PART 1 - THE DEBATE: HINCHEY/ROHRABACHER MEDICAL MARIJUANA AMENDMENT

Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act, 2004 (July 22, 2003)

AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hinchey:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of
Justice may be used to prevent the States of Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington from
implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those
States.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on
amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and
any amendment thereto be limited to 60 minutes to be equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?

There was no objection.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple limitation that would prevent the
Justice Department from using any of the funds appropriated to it by this
bill to interfere with the implementation of State laws that allow for the
use of marijuana for medicinal purposes under the supervision of a licensed
physician.

During the past several years 10 States, Alaska Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and Washington State,
have passed laws that decriminalize the use of marijuana for medical
purposes. With the exception of Hawaii and Maryland, all of these laws were
passed by referendum and the average vote in each of those eight States was
more than 60 percent approval. These State laws are not free-for-alls that
open the doors to wholesale legalization as critics claim. Rather, in every
case, they specify in great detail the illnesses for which patients may use
marijuana for medicinal purposes, the amounts the patients may possess, and
the conditions under which it can be grown and obtained. Most establish a
State registry and an identification card for patients.

Federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic with no
permissible medical use. Despite the difficulty of conducting clinical
trials on such a drug, it has been highly effective in treating symptoms of
AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and other serious medical
conditions. In fact, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of
Sciences has recommended smoking marijuana for certain medical uses.

The AIDS Action Council, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the
American Nurses Association, the American Preventative Medical Association,
the American Public Health Association, Kaiser Permanente, and the New
England Journal of Medicine have all endorsed supervised access to medical
marijuana.

Internationally, the Canadian Government has adopted regulations for the
use of medical marijuana in that country to our immediate north. In
addition, the British Medical Association, the French Ministry of Health,
the Israel Health Ministry, and the Australian National Task Force on
Cannabis have all recommended the use of medical marijuana.

Here at home, however, our Federal Government has been unequivocal in its
opposition to the citizen-led initiatives in the States that I mentioned.
After California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, the Clinton
Justice Department brought suit against both doctors and distributors in an
attempt to shut down the new California State law.

Federal courts upheld the right of doctors to talk to their patients about
medical marijuana. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that it is a violation
of Federal law to distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes. Despite
State laws that protect patients from State prosecution, the Supreme Court
cleared the way for the Federal Government to enforce Federal laws against
those individuals, nevertheless complying with laws in their own States.

Attorney General Ashcroft has vigorously enforced this decision, choosing
to prosecute patients and distributors, which makes passage of this
amendment critical to the States that have enacted laws for the medicinal
use of marijuana. This amendment would prevent the Justice Department from
arresting, prosecuting, suing or otherwise discouraging doctors, patients
and distributors in those States from acting in compliance with their State
laws.

This amendment in no way endorses marijuana for recreational use, not in
any way. It does not reclassify marijuana to a less restrictive schedule of
narcotic. It does not require any State to adopt a medical marijuana law.
It will not prevent Federal officials from enforcing drug laws against drug
kingpins, narco-traffickers, street dealers, habitual criminals, addicts,
recreational users or anyone other than people who are complying with the
laws of their own State with regard to the medical use of marijuana.

By limiting the Justice Department in this way, we will be reaffirming the
power of citizen democracy and State and local government. I urge my
colleagues to vote "yes" on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The Grand
Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police wrote a letter and said, "Dear Mr.
Chairman" to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), "I am writing to
advise you of the strong opposition of the membership of the Fraternal
Order of Police to an amendment to be offered today by Representative
Maurice Hinchey to the appropriations measure on the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, State which would effectively prohibit the enforcement
of Federal law with respect to marijuana in States that do not provide
penalties for the use of the drug for so-called 'medical' reasons."

It ends by saying, "The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant
disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local law
enforcement officials to reduce drug crime in every region of the Nation."

In the year 2001, the Supreme Court issued a notwithstanding rule and held
that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled
Substance Act. It has no currently accepted medical use and treatment in
the United States. There are other drugs that now can take its place. It
cannot be used outside the FDA-approved DEA-registered research.

Marijuana is the most abused drug in America. More young people are now in
treatment for marijuana dependency and for alcohol than for all the other
illegal drugs. Marijuana use also presents a danger to others beyond the
users themselves. In a roadside study of reckless drivers who are not
impaired by alcohol, 45 percent tested positive for marijuana.

