BIPARTISAN GROUP OF REPRESENTATIVES HOLDS NEWS CONFERENCE ON MEDICINAL MARIJUANA

FRANK: My name is Barney Frank. I am the sponsor of the bill. And what I am
going to do is, one of our colleagues, Congressman Rohrabacher from
California, has joined us very generously, because he is in the midst of an
important session of the Committee on International Relations. So I am
going to first introduce Congressman Rohrabacher so he can, as we often
have to be, be as close to being in two places at one time as you can be,
unaided by any substance.

Dana? ROHRABACHER: Let me just say this is a nonpartisan -- a bipartisan
issue. We're talking about making common sense and a more heartfelt and
sensitive decision about what policies we're going to have concerning the
use of marijuana. And it makes no sense by anybody's calculation, at least
by mine and by conservatives who believe in individual responsibility, that
we put people in jail for utilizing marijuana in order to help someone
who's sick and someone who might be helped get through an illness with what
marijuana as a drug has to offer.

Let me just say that my mother, who passed away about a year and a half
ago, was in the hospital for some surgery, major surgery, and it was very
difficult to get my mother to eat. And she was in pain, she was nervous,
and she had lost her appetite.

And I remember going through that trauma and thinking to myself that I'm
very happy and very glad that I had voted in California, behind closed
doors in the ballot box, for the medical marijuana initiative, which
permits people to use marijuana for those type of situations where it can
be of help to someone who's suffering some type of injury or malady or some
sort of disease.

So I'm very pleased that Lyn Nofziger is here, who was my mentor, and
supporting this and very happy to join Barney on this issue. I think this
is a matter -- when we talk about whether or not marijuana should be
available to people who are suffering in the hospital, this is a matter of
conscience. This shouldn't be a matter of drug control, for Pete's sakes,
this should be a matter of trying to help people who are suffering. And if
we can do this by making sure that marijuana is available to them so they
get their appetite back and they gain some strength, I think it's sinful
for us not to do that and not to reach out to people like that.

ROHRABACHER: So I hope that people get -- you know, let's get over some of
these stereotypes and these hangovers from the '60s and get on to an honest
discussion of this issue.

And the first step has to be whether or not patients who need help are
going to be able to use this to alleviate their pain and help them with
their appetite so they can get better.

And I'm very proud to stand here with Barney and do this for freedom and
for humanitarian sake. Thank you.

FRANK: I just want to outline the bill and then I'm going to call on my
colleague, Dr., in this case, Ron Paul, and the Lyn Nofziger, who we are
delighted is going to join us.

The bill is very straightforward. As you can see, nine states have decided
to allow physicians within those states to prescribe marijuana. The -- a
number of them have done it by referendum; I think most of them -- I know
most of them have done it by referendum, by a vote of the public.

What our bill does is to say that in those states where, by proper
processes the state has decided to allow physicians to prescribe marijuana,
there will be no federal prohibition. It simply removes the federal
government's prosecutorial presence from a situation where the state has
decided that this is the way the practice of medicine ought to be carried out.

There obviously are a lot of broader issues about marijuana. They're not
implicated by this bill one way or the other. This bill is very simple and
very straightforward, and it says that you cannot interfere with the
prescription of marijuana by an -- according to the state law, and it is
simply is a respect for state law.

We should note, as people understand, the practice of medicine has,
throughout our history, been a state matter. We are not the super-medical
board. Many people have suggested that from time to time, it's generally
been resisted. And what this does is simply reaffirm the long-standing
American practice that the practice of medicine is done at the state level.

It does have an amendment that makes it clear that this does not interfere
with no smoking rules, this does not give to people who are using marijuana
for medical purposes superior rights to others where there are no smoking
in public.

It's, as I said, very simple and very straightforward, and that's what it does.

FRANK: Next I'm very pleased to be joined by the original -- there were two
of us who originally did this bill, my colleague, Ron Paul, from Texas.

PAUL: Thank you, Barney. And I'm glad to be able to join you here today and
try to talk about what I consider a very important issue.

The first attack on marijuana is rather recent. I'd like to think not so
much that we're breaking ground and going in a new direction, we're
actually trying to restore a freedom that existed for a long time.

It was in 1937 or '38 where the first federal law was passed. At that time
it was well recognized that they could not put a prohibition on this
particular drug, or any drugs for that matter. And what they did was they
put a high tax on it. But up until then there were no restrictions, and
states regulated and did what they wanted. And to me, this is a restoration
of a personal choice, as well as a state legislative matter. And it
shouldn't be so dramatic.

It reminds me a little bit about what happened in 1932, for financial
reasons they made gold illegal and we relegalized it, ownership, in 1976.
So I, sort of, liked to see that there was an attack in the 1930s. And what
we would like to do is relegalize freedom of choice for various reasons.

I, as a physician, am very concerned about what's happening in this country
and recognize the many, many dangers in the misuse of drugs, both
prescription drugs and so-called illegal drugs. And I have practiced
medicine that way and raised kids that way with a great deal of concern.

But this is not exactly what we're dealing with. We're dealing here with a
state issue in the legalization of personal, private choice by patients to
use a substance that can be very helpful.

The idea that we attack sick people and the right of the doctor- physician
relationship to deal with that is criminal. It's an absolute criminal act.
And where is the compassion? Where is the compassionate conservatives today
coming and saying, "Look, we are compassionate enough and we do care about
people as physicians or as patients or as loved ones." They're not here,
but they should be.

PAUL: The large number of the American people agree with us on this issue.
And people ask me, "Why is it that Congress is so slow? Why don't they
respond if your right?" Well, I think it's rather natural for Congress to
be about 20 years behind events. They're very, very slow to catch on to
what's happening in the country.

