Entire transcript of U.S. House Debate over July medical marijuana patients bill

[Jimbo]

One of the most interesting discussions during the med mj debate, that IMO isn't covered nearly enough in med mj debates, is the struggle over med mj research and getting FDA approval (even though its not FDA but NIDA and DEA approval) before allowing cancer and AIDS patients to endure with dignity and not face arrest and prosecution.

It was mentioned on the floor of the US Congress
by Rep.
Farr (D-CA) in the debate over the
Farr-Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Paul
amendment that would have prohibited the use of federal funds to prevent States that have medical marijuana laws from implementing them.

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

Rep. Farr, "Other opponents of this amendment say that they will not
support
medical
marijuana until more research is complete. The problem is that the
Federal
Government has effectively blocked research. To cite just one example,
in
July 2001, the University of Massachusetts applied to the DEA for a
license
to manufacture marijuana for medical research. This is the same kind of
license a company called GW Pharmaceuticals applied for in England a
few
years ago. While GW Pharmaceuticals has now concluded Phase III trials
and
is nearing market approval for its marijuana spray, the DEA--3 years
later--has not even bothered to deny the University of Massachusetts'
license. Of course, they have not granted it, either. They have just
let the
application sit in limbo.

Another application to the Federal Government, requesting
permission to
import just 10 grams of marijuana for research has languished for 10
months.
Does our government think 10 grams of marijuana is going to increase
the
drug problem in this Nation? Of course not. The Federal goal seems to
be to
purposely to block research that would prove--or disprove, once and for
all--that marijuana has therapeutic benefits."

[Entire transcript below]

[Jimbo]

The entire transcript of the debate is pasted in below.

July 7, 2004

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, California,
Colorado,
Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from
implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in
those
States.

The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved, and pursuant to the
order of
the House today, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the
gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 10 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

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

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is very
straightforward. In simple terms, the Farr-Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Paul
amendment prohibits the use of funds in the bill from preventing States
that
have medical marijuana laws from implementing them.

As a result, the States have medical marijuana laws on the books
they can
implement, regulate and enforce them, just like now. States that do not
have
medical marijuana laws on the books remain subject to the overarching
Federal law.

This amendment does not stop law enforcement officials from
prosecuting
illegal use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage the use of
marijuana. This amendment does not encourage the use of drugs in
children.
This amendment does not legalize any drugs. This amendment does not
change
the classification of marijuana. This amendment is recognized as
States'
rights to oversee the medical scope of practice of doctors in their
States,
to prescribe drugs as doctors see as necessary for medical conditions.

Today's Los Angeles Times points out that the Justice Department's
medical marijuana war seems increasingly out of step with the whole
country.
Last fall, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling barring
Federal
officials from prosecuting doctors for their recommendations.

Just 2 weeks ago, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian
Church,
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainstream
religious
groups supported doctors' rights to prescribe pot as a
when-all-else-fails
treatment for the seriously ill. The best way to thwart casual use of
this
drug is to let doctors prescribe it in closely circumscribed and
regulated
ways such as the States do.

Now, there are nine States that have passed these laws. The voters
are
speaking, and they are doing it more in every State. Just recently
Vermont.
Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont,
and
Washington have enacted State medical marijuana laws. Because of these
State
laws, thousands of patients are able to alleviate their pain and
suffering
without fear of arrest by State or local authorities.
[Page: H5301] GPO's PDF

The threat of arrest by Federal agents, however, still exists. In
the
past, the Federal Government has impeded research on medical use of
marijuana, even though thousands of patients have testified, explained,
and
acknowledged that it helps relieve some of the debilitating symptoms,
such
as nausea, pain, loss of appetite associated with serious illness.

Despite Federal admonitions against marijuana, the American people
support medical marijuana and pretty overwhelmingly. Most national
polls
show the support around 70 percent.

This amendment is not necessarily about the actual medical purpose
of
marijuana, though I know scores of doctors have attested to marijuana's
medical benefits. In States where medical marijuana is legal, thousands
of
licensed physicians have recommended marijuana to their patients. This
amendment is not about legalizing drugs, though some will argue that it
should be.

No. What this amendment is about is States rights. In so many areas
we
trust States rights. And I think of us here in the United States
Congress.
We allowed States to draw our district boundary lines.

