U.S. House votes 148-268 to end DEA's war on medical marijuana patients

[Jimbo]

I want to thank everybody who helped support this amendment. You rock!!! We put on a good show and now we are need to go into phase III--following up on our letters to our representatives to thank or "spank" them for their vote on this bill.


-------------------------------------------------



Late yesterday, July 7, the U.S. House of Representatives defeated by
a vote of 148-268 an amendment that would have prevented the DEA and
the U.S. Justice Department from spending any more money to raid and
prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers.

This is only the second time in history that the full House has voted
on binding legislation to end the federal government's war on medical
marijuana. (The U.S. Senate never has.)

Although we lost, yesterday's vote was an impressive showing, in large
part because of the letters that members and allies of the Marijuana
Policy Project have been faxing to their U.S. representatives. MPP
generated thousands of messages to Capitol Hill -- including more than
5,000 in the just the past week -- showing U.S. House members the
collective strength of the medical marijuana grassroots movement.

Fully 66% of House Democrats voted for the amendment, and a surprising
19 House Republicans bucked their hostile congressional leaders and
the White House to vote "yes" for our amendment ... in an election
year, no less.

As compared to the vote on last year's amendment in July 2003, this
year's amendment gained four Republican votes and lost eight
Democratic votes (although ten "yes" Democratic votes from last year
were not present for yesterday's vote).

Would you please do two things right now to help MPP follow up on
yesterday's vote?

* Visit http://www.mpp.org/DD/action.html to fax a pre-written letter
to thank or "spank" your U.S. House member.

* Visit http://www.mpp.org/donate1004 to donate to MPP's congressional
lobbying efforts, which are severely underfunded.

Over the past months, the MPP staff has spent more than 1,000 hours
lobbying on Capitol Hill and working closely with numerous U.S.
representatives to generate support for the legislation.

On June 4, we organized more than 500 MPP members, medical marijuana
patients, caregivers, and other supporters in protests at 110
congressional district offices, urging targeted members of Congress to
support the amendment. The protests generated news coverage nationwide
and forced many legislators to come face-to-face with medical
marijuana patients who are suffering under the policies the
legislators have voted for.

And last week, MPP brought TV host Montel Williams -- who uses medical
marijuana to treat the symptoms of multiple sclerosis -- to Capitol
Hill to address a packed room of almost 200 congressional staffers
about the proposal.

Yesterday's 148-268 vote highlights how far the medical marijuana
movement has come since 1998, when we lost a House floor vote on a
non-binding medical marijuana resolution by a substantial 311-94
margin. Yesterday's vote was significantly closer ... and it was on
a binding, strong piece of legislation that would have decisively
prevented the federal government from raiding medical marijuana
patients.

Before yesterday's vote, we promised legislators that those who voted
"no" would be targeted for a massive public awareness campaign among
their constituents -- with the hope that those legislators will pay
the price at the polls on November 2.

And now we're going to make good on that promise. Throughout the
summer and fall, MPP will be blanketing the targeted legislators'
districts with posters designed to look like the front page of a
tabloid, with the headline "Congressman _(name inserted here)_ votes
to send cancer patients to jail." Visit http://www.mpp.org/hinchey to
see a sample poster.

These posters cost only two cents to produce ... and we've budgeted
enough to distribute 250,000 of the fliers in every targeted district.

To bolster our efforts, it is critically important that members of
Congress receive feedback from their constituents after yesterday's
vote.

Please visit http://www.mpp.org/DD/action.html to send a message. Once
you enter your zip code, the system will automatically generate the
appropriate letter, depending on whether your U.S. representative
voted "yes" or "no" on the amendment. Then, simply enter your address
and hit "submit." The entire process will take only one minute.

And if you support the work that MPP is doing -- work that yesterday
forced each member of the U.S. House of Representatives to take a
public stand on the arrest and imprisonment of seriously ill
patients -- please help us continue this important fight by making a
financial contribution at http://www.mpp.org/donate1004 today.

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. Note that the amendment -- which until Tuesday had been known as
the Hinchey amendment -- became the Farr amendment at the last minute.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), who was scheduled to introduce the
amendment with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), injured himself
earlier in the week and Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA) agreed to
introduce the amendment in his absence.

[MysteryMeat]

Can you hook me up with some dank?

