is, we did learn
this one thing. We learned that the marijuana that we have on the market
today, and we have heard this from the previous chairman, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and others, who cited that today's marijuana is
not the marijuana we had some 20 or 30 years ago. There is a several
hundred percent increase in potency in what is on the market.

We also heard that marijuana is the greatest substance abuse of our
teenagers, even exceeding, believe it or not, alcohol today. We also
learned that there are more than 19,000 drug-related deaths in the United
States, overdose deaths, which now exceed homicides. And everything we do
towards trying to glorify or utilize marijuana for whatever use or whatever
purpose does lead more of our young people to use this.

Marijuana is a gateway drug, and so we end up with a death toll that we
have seen so painfully across this Nation.

So if the object here is to relieve pain, that is not what is being done.
It will cause pain.

Almost every police group opposes the Hinchey amendment. Let me just read
some of the folks that oppose it. The Fraternal Order of Police, the
world's largest police union, made up of 300,000 members of State and local
enforcement officers nationwide, and the National Narcotics Officers'
Association Coalition, with more than 60,000 members, have expressed strong
opposition to the Hinchey amendment that would prohibit enforcement of
Federal marijuana laws in some States but not in others.

Police groups oppose the amendment because Federal enforcement of marijuana
helps deter use and trafficking in harder drugs and also in related crimes
against property and some of our most violent crime.

Finally, some of those police groups that oppose the Hinchey amendment have
said to us, we strongly encourage Members of Congress who support their
local police officers and law enforcement to oppose this amendment. And we
have letters from the National Narcotics Officers' Association Coalition
and the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police stating their clear opposition.

Again, I think the presentation of this amendment has been that this would
relieve pain and be compassionate. My colleagues, this will cause pain, and
there are many who confirm that.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire the remaining time?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has 16 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 11 minutes remaining.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I
believe we should respect the State authority in regards to medical
marijuana, and I remind my colleagues that we are not talking about illegal
drugs, we are talking about medicinal marijuana, legally supported by 10
States.

As my colleagues know, in my home State of California, voters
overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215, allowing the use of marijuana for
medicinal purposes. Like my constituents, I believe that doctors should be
permitted to prescribe marijuana for patients suffering from cancer, or
AIDS, or glaucoma, spastic disorders, and other debilitating diseases.

The people that I represent from Marin and Sonoma Counties, Mr. Chairman,
just over the Golden Gate Bridge, and my colleagues will not be surprised,
it is a very progressive area in our country, but they want their doctors
to be permitted to prescribe marijuana for their patients suffering from
debilitating diseases; and they believe that the Federal Government should
get out of the way. They should not butt in. And that is why I support this
amendment, because it would stop the Justice Department from punishing
those who are abiding by their State's laws.

Please join me in supporting this important amendment so that those who
suffer from debilitating diseases can get relief without the fear of
Federal interference.

Mr. Chairman, I call on all Members of this Congress, particularly those
who believe in States' rights, to let States represent their voters. It is
not okay to pick and choose where States can butt in and where they have
the ultimate responsibility based on ideologies.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to begin by reading from an editorial
that appeared in the New York Daily News this past Sunday, written by a
Richard Brookhiser, who is a senior editor of the National Review, a very
noted conservative magazine founded by William F. Buckley.

He writes as follows: "Earlier this year, the New York State Association of
County Health Officials, as cautious a bunch as you will find in the
medical community, urged New York lawmakers to pass legislation to legalize
the medical use of marijuana. It is past time to remove patients fighting
cancer, AIDS, and other scourges from the battlefield of the war on drugs.

"The legalization of medical marijuana would be a step forward for the
health of all New Yorkers, the Association of County Health Officials
declared. Marijuana has proven to be effective in the treatment of people
with HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and those suffering from severe
pain and nausea.

"I discovered," that is, he did; I am quoting the article. "I discovered
marijuana's benefits while receiving chemotherapy for testicular cancer in
1992. Part way through my treatment, the conventional antinausea drugs
prescribed by my doctors stopped working. Marijuana was the only thing that
kept my head out of the toilet.

"I was lucky. As a member of the media elite, I probably wasn't at huge
risk for a drug bust. Living here, I was able to obtain my herb under the
cover of urban anonymity. But people shouldn't have to depend on
professional status or the luck of geography. Putting such patients in jail
for the 'crime' of trying to relieve some of the misery caused by their
illnesses is cruel.

"The consensus regarding marijuana's medical value grows every day. Just
this May, The Lancet Neurology noted that marijuana's active components are
effective against pain in virtually every lab test scientists have devised,
and even speculated that it could become 'the aspirin of the 21st century.'

"Marijuana does have risks, but so do all drugs. Recent researchers
documented that relatively simple vaporizers can allow users to inhale the
active ingredients with almost none of the irritants in smoke.

"Ten States now have laws allowing medical use of marijuana with a
physician's recommendation, and those laws have been successful. Last year,
the General Accounting Office interviewed 37 law enforcement agencies in
those States, reporting that the majority of those interviewed 'indicated
that medical marijuana laws has had little impact on their law enforcement
activities.'

"As a conservative, I am not surprised that common sense is bubbling up
from the State level while Federal marijuana laws remain stuck in the
1930s. Federal law will change eventually, because science, common sense,
and human decency require it."

That is the article. Mr. Chairman, I am not a conservative, as most of my
colleagues know. I am a liberal. But I certainly agree with this
conservative writer and editor.

The fact of the matter is, we ought to let doctors prescribe the medicines
they feel would be most effective for their patients. It is not up to us to
stand up on the floor of this House and declare with the expertise of the
politicians that we are that marijuana, or morphine, or tetracycline is not
an effective drug. That is the job of the doctors and the medical
professionals to make those judgments.

We can prosecute doctors or others who may abuse this privilege. We allow
morphine's use for medical purposes. No one has legalized the general use
of morphine, or heroin, from which it is derived. But for medical purposes,
we use it as a painkiller all the time. Most of our drugs, if misused, are
dangerous and even toxic, but we allow their use to heal the sick under a
physician's supervision. Why should marijuana be any different?

Sure, it is a dangerous drug. I certainly do not deny that. But for certain
diseases, for certain conditions, it can help people. It can make their
lives bearable.

Let the doctors make those decisions, not the politicians. Let the doctors
decide what will work for someone's illness, and let them be subject to the
normal medical discipline procedures for the normal uses of the law for
those who would abuse their ability to prescribe a drug.

Mr. Chairman, let marijuana be treated as a drug the way morphine is, the
way other powerful drugs are. Let people be healed. Let them feel better.
Let people with HIV or AIDS or cancer be able to hold their food. Let them
survive longer. And let us fight the drug war on a different battlefield.