We allow States to set the fee we have to pay to run for office. We
allow
the States to create the primary procedures for getting elected to
Congress.
We allow the States to fashion Medicaid packages. We allow States to
license
doctors to practice. We trust the States to do what is best for their
residents of that State. When it comes to health care policy or
palliative
care, the care of alleviating pain, nine States of the United States
have
determined that it is appropriate public policy to allow the use of
marijuana as a prescribed treatment.

If Congress respects States rights in so many other areas, why does
it
not respect it with regard to medical marijuana?
[Begin Insert]

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the Federal Government
from
interfering with state medical marijuana laws. It would end the DEA
raids on
medical marijuana patients and caregivers who are acting in accordance
with
state law. It would not--let me repeat--it would not prevent the DEA
from
arresting individuals who are involved in marijuana-related activities
unconnected to medical use.

Here is the simple question posed by this amendment: Should the
Federal
Government arrest individuals who are trying to alleviate their own
suffering or the suffering of others in compliance with state law?

I am only too familiar with the tension between DEA law enforcement
and
state and locally-sanctioned marijuana cooperatives in California. On
September 5, 2002 in Santa Cruz, California--my district--dozens of
heavily
armed DEA agents stormed into the home of Valerie and Mike Corral where
the
cooperative garden of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana
(WAMM), a
medical marijuana hospice, is tended by collective members. They
destroyed
167 plants, which would have been distributed--free of charge--to more
than
200 seriously and terminally ill WAMM members. Although the Corrals did
not
resist, the agents pointed loaded rifles to their heads, forced them to
the
ground, and handcuffed their hands behind their backs. The DEA agents
kept
them handcuffed in their home for 4 hours before taking them 30 miles
to the
Federal courthouse in San Jose where they were eventually released
without
being charged. Meanwhile, Federal agents handcuffed the Corral's
over-night
guest, Suzanne Pfeil, a WAMM member who was disabled by polio, and
detained
two other members, one with AIDS and a caregiver. Pfeil happened to be
sleeping when the raid occurred. Despite the fact that her leg braces
and
crutches were in plain sight, the agents demanded she stand, which she
was
unable to do with her hands cuffed. Pfeil's blood pressure shot up and
she
experienced chest pains. Agents then refused to call an ambulance. All
this
pain, confusion and fear--yet WAMM was operating with the full
knowledge and
consent of state and local authorities.

Many people who oppose medical marijuana say that there is only
anecdotal
evidence of its effectiveness. But these anecdotes cannot be simply
dismissed; they are the stories of real people who are suffering. Just
this
morning in Roll Call, there was a powerful example of this. Talk show
host
Montel Williams discussed his struggle to live with excruciating pain
caused
by multiple sclerosis. Montel Williams, a former Marine and decorated
naval
officer, who made anti-drug PSA's for the White House drug czar's
office,
explained in this article that marijuana is the ``only'' drug that
allows
him to function on a day-to-day basis. Now if he is using marijuana
with his
doctor's advice and is following state law, why on earth should we
waste
Federal resources trying to prevent him from alleviating his own pain?
And
taking it a step further, if someone else is growing that marijuana for
him
and is following state law why should we take that medicine away from
him by
interfering with the grower?

The answer most opponents of this amendment will give is that
marijuana
simply is not a medicine. But this had become an absurd claim. First of
all,
both the Netherlands and Canada have enacted

medical marijuana laws, with marijuana available at pharmacies in
the
Netherlands. In the United States, nine states have medical marijuana
laws
that allow doctors to recommend marijuana to their patients. And in
those
states, hundreds of doctors have recommended marijuana to thousands of
patients.

Even our Federal Government has acknowledged the therapeutic
benefits of
marijuana. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of
Medicine
conducted a study funded by the White House Office of National Drug
Policy.
The principle investigator from the study said upon its completion,
``We
concluded that there are some limited circumstances in which we
recommend
smoking marijuana for medical use.'' An even stronger endorsement came
from
the DEA in 1988. Then, Administrative Law Judge Francis Young, after an
exhaustive, 2-year study of marijuana, called for its rescheduling on
the
grounds that ``marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest
therapeutically active substances known to man.'' He concluded, even 60
years ago, that marijuana offered a ``currently accepted medical use in
treatment.''

[Jimbo]

(continued)

Over the past year, medical marijuana has gained even wider
acceptance.
It has been endorsed by the American Nurses Association, whose 2.6
million
members care for the Nation's most seriously ill patients; by the
United
Methodist Church, the Nation's third largest religious denomination; by
the
New York and Rhode Island Medical Societies; and by many other health
care
organizations. Other longtime supporters of medical marijuana include
the
New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the
American Public Health Association.