[USAcommitteeX]

It's also important to realize that the campaign to allow marijuana to be used as medicine is a tactical maneuver in an overall strategy to completely legalize all drugs. Pro-legalization groups have transformed the debate from decriminalizing drug use to one of compassion and care for people with serious diseases.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html Do I expect people to believe this? Hell no I don't.

Can you hook me up with some dank?

I got some lawn clippings you wont notice the difference.

[TheHawk]

The MPP is full of morons only trying to change things for the sake of stirring up shit. No matter the cause, each side has to have its dumbys I guess. The complete legalization of all drugs is the dumbest idea since someone said, "Hey, George W., you should run for president"

Originally posted by TheHawk
The complete legalization of all drugs is the dumbest idea since someone said, "Hey, George W., you should run for president"

I disagree. But I also realize that our society is far from being responsible enough to be granted that priviledge.

[Element4040]

Originally posted by -m-
I disagree. But I also realize that our society is far from being responsible enough to be granted that priviledge.

[thefncrow]

Originally posted by TheHawk No matter the cause, each side has to have its dumbys I guess. The complete legalization of all drugs is the dumbest idea since someone said, "Hey, George W., you should run for president"

Yes, complete legalization of any and all drugs is stupid. We need to keep antibiotics locked down, so that they can remain useful. Other than that, what reason do you have to assert what a consenting individual can or cannot do to himself?

I seriously want to see what you have to say on this. Most times, when asked this question, people cite things which are symptoms of the War on Drugs, thus making them very easy to solve(end the War on Drugs, and its symptoms go away as well).

Many things done under the influence of alcohol are illegal. Being under the influence of alcohol in public can be illegal. Driving while drunk is also illegal. However, alcohol, itself, is not illegal. That's the key right there: make the things that dumbasses might do while intoxicated illegal, but allow for the use of the intoxicant. The nanny state is terrible, and even moreso when they're trying to protect us from the lowest common denominator, because the bar is very low.

I recognize that people now probably wouldn't be ready for the legalization of drugs. Too much of the culture in America today refuses to accept personal responsibility. That, I think, iis probably the biggest problem with this country today. So many people who look to deflect blame away from themselves. Its this kind of bullshit that necessitates a nanny state aimed at the lowest common denominator.

If someone wants to smoke weed, inject heroin, take a bath in a tub full of acid, inject lighter fluid into their veins, or all of the above at the same time, they should be free to do so. Its their body, its their choice, and the federal government has no business whatsoever trying to legislate away his choice.

If the person becomes injured, ill, or suffers death because of their choice, that's sad for his remaining relatives, but it was the consequences of the choices he himself made. It may be hard on his relatives, but its not a reason that someone who is more responsible cannot make that choice for themselves. The problem is the person, not the drug.

Keep in mind, the end of the War on Drugs would bring the money that was running through the black market(thus running to gangs/etc) back into the legit market, where, instead, a lot of those profits would end up with large corporations. Is it great that RJ Reynolds would get more money? Not really, but I'd rather RJ Reynolds have it than various gangs who have a stake in the operation. It would decimate the South American resistance groups who rely on the sale of cocaine for their income(since it can be grown here in the States, for less, on a large scale). Drugs would become much less expensive, because the price is no longer artificially increased due to risk factors for the seller and a much increased level of supply. If the drugs are cheaper, then drug related theft should also go down. After all, a junkie in need of a fix could go get their fix for $5 from the local Drug Store, and they don't have to steal and pawn a TV to afford that. The cost of maintaining that habit could be subsidized with a job at McDonalds, something that cannot happen in the current system.

So, tell me what we're getting out of the War on Drugs, or what good is coming out of the criminalization of drugs? Simply put, why should drug prohibition continue?

Hell, if you bother to read your history books, the federal government from 100 years ago would tell you that the War on Drugs is unconstitutional. Its just that, in the last 100 years, we've stopped letting things like that matter all too much.

Yes, the medical marijuana movement is inextricably linked with a "rebranding" of the legalisation movement. No, that doesn't matter.

Medical marijuana should be immediately legalised based upon state's rights to vote it as acceptable. Marijuana should be decriminalised and treated as alcohol and tobacco (though I think people should be able to grow their own as long as they don't sell in bulk w/out a license).

Anyway, even William F Buckley has started writing editorials in the National Review about these ludicrous policies.