It sends the wrong message. What a message it sends. I urge the defeat of
the amendment which was, I might say, defeated in the full committee.

GRAND LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, Washington, DC, July 22, 2003.

Hon. MARK SOUDER,Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy,
and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to advise you of the strong opposition of
the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to an amendment to be
offered today by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey to H.R. 2799, the
appropriations measure for the Department of Commerce, Justice, State and
the Judiciary, which would effectively prohibit enforcement of Federal law
with respect to marijuana in States that do not provide penalties for the
use of the drug for so-called "medical" reasons.

In these States, Federal enforcement is the only effective enforcement of
the laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana. Federal efforts
provide the sole deterrent to the use of harder drugs and the commission of
other crimes, including violent crimes and crimes against property, which
go hand-in-hand with drug use and drug trafficking organizations,
particularly in the State of California where marijuana is sometimes traded
for precursor chemicals for methamphetamines, and in the State of
Washington, which is a significant gateway for high-potency marijuana that
can sell for the same price as heroin on many of our nation's streets.

The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant disruptive effect on
the combined efforts of State and local law enforcement to reduce drug
crime in every region of the country. On behalf of the more than 308,000
members of the Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat. If I can be
of any further help on this issue, please feel free to contact me or
Executive Director Jim Pasco through my Washington office.

Sincerely, Chuck Canterbury, National President.

NATIONAL NARCOTIC OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS COALITION, West Covina, CA, July
22, 2003.

Hon. MARK SOUDER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy,
and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN SOUDER: I am writing to let you know of the strong opposition
of the 60,000 state and local law enforcement officers in 40 states who are
members of the NNOAC to an amendment to be offered today to the
Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill that would effectively prohibit
enforcement of federal marijuana law in states that do not provide
penalties for the use of so-called "medical" marijuana.

Because even a modest amount of federal marijuana enforcement is now the
only effective enforcement of the marijuana laws in several such states, it
provides a strong deterrent effect to the use of harder drugs and other
crimes, including violent crimes and crimes against property. Federal
investigations of marijuana producers also serve to disrupt larger drug
trafficking organizations, particularly in the State of California where
marijuana is sometimes traded for precursor chemicals for methamphetamines,
and in the State of Washington, which is a significant gateway for
high-potency marijuana that can sell for the same price as heroin.

The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant disruptive effect on
state and local law enforcement of both drug laws and of other crimes
affecting public safety in states where it would apply. We strongly
encourage Members of Congress who support their local police officers and
law enforcement to oppose this amendment.

Sincerely, Ronald E. Brooks, President.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).

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

I am one of the cosponsors of this, and I would like to first point out
that the last statement you heard by your distinguished chairman is not
about the amendment. This amendment does not legalize marijuana. I repeat,
it does not legalize marijuana.

It is a very straightforward amendment. It removes the Federal interference
from local law, from local affairs where States have adopted through their
legislative process or initiative process, a limited use of marijuana for
medical purposes only. And in most cases, in all the cases I know, it has
to be dispensed by a doctor.

This is not about legalization of marijuana. This is just saying, Federal
Government, where those States have adopted those laws, just stay off their
backs. The attorneys general of these States, the law enforcement in these
communities, they support these operations.

I know, because in Santa Cruz County they were very, very upset and
petitioned when the Federal Government came in and did a raid. It upset
everybody.

So this process of not allowing States to go forward, I think, is wrong.
This amendment provides States with voter-given authority to promulgate
regulations to control the limited, limited, limited use of marijuana for
medicinal purposes. It is an amendment about States' rights. It is about
the sacredness of the electoral process and the sanctity of the citizens'
votes. It is about treating people as if they have instructed their
government to do so.

That is all this amendment does. A very narrow, limiting amendment. Please
adopt it.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Souder).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about what it purports to
be about. It is bad amendment for so many reasons that I can barely touch on.

First, let me clarify that the FOP, the Fraternal Order of Police, exactly
knows what amendment we are talking about. In fact, in their letter, echoed
also by a letter we received from the National Narcotics Officers'
Association Coalition says specifically this:

"Federal investigations of marijuana producers also serve to disrupt larger
drug trafficking organizations, particularly in the State of California
where marijuana is sometimes traded for precursor chemicals, for
methamphetamines, and in the State of Washington, which is a significant
gateway for high-potency marijuana that can sell for the same price as
heroin" on many of our Nation's streets.

