MEDICINAL MARIJUANA BACKERS TRY, TRY AGAIN IN HOUSE VOTE

Slim Hope For Bill That Would Quash Top Court Ruling

Washington -- Advocates of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes
face a daunting task in Congress -- which probably will vote again on
the issue next week -- but gain a little more hope year by year.

A bill advocating medicinal marijuana received 94 votes in the House
in 1998. In 2003, legislation to block the Justice Department from
using federal funds to crack down on the use of medicinal marijuana
got 152 votes. Last year that total edged down to 148. This year
advocates say they can count on 160 solid votes in the House when the
same bill comes up for a vote, probably next Tuesday or Wednesday.

"It's our objective to get a few more votes this year," said Rep.
Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., co-sponsor with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,
R-Huntington Beach (Orange County), of the legislation that blocks
federal enforcement against medicinal marijuana patients in states
that allow its use. "There's a good chance we will get more support."

Setback in California

The vote will come on the heels of Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling
that dealt a setback to the 10 states, including California, that have
decided to allow patients to use marijuana with a doctor's
recommendation. The court's majority opinion, authored by Justice John
Paul Stevens, said any changes in the federal law will have to come
from Congress.

"I was disappointed in the decision. It was wrong," Hinchey said. "But
I was glad to see that wording about Congress in his decision. The
Congress has to deal with this issue."

Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in
Washington, said his group counts 160 votes this year for the Hinchey-
Rohrabacher proposal, which will be offered as an amendment to the
annual appropriations bill that covers the Justice Department. He said
the court ruling means "the light is shining brightly on Congress" and
will increase pressure on potential swing votes in the House.

Angel Raich of Oakland, the lead plaintiff in the case decided by the
Supreme Court, plans to fly to Washington to lobby before the vote.

Kampia wouldn't predict victory in the 434-member House, where a
vacancy has reduced its normal membership by one. "We'll have an
all-time record vote, " he said.

Opposition remains

But a majority remains far off. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., chairman of
House drug policy subcommittee, hailed the Supreme Court decision. "We
cannot allow the state initiative process to undermine" national
health and safety standards "on the basis of political -- not
scientific -- arguments," Souder said in a statement.

He has said that if medicinal pot advocates want to change the federal
law that makes marijuana an illegal drug, they should get Congress and
the president to make such a change. He'll help lead the opposition to
Rohrabacher and Hinchey next week.

Joyce Nalepka, founder and president of Drug Free Kids:
America's Challenge, and a firm opponent of any step
toward legalizing pot, said, "I'm just appalled that
any members of Congress would vote to legalize
marijuana.

"What amazes me is that there are so many people who can get elected
to federal office and be so ill-informed. There is absolutely no
medical evidence that marijuana has any medical effectiveness,"
Nalepka added. Medicinal marijuana advocates challenge that contention.

Other legislation on medicinal marijuana has also been introduced. In
2003, Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, offered the Truth in Trials Act that
would have allowed anyone charged with a marijuana offense to use the
defense that they were acting in compliance with state medicinal
marijuana laws.

Echoes of S.F. case

That proposal, which Farr plans to reintroduce, carried echoes of a
San Francisco case in which U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled
that a jury in a federal criminal trial could not consider whether the
defendant had grown pot for medical purposes in compliance with
California's Proposition 215.

Farr and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., have also introduced the States'
Rights to Medical Marijuana Act that would protect doctors, druggists
and patients from federal prosecution. So far, they have 36
co-sponsors.

Neither bill has been, or is likely to be, scheduled for a committee
hearing. No bills about medicinal pot are pending in the Senate.

In last year's vote on Rohrabacher-Hinchey, 18 Republicans joined
Rohrabacher on the losing side for his amendment. It's unclear how
many more members of the House majority will vote for the proposal,
although advocates say the Supreme Court's reasoning against states'
rights and for a strong federal role in regulating commerce could
appeal to conservatives considering a vote for the measure.

"It's important to keep this issue out on the table," Hinchey said.