And for this reason, I think we have made inroads. Barney is working hard
on this. And we have made progress. But we still cannot win this vote. But
I think it will come. I'm convinced that it will.

But ultimately, it is a states' right issue. It's a federal matter, where
they should be involved. But ultimately in this country, we should deal
with it in a broader sense of freedom of choice.

I, as a physician, who practiced conventional medicine, have high respect
and high regard for all alternative medicine and personal choices. And I
also accept the principle that governments cannot protect us from
ourselves. So therefore, what we want to do is to be the protector of
liberty, the protector of freedom of choice. And believe me, we can sort
this out a lot better.

So I compliment Congressman Frank on his work and his effort.

And hopefully the next time we have a vote, Barney, we'll do a lot better.

Thank you.

FRANK: Thank you, Ron.

I even noted, by the way, we do believe this ought to appeal both to
Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives. You notice we have a
new color scheme here. We have green states and white states. But I would
point out that the green states are composed of both red states and blue
states.

(LAUGHTER)

Now, that may be a color combination that you don't get from the spectrum.
I guess -- what? -- red and blue will give you purple states. So maybe
we'll do -- but there are states there that were carried by George Bush and
there are states there that were carried by Al Gore.

Next, I am very gratified that Mr. Lyn Nofziger has agreed to join us. It's
not easy for people who have dealt with difficult matters in a private way
always to talk about them. And I'm always especially grateful to people who
are willing to, kind of, share private matters because they want to spare
other people from undergoing some of the difficulties that they may have
had themselves had to encounter.

FRANK: So, Mr. Nofziger, we are very grateful for your joining us.

NOFZIGER: Well, thank you, Barney. And I am very pleased to have been
invited here.

I think those of who know me may notice that I'm wearing a tie, which I
don't usually do, so this is important. I came to the Hill, which I don't
usually do, because it's a terrible place. And I'm mingling with liberals.

(LAUGHTER)

So you can see it's important to me that I be here, and this legislation is
tremendously important to me.

And I have a brief statement here that I'd like to read, because I'm not as
articulate as any of the three congressmen who you've been listening to.

But some of you may know my older daughter died several years ago from
non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and she was 38. Before she died, she underwent heavy
chemotherapy that caused nausea, diarrhea and loss of appetite. None of the
legal medications, including the marijuana substitute, Marinol, helped to
alleviate the symptoms. In desperation, we turned to marijuana to see if
that would help. Fortunately, people of her generation knew a lot more
about where you find marijuana than people of my generation.

And the marijuana did help. It reduced the side effects of the chemotherapy
to the point where she regained her appetite and actually began putting on
weight. Obviously, it did not save her life, nor did we think it would,
however it made a portion of the last weeks of her life considerably more
bearable, both to her and to her family.

Since then, I've learned that marijuana can also help persons with
glaucoma, the wasting symptoms of AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other
afflictions. Because of this, I've become an avid supporter of efforts to
legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes.

The bill by Congressman Frank and Congressman Paul is a big step in that
direction and I'm pleased to be here to lend my support. And in closing, I
want to say that an administration that claims to be compassionate and
conservative should enthusiastically support legislation that truly is
compassionate and that also would return rights to the states that the
Tenth Amendment theoretically guarantees to them.

NOFZIGER: And I sincerely hope that the administration will get behind this
bill and that we can do something for a lot of people who need help and who
are being denied help by people who just don't seem to give a damn. Thank
you very much.

FRANK: Next, one of the early co-sponsors, my colleague Congresswoman Jan
Schakowsky from Chicago.

SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you, I'm proud to be here today with Representatives
Frank and Paul to speak on this critical issue. It is really a sad day in
the United States when the alleviation of suffering of thousands, tens of
thousands, maybe even millions, of people is held hostage to a misguided
policy that has probably more -- definitely has more politics than science
involved in it.

This bill is so modest. H.R. 2592 simply guarantees the rights of states to
determine their own laws and how best to provide those suffering from
debilitating illnesses with alternative methods to ease their pain. This
means the right of doctors to prescribe medical marijuana.

It seems to me that the attorney general should be concentrating on putting
behind bars Enron or WorldCom thieves who stole millions from the American
people instead of doctors who are relieving the pain of people who are
afflicted with grave medical conditions. They can't eat, they can't sleep,
they're experiencing acute and unbearable pain, and I guess John Ashcroft
just didn't get the memo explaining about being a compassionate conservative.

Every day, doctors prescribe potent and addictive drugs like codeine and
morphine to patients across the country to help ease their pain, live in
dignity, improve their quality of life. In some instances these drugs don't
work and the medical community has agreed that medical marijuana does. The
federal government needs to get out of the doctor's office and let the
patients get the help they need.

We could be here asking Mr. Ashcroft to just say yes. We are not. We are
asking that the Congress take a first step in allowing states to make that
kind of decision, to get out of the way of people who are simply asking to
be relieved of their suffering. Thank you.

FRANK: Next, two people who are themselves ill and have found marijuana to
be helpful have joined us. And again, as with Mr. Nofziger, I want to
express my very deep personal appreciation. It isn't easy to come and do
this, and people don't do it out of any need to exhibit, but out of a deep
commitment that what they've gone through they would like to prevent other
people from having to go through, namely the problems with the law.

The last thing we ought to be doing, literally the last thing, to people
who are ill is to be burdening them in any way when they seek a method of
alleviating their pain and the pain of those around them that harms no one
else.

[continued in part 2 at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02.n1401.a06.html ]