These officers in California and Washington, these States, opposed the
referendums. They warned the people about what was going to happen and what
they see happening in many places in these States.

Let me reiterate a couple of basic points. It does not help sick people.
First, this amendment is not about helping sick people. There are no
generally recognized health benefits to smoking marijuana. We heard a false
reference earlier to the Institutes of Medicine report where in it its
verdicts said marijuana is not modern medicine. They issued a warning
particularly against smoking marijuana in that report which, admittedly,
was mixed, but did not endorse medicinal marijuana.

The FDA has not considered or approved marijuana for this use. Its active
ingredient, THC, is available in an improved pill form for those who want
to use it. In fact, as people have said, there are many dangerous products
that have ingredients in them that can be helpful, but that does not mean
that the carrier of it, such as marijuana, is in fact medicinal. It is
something inside that.

In fact, I, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy and Human Resources recently met with officials from The Netherlands
and in their Office of Medical Cannabis, even that nation, which is
generally recognized for its extremely liberal drug policies, specifically
has rejected the use of smoked marijuana for so-called "medicinal
purposes," which these State referendums do not do.

The American Lung Association has said that marijuana contains 50 to 70
percent more of some cancer-causing tobacco smoke. This is very dangerous.

Furthermore, in a recent article by the Deputy Director of ONDCP, Andrea
Barthwell called The Haze of Misinformation Clouds the Issue of Medicinal
Marijuana, she eloquently wrote, "Before the passage of the Pure Food and
Drug Act in 1907, Americans were exposed to a host of patent medicine
cure-alls, everything from vegetable folk remedies to dangerous mixtures
with morphine. The major component of most 'cures' was alcohol, which
probably explained why people said they felt better."

What we are hearing now is the same kind of classic peddling on the street
of remedies that, in fact, are not remedies, when there are legal remedies
to address the same question. The compounds in marijuana plants may have
some medicinal marijuana but that is not marijuana and can be gotten elsewhere.

Secondly, it makes no legal or governmental sense. In fact, it is fairly
embarrassing we have this amendment on the floor. This amendment is
premised on two extremely curious principles, first, that the Justice
Department should not enforce a clear Federal law on the books; and as
acknowledged by the sponsor of amendment and other supporters, the Supreme
Court has ruled that States cannot usurp Federal law.

If the sponsor of the amendment believes that Federal law should permit the
medicinal use for marijuana, he ought to go through the legislative process
and change the law. But the Justice Department, the DEA, and Members of
Congress, I might add, have sworn an oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States which requires enforcement of the laws of
the United States; and it is an incredibly dangerous precedent to retreat
from that.

Second, to ask Federal law enforcement to look the other way in some
States, but not others is unfair and probably unconstitutional selective
enforcement of a law.

This amendment would only apply in certain States. So someone in Washington
State would be exempt from enforcement of Federal marijuana laws if they
claim it is for medicinal purposes, but someone in Indiana would not. What
kind of law is this?

In fact, we fought a Civil War over this. It is called nullification.
States do not have the right. How would the minority feel, those who are
advocating this, if civil rights laws could be overturned at the Federal
level, and we said we were not going to enforce Federal rights because
State can nullify a Federal law?

If you want to change a Federal law, have the courage to change the Federal
law. Do not try to nullify a Federal law.

It makes no police sense. In the States listed in the bill, the Federal
Government is the only entity now doing effective marijuana enforcement.
This bill would end that enforcement, even though the States in question
are some of the most active drug States, and there are clear ties between
marijuana traffic and ties in harder drugs, as well as marijuana traffic
and other violent crime.

In the State of Washington, for example, streams of high-potency marijuana
are selling for more in Indiana and New York and Boston than cocaine and
heroin because its HTC content is not what we saw in the 1960s, 2 to 4
percent, but in the 18 to 30 percent range. That is extremely dangerous to
individuals. This amendment would in effect prohibit DEA from enforcing
marijuana laws if it claimed it was for medicinal purposes.