Do opponents of this amendment honestly believe the American Nurses
Association, the New York State Medical Society, United Methodist
Church,
the Episcopal Church, and others are supporting this issue because they
hope
to legalize marijuana for all purposes? Of course that isn't the
reason.
These organizations support legal access to marijuana for medical
purposes
because they know one simple fact: it helps sick people.

Other opponents of this amendment say that they will not support
medical
marijuana until more research is complete. The problem is that the
Federal
Government has effectively blocked research. To cite just one example,
in
July 2001, the University of Massachusetts applied to the DEA for a
license
to manufacture marijuana for medical research. This is the same kind of
license a company called GW Pharmaceuticals applied for in England a
few
years ago. While GW Pharmaceuticals has now concluded Phase III trials
and
is nearing market approval for its marijuana spray, the DEA--3 years
later--has not even bothered to deny the University of Massachusetts'
license. Of course, they have not granted it, either. They have just
let the
application sit in limbo.

Another application to the Federal Government, requesting
permission to
import just 10 grams of marijuana for research has languished for 10
months.
Does our government think 10 grams of marijuana is going to increase
the
drug problem in this Nation? Of course not. The Federal goal seems to
be to
purposely to block research that would prove--or disprove, once and for
all--that marijuana has therapeutic benefits.

But let's assume for a minute that all of the obstacles to research
were
suddenly removed. That does not get us past the immediate question:
Should
the Federal Government, over the course of the

next year, while research is proceeding, arrest patients and
caregivers
who are complying with state law in order to alleviate their own
suffering
or the suffering of others?

Another objection raised by opponents of this amendment is that
passing
it would send the wrong message to children. It would make children
think
that marijuana is not dangerous. Let me tell you something. Children
know
how dangerous marijuana is already. Allowing seriously ill patients to
use
it will not change that. And associating the use of marijuana with AIDS
and
chemotherapy is not likely to increase its appeal. On the other hand,
if you
deny cancer, AIDS, and MS patients the opportunity to use this drug to
alleviate their pain--while permitting the medical use of powerful
addictive
drugs like vicodin and oxycontin--the only message you are sending to
children is that you are intellectually dishonest and completely
lacking in
compassion.

The truth is, where medical marijuana is legal, there has been no
increase in marijuana
[Page: H5302] GPO's PDF

use among teens. In fact, in my home state of California, teen use of
marijuana has dropped 34 percent among 7th graders, 44 percent among
9th
graders, and 21 percent among 11th graders since the California medical
marijuana initiative passed in 1996. The same Institute of Medicine
study
described earlier noted, ``there is no evidence that the medical
marijuana
debate has altered adolescents' perceptions of the risks associated
with
marijuana use.'' Listen closely today to hear whether opponents of this
amendment back their warning about sending the wrong message to
children
with any evidence demonstrating that medical use has caused a change in
attitude about recreational use; I doubt there will be any with any
scientific weight.



Mr. Chairman, this amendment is reasonably drafted and built on
scientific
evidence, judicial review, and medical studies. It reflects the grass
roots
demand and legislative will of nine of our United States. It is time
for
Congress to recognize the powerful dynamics of this issue and adopt my
amendment.
[End Insert]

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This
is a
bad amendment. It will be bad for the country.

Marijuana is the most abused drug in the United States. According
to the
Department of Health and Human Services, more young people are now in
treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other
legal
drugs combined. The amendment does not address the problem of marijuana
abuse and possibly, perhaps probably, makes it worse by sending a
message to
young people that there can be health benefits from smoking marijuana.

In testimony before the Committee on Government Reform, the DEA
provided
an example of how marijuana trafficking is occurring under the guise of
medicine. And there is so much more I could say, and we have the
gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) here and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ose).
This is not a good amendment. The message that this sends to the young
people is absolutely wrong. This was overwhelmingly defeated the last
time
it came up. I urge defeat of the amendment.

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

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the
gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, today I call for a broad coalition
of my
colleagues to support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment to H.R. 4754,
introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Over the past 8 years, 10 States have adopted laws that
decriminalize the
use of marijuana for medical purposes. These States have passed these
laws
to allow the use of marijuana to relieve intense pain that accompanies
several debilitating diseases, including AIDS, cancer, multiple
sclerosis,
and glaucoma. In seven of these States, such as my own State of
California,
these laws were adopted by a direct referendum of the people.