[Jimbo]

MPP's does not support legalization of all drugs (that's why they are called the Marijuana Policy Project) and nearly all their work is toward protecting medical marijuana patients. I seriously doubt a majority of the 70-80% in this country that support medical marijuana are just wanting to get high. There are not many people in America who don't know a relative or friend that hasn't been stricken by cancer, glaucoma, or severe chronic pain. These are people who are suffering greatly, but suffer the risk of arrest and prosecution and having their property confiscated by the state. This issue relates to broad spectrum of the population on a very emotional level, but politicians are too scared to speak out for it.


Federal Courts Support State Medical Marijuana Laws


* The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that licensed physicians and their patients have a First Amendment right to discuss marijuana as a treatment option openly and without fear of government interference. The government urged the United States Supreme Court to overturn the decision but the Supreme Court refused. This decision affirms the sanctity of the doctor/patient relationship and the First Amendment, and supports laws in the seven states within the Ninth Circuit where medical marijuana is legal. U.S. v. Conant, 124 S.Ct. 387 (2003).


* The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals banned the federal government from enforcing the federal criminal law against marijuana, the Controlled Substances Act, against patients and their caregivers who cultivate, possess or use marijuana for personal, noncommercial medical purposes on the advice of their physician and in accordance with California state law. This decision protects patients and the caregivers who cultivate for patients who are too sick to grow their own medical marijuana. Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222 (2003).


* The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana cooperative, a collective hospice organization that allows its members to cultivate and share medical marijuana in accordance with state law. The Court Order bans the federal government from prosecuting cooperative members who provide marijuana to others who are too ill to cultivate their own for medical purposes. County of Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6880 (2004).


* Congress passed a law that would cut off federal funding to any local transit authority in the country who displayed an advertisement, on a city bus or commuter train for instance, that criticized existing marijuana laws. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the law is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment -- the government can not interfere with the public¡¦s right to openly discuss and debate marijuana policy reform. ACLU v. Mineta, civil action no. 04-0262 (2004).


Click here for the ruling that will decide this coming fall/winter the fate of medical marijuana patients once and for all

[Big Andy]

When people stop and realize the TRUTH, then maybe we will make a step forward.

The "truth" being that drug prohibition has absolutely no redeeming quality other than making middle aged mothers in Plano happy.

Bunk and dangerously manufactured drugs only exist because of prohibition. No one would ever die because of pill adulterants, or mistaken dose due to inconsistent purity.

Violent crime related to drugs would cease almost completely, because there would be no black market. No crack houses. No gun fights at Heaven because of bad drug deals.

[Chris Allen]

oops, i posted on the other thread first- not seeing this one...

i totally think that cocain, ice, meth, herione and lsd should never be legalized!!!!
fuck that!!
i never want to come home one day in the future and find my child dead from an OD of herion, that is fucked up to believe HARD drugs should be legal. imo ...

mary j on the other hand, is nondeadly- it doesnt really have the risk of hard drugs or even alcohol when it comes to your life expectancy..

does anyone think of that??

[kit'n]

Originally posted by unreal

i never want to come home one day in the future and find my child dead from an OD of herion, that is fucked up to believe HARD drugs should be legal. imo ...

just because they are illegal does not mean that u cannot still come home in the future to find your child dead from an OD. it would prolly be harder for a child to get ahold of the drugs if they were legalized and had an age restriction on them like alcohol. shit, for most people i know it was always easier to get illegal drugs then alcohol when they were underaged.

[Chris Allen]

Originally posted by kit'n
just because they are illegal does not mean that u cannot still come home in the future to find your child dead from an OD. it would prolly be harder for a child to get ahold of the drugs if they were legalized and had an age restriction on them like alcohol. shit, for most people i know it was always easier to get illegal drugs then alcohol when they were underaged.

yeah right, heroin isnt the easiest drug to come by, neither is cocain... if it were legal, it would be just as easy for underagers to get as it is for them to get cigarettes now!!

[Krash]

Originally posted by unreal
yeah right, heroin isnt the easiest drug to come by, neither is cocain... if it were legal, it would be just as easy for underagers to get as it is for them to get cigarettes now!!

So legislate to enforce the age restrictions. A problem is far easier to deal with when everyone is aware of it, than if it is covered up all the damn time.

[johnny861]

In defense to individual's rights to their own body, I say they should certainly relax the laws on said illegal drugs, however, they should still be regulated to some degree due to many illegal substances being bad for your health...