For that reason, State and local law enforcement officers have opposed this
amendment, including the National Narcotic Officers and the FOP, Fraternal
Order of Police.

Lastly, State medical marijuana laws are a sham.

Finally, we have seen these laws do not operate as intended. A State audit
in Oregon found that many of those who obtained so-called medicinal
marijuana have not provided documentation of their claims. A survey of many
HIV patients who claimed to use marijuana for medical purposes found that
57 percent smoked marijuana for mental, rather than physical, reasons and
that a third admitted outright that they had smoked marijuana for
recreational purposes. Even in California, the State is trying to revoke
the license of a physician who has written 7,500 marijuana recommendations
for patients without conducting any medical exams.

Lastly, we heard that this was citizen-led. What a joke. What we have are
people who historically, including some Members of this body, who favor
drug legalization in general support this as medicinal marijuana. In fact,
what they back more is legalization of marijuana, and this has not been a
citizen-led effort.

A man named George Soros has poured millions of dollars into these
referendums and the citizen groups have predominantly opposed them against
an overwhelming number of ads masquerading behind a few herding individuals
who have been given false promise by the modern-day medical hustlers, just
like they did in the 1900s. This is embarrassing from a legal standpoint
and embarrassing from a body that should be upholding the laws of the
United States and to be fighting the terrorism on our streets where people
are dying and here we are trying to give them cover for this pro-drug
movement by acting like it is medicine.

It is not medicine. If my colleagues believe it is medicine, get it out of
the main and into the people who need it. Do not hide behind marijuana and
make it more available so more kids can die in my district and in my
colleagues' districts as well.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

As a cosponsor of the amendment, I rise in support of this amendment and
appreciate the fact that the gentleman from New York has brought it to the
floor.

I would suggest that the previous speaker has forgotten some of the law;
and to me, that would be the constitutional law of the ninth and tenth
amendments. So changing the law is one thing, but remembering the
Constitution is another.

This has a lot to do with State law; but more importantly, as a physician,
I see this bill as something dealing with compassion. As a physician, I
have seen those who have died with cancer and getting chemotherapy and with
AIDS and having nothing to help them.

There is the case in California of Peter McDaniels, who was diagnosed with
cancer and AIDS. California changed the law and permitted him to use
marijuana if it was self-grown, and he was using it; and yet although he
was dying, the Federal officials came in and arrested him and he was taken
to court. The terrible irony of this was here was a man that was dying and
the physicians were not giving him any help; and when he was tried, it was
not allowed to be said that he was obeying the State law.

That is how far the ninth and tenth amendments have been undermined, that
there has been so much usurpation of States' rights and States' abilities
to manage these affair, and that is why the Founders set the system up this
way in order that if there is a mistake it not be monolithic; and believe
me, the Federal Government has made a mistake not only here with marijuana,
with all the drug laws, let me tell my colleagues.

There are more people who die from the use of legal drugs than illegal
drugs. Just think of that. More people die from the use of legal drugs; and
also, there are more deaths from the drug war than there are from deaths
from using the illegal drugs. So it has gotten out of control. But the
whole idea that a person who is dying, a physician cannot even prescribe
something that might help them. The terrible irony of Peter McDaniels was
that he died because of vomiting, something that could have and had only
been curtailed by the use of marijuana. No other medication had helped; and
we, the Federal Government, go in there and deny this and defy the State
law, the State law of California.

Yes, I would grant my colleagues there is danger in all medications. There
is some danger in marijuana, but I do not know of any deaths that is purely
marijuana-related. If we want to talk about a deadly medication or a deadly
drug that kills literally tens of thousands in this country, it is alcohol.
And how many people want to go back to prohibition? I mean, nobody's
proposing that, and yet that is a deadly drug.

The whole notion that we can deny this right to the States to allow a
little bit of compassion for a patient that is dying, I would say this is a
compassionate vote. If we care about the people being sick, then we have to
vote for this amendment. This will do nothing to increase the use of bad
drugs. The bad drugs are there; and as a physician and a parent and a
grandparent, I preach against it all the time, but the unwise use of drugs
is a medical problem, just like alcoholism is a medical problem; but we
have turned this into a monster to the point where we will not even allow a
person dying from cancer and AIDS to get a little bit of relief.

I strongly urge support and a positive vote for this amendment.