The Federal Government, however, has made it nearly impossible for
these
States to implement their own laws, the laws that the people voted for.
The
DEA has conducted numerous raids on homes of medical marijuana users,
prosecuting patients who were using marijuana in accordance with State
law
to relieve intense pain and other symptoms caused by a variety of
illnesses.
Despite these State laws, the Justice Department is working overtime to
put
sick people and those who would help them in jail.

It is time for the Federal Government to respect the rights of
individual
States to determine their own health and criminal justice policies on
this
matter. A growing movement of Americans from conservative to liberal is
calling for the Federal Government to keep its hands off the States
that
wish to allow their citizens to use marijuana for medical purposes. In
my
State, the people have spoken overwhelmingly. Both Republican and
Democrat
counties voted for medical freedom. Our new Governor, Arnold
Schwarzenegger,
has made it clear in regard to the Federal Government's interference
with
California's medical marijuana policy in his message to Washington, and
what
is it? It is ``Hasta la vista, baby.'' Even more poignant, Tom
McClintock,
Arnold's leading conservative opponent in the recent recall election,
has
spoken out even more strongly against the Federal interference with
California's medical marijuana laws. The Governor of Maryland also, our
former Republican colleague, Robert Ehrlich, has signed Maryland's new
medical marijuana law and has lobbied Members of Congress on this
issue.

As a conservative, I am increasingly troubled by the federalization
of
criminal law that has occurred in recent years. It seems that more and
more
crimes are being declared to be Federal crimes. While sometimes this is
appropriate, for example in immigration law, which is a federally
mandated
issue by our Constitution, but criminal justice constitutionally is the
domain of the State and local government. This is especially true when
the
people of these many States determine by their own vote the policy
concerning this specific personal behavior.

It is time for the conservatives and liberals to join together in
calling
for the Federal Government to keep its hands off. Liberals, moderates,
and
conservatives should unite in order to protect the freedom of our
people.
This is a freedom issue, and it is also a humanitarian issue. We should
make
sure that the local people have a right to determine if the doctors in
their
community, and that is what we are talking about, the doctors are able
to
prescribe marijuana for people who are suffering from AIDS and
suffering
from cancer and other types of diseases. This is not fair, and it is
not
humane to go the other way; and it is un-American to centralize this
type of
criminal justice matter in the hands of Federal bureaucrats rather than
the
people who vote in our specific communities.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr.
Burgess).

[Jimbo]

(continued)

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that as a
physician before I came to Congress, medical marijuana is actually not
necessary because the active ingredient in medical marijuana is
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. This is a compound that is readily
available
not in a handful of States as medical marijuana is, but in every State
of
the Union. It is legal today. It is called Marinol. It is a pill. It is
easy
to take. And people who suffer from cancer, people who have anorexia
from
chemotherapy, people who suffer from AIDS may use Marinol today to
their
benefit.

Mr. Chairman, it just challenges the imagination. As a physician, I
wrote
a lot of prescriptions for morphine for patients who were in pain. I
would
have never recommended to a patient that they go home and score some
opium
and smoke it. That would be an inappropriate way for them to deliver
the
drug.


[Time: 20:15]

This drug is delivered in a humane and compassionate way. It is
delivered
in a way that deals with the symptoms it is designed to deal with, and
we do
not explode the drug culture in this country by doing so.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr.
Paul).

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

Mr. Chairman, I, too, am a physician from Texas, but I have a
little
different opinion about Marinol. No doctor that I know of ever
prescribes
Marinol.

I think marijuana is a helpful medical treatment for the people who
have
intractable nausea. I would like to point out this is not something
strange
that we are suggesting here. For the first 163 years of our history in
this
country, the Federal Government had total hands off, they never
interfered
with what the States were doing. They interfered only after 1938
through tax
law. So this is something new.

The States' rights issue is almost a dead issue in the Congress,
but we
ought to continue to talk about it, and I am delighted somebody has
brought
this up.

But if you do have compassion and care for patients, they ought to
have a
freedom of choice. I think that is what this is all about, freedom of
choice.

I would like to point out one statistic. One year prior to 9/11
there
were 750,000 arrests of people who used marijuana; there was one arrest
for
a suspect that was committing terrorism.
[Page: H5303] GPO's PDF

Now, that, to me, is a misdirected law enforcement program that we
could
help address here by at least allowing the States to follow the laws
that
they already have on the books.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia
(Mr. Burns).

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, in 2001, the FDA approved the pain killer
OxyContin, knowing that it had a high probability of being diverted for
illicit use. We felt that the gain was worth the risk. The abuse,
unfortunately, of OxyContin is now a nationwide epidemic.

In spite of the fact that, unlike OxyContin, there are safe and
effective
and legal alternatives to smoking pot for pain relief, we are now
considering the use of marijuana for its medical purposes.

The active ingredient, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess)
pointed
out, is readily available in an FDA-approved capsule. This pill
delivers
THC, it does not carry the dangers inherent with smoking marijuana, nor
does
it undermine the law enforcement efforts that fight illegal drug use.

Mr. Chairman, the legalization of medical marijuana is simply the
first
step in a scheme to overturn all the substance abuse laws that we work
hard
to enforce today. We need to vote ``no'' on legalization of marijuana
and
its use in America.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of the 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose)

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in absolute, 100 percent opposition to this
amendment. I have listened to the arguments of my friends from Texas
and my
friend from California in one case and my friend from California in the
other, and I have to say that their argument on States' rights is a
unique
application as it relates to so-called ``medical marijuana.'' But I
have not
yet heard a single bit of testimony dealing with whether or not there
is any
medical value to the application of marijuana in this case.

Now, the so-called phrase ``medical marijuana'' is a misnomer. It
was
invented by the people who passed the proposition in California that,
frankly, hoodwinked the voters of California into voting in favor of
it. But
I just want to run through a couple of things here.

The FDA looks at all sorts of prescription drugs and
pharmacological
treatments, and they have looked at marijuana, and by and large, we
have
deferred to the FDA on all these analyses. But, all of a sudden, when
it
comes to so-called ``medical marijuana,'' the FDA is no longer
competent.
But I do want to enter into the RECORD that the FDA, in fact, did look
at
marijuana as a medical substance and found absolutely no value
whatsoever to
its use.

Now, the FDA has, in fact, looked at Marinol, in which the active
ingredient in so-called ``medical marijuana'' is present, THC, and has
approved that for use in treating nausea and pain and the like, and it
is
readily available by prescription, a true prescription, from a doctor.

Let us dwell for a minute in California, which I am familiar with,
on
this so-called ``medical marijuana'' and the facade that people go
through
to obtain it.

First of all, the referendum requires that a doctor issue a
so-called
prescription. However, the doctor refuses to issue a prescription on a
prescription form for so-called medical marijuana. They write it on a
piece
of blank paper, because the doctors know that it is not a prescription,
it
is a facade perpetrated upon the people of California that this has any
medical qualities whatsoever.

Now, my friend from Indiana is going to share with you the story of
a
tragic occurrence in San Francisco, and I am not going to jump the gun
on
him, because this is absolutely heartbreaking, what he is going to tell
you.
But I do want to tell you, that incident is not singular in nature.

The fact of the matter is we have children, young people across
this
country, watching you and me and our peers across this country as it
relates
to the use of so-called medical marijuana, and if you think for one
minute
that they are going to turn a blind eye to our acquiescence, that just
because it happens to be a little bit difficult to tell people ``No,
you are
not going to be able to smoke dope,'' just because it happens to be a
little
bit difficult to tell people that, that we are going to roll over and
pass
this prohibition on funds, just begs the imagination about what
leadership
really constitutes.

[Jimbo]

(continued)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to close.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thought the author of the amendment has
the
right to close.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairman of the subcommittee, controlling time in
opposition to the amendment, has the right to close.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has 1 3/4 minutes
remaining, and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 4 minutes remaining.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment
because my
mother had glaucoma and we bought her marijuana because it was a
relief, and
that was before this bill was passed in the State of California.

I support this amendment because it respects State authority,
because the
people in our State believe medical marijuana is a way to relieve those
suffering from cancer, from glaucoma, from AIDS, from spastic disorders
and
other debilitating diseases.

This amendment will do only one thing: It will stop the Justice
Department from punishing those who are abiding by their State laws. It
changes no law.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, support this amendment so that
those
who suffer from debilitating diseases can get the relief that they
need, and
they can get it without fear of the Federal Government.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the comment of the
gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I am going to read here that in the State of
California, teen use of marijuana has dropped 34 percent among seventh
graders, 44 percent among ninth graders and 21 percent among eleventh
graders since the California medical marijuana initiative passed in
1996.

Also, I would like to point out that this is not such a radical
amendment. It only affects the States that have State laws, that have
the
enforcement. We have not heard from law enforcement opposing this. We
have
heard from the American Nursing Association, the United Methodist
Church,
the New York Medical Society, the Rhode Island Medical Society, the New
England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar Association, the American
Public Health Association and the Episcopal Church. They all support
this
amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first, do not let any Member kid
themselves; if
you cannot enforce a Federal law, you do not have a Federal law. This
would
eliminate our ability to enforce marijuana laws in States that have
passed
this.

My friend from California alluded to a very sad case in the State
of
California. When we as Members use phrases like ``medical marijuana''
and
responsible officials imply that drugs like marijuana are medical,
tragedies
like this happen.

Irma Perez, age 14, the late Irma Perez, was overdosing on Ecstasy.
Her
friends had heard that marijuana was medical, and instead of getting
her to
a doctor, where they said she would have been saved, they gave her
marijuana
on top of her Ecstasy and she died.

When we have silly debates like this, quite frankly, we bear
responsibility. Yesterday, in Ohio, six people died, including a family
of
four, two adults and two children, when a young person on marijuana and
alcohol collided into a truck that hit two other vehicles and killed
six
people.
[Page: H5304] GPO's PDF

If you have medical marijuana laws, like has happened in a court
case in
the State of Oregon, drug testing laws for truck drivers have been
thrown
out. It is now being appealed higher, but it is not even clear that you
can
be assured that our congressional drug testing law for truck drivers
will
stand up, given the way the courts are interpreting this.

In California, we have a doctor that has given 348 patients under
this
medical marijuana, including for anxiety and restless leg syndrome. In
Oregon, we have a doctor who gave it to 4,000 people over the last few
years. We have another doctor in California who uses it, we actually
had
this person at our hearing, for ADD and hyperactivity, even though she
admitted she has no evidence that it worked for those things, but she
felt
it would make them feel better.

You either believe you have an FDA or you do not have an FDA. We
hear
about all kinds of other things that FDA cracks down on. Either you
have a
national FDA or you do not have an FDA.

Furthermore, just last week in Oakland, California, they pulled
over a
group of guys with about 66 pounds of marijuana. They said it was for
medicinal purposes. They found where it was coming from, and they found
a
warehouse. In this warehouse, they found millions of dollars of
marijuana
where the people started fleeing, and then these advocates of medical
marijuana in California said, Oh, it was so medical.

The person who owned the building had already been busted for
transporting illegal drugs. He had lost his license as a pawnbroker.
But,
no, this was medical marijuana. Some estimate that up to 90 percent of
the
cases, this is the pro-medical marijuana cases, of marijuana use in
California, would be classified as medical.

That is why we have letters, and I will include these in the records,
from
the Community Antidrug Coalition, and Dr. Dean, who coordinates these
efforts, says he opposes it; the Fraternal Order of Police; the
Partnership
for a Drug-Free America, who plead on behalf of the drug treatment and
prevention groups in America to oppose this; the Drug-Free America
Foundation; and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is concerned that
they
will not be able to enforce any drug laws if we do not allow the
Federal
Government to enforce.

We need to defeat this amendment because it is the wrong message to
our
youth, it is the wrong message to our law enforcement, it is the wrong
message to our drug treatment people, it is the wrong message to the
people
in the streets of their neighborhoods trying to reclaim their often
crime-ridden neighborhoods from drug dealers and addicts in their
areas, and
it is, quite frankly, unconstitutional.

We fought a Civil War over nullification. States do not have the
right.
If we can have States nullify an existing Federal law, then on what
grounds
can this not happen under the same precedent, a lack of enforcement on
environmental laws, of civil rights laws, of the Americans with
Disabilities
Act, of any law? Because once a State can nullify a Federal law by
saying,
We cannot enforce it, you do not have a Federal system.

[Jimbo]

(continued)

Mr. Chairman, I include for the RECORD the letters referred to earlier in my statement.

COMMUNITY ANTI-DRUG

COALITIONS OF AMERICA,

Alexandria, VA, July 1, 2004.
Hon. MARK SOUDER,
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Rayburn House Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the 5,000 coalition members that Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) represents, I am writing to strongly urge you to oppose an amendment to be offered by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY) to the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies FY 2005 Appropriations bill which would effectively prohibit enforcement of Federal law with respect to use of ``medical'' marijuana. I strongly urge you to oppose this amendment not only because marijuana is an illegal, addictive Schedule I drug, with no medicinal value, but also because this sends the entirely wrong message to the youth of America.

Marijuana is not a harmless drug: it is the most widely abused illicit drug in the nation. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Treatment Episode Data Set, approximately 60% of adolescent treatment cases in 2001 were for marijuana abuse. Research shows that the decline in the use of any illegal drug is directly related to its perception of harm or risk by the user. Advertising smoked marijuana as medicine sends the wrong message to America's youth--that marijuana is not dangerous. Congressman Hinchey's amendment goes even further by removing the ability of law enforcement officials to enforce Federal law. The efforts of the drug legalization movement, to promote the myth of ``medical'' marijuana and to stifle the efforts of law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal law severely dilutes the prevention efforts that community anti-drug coalitions across America are undertaking to communicate marijuana is dangerous, it has serious consequences, and is illegal.

Congressman Hinchey's amendment is offered under the guise of compassion towards seriously ill patients, when in reality it is a ``Trojan horse'' to legalize marijuana. To date, the FDA has not approved nor has it found any medicinal value in smoked marijuana, which is why it remains a Schedule I controlled substance. Furthermore, in the States that have legalized marijuana for so-called ``medicinal'' purposes, seriously ill, elderly patients are not the only patients receiving marijuana--children are also. At a hearing before your Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Dr. Claudia Jensen, of Ventura, California, testified that she prescribes marijuana as medicine for adolescents under her care who have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). In a policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics stating their opposition to the legalization of marijuana, they state that ``Any change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults, could effect the prevalence of use among adolescents.'' What kind of a message are the youth of America receiving when doctors willingly give children marijuana--it tells children that marijuana is not a dangerous drug.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge you to help us protect our nation's youth and oppose any and all amendments limiting the enforcement of the Federal law pertaining to marijuana use. Thank you for considering my views.

Sincerely,
Arthur T. Dean,

Major General, U.S. Army, Retired,
Chairman and CEO.

--
GRAND LODGE,

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,

Washington, DC, July 6, 2004.
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 on behalf of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our strong opposition to an amendment which may be offered to H.R. 4754, the appropriations measure for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, which is scheduled to be considered on the House floor this week. The amendment, which was offered last year by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY), 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. 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 Sate 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.

Such an 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 318,000 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.

--
PARTNERSHIP FOR A

DRUG-FREE AMERICA,

New York, NY, July 7, 2004.
Hon. FRANK WOLF,
Chairman, House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is to express our opposition to an amendment being proposed to the Commerce, Justice, State FY 2005 appropriations bill, scheduled for consideration today. Congressman Maurice Hinchey is proposing an amendment that again seeks to prohibit the enforcement of

[Page: H5305] GPO's PDF
federal law pertaining to marijuana in states that have decriminalized the use of marijuana for medicinal application. The proposed amendment is likely to have the unintended effect of handicapping federal law enforcement agents from enforcing all laws pertaining to marijuana use and trafficking. Therefore, we encourage you and members of the committee to oppose this amendment.
The issue of medical applications of smoked marijuana is one for the medical and scientific communities to evaluate. As you know, state-based referenda on this issue are not homegrown initiatives, but rather are being driven and financed by a handful of national organizations that seek to legalize marijuana and other drugs. The position of the medical community is quite clear on this issue. The American Medical Association, for example, calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of smoked THC for serious medical conditions, but the AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the outcome of such studies.

[Jimbo]

(continued)

The last thing we need to do is making marijuana more available on the streets of America. Please ensure that federal law enforcement officials can enforce federal laws relevant to marijuana.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Stephen J. Pasierb,
President, Chief Executive Officer.

--
NATIONAL NARCOTIC OFFICERS'

ASSOCIATIONS COALITION,

West Covina, CA, July 1, 2004.
Hon. MARK SOUDER,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN SOUDER: I am writing on behalf of the forty state narcotic officers associations and more than 60,000 state and local law enforcement officers that are represented by the National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition (NNOAC) to offer our strong opposition to an amendment that will be offered in the United States House of Representatives that would effectively prohibit the enforcement of Federal marijuana laws in states that do not provide penalties for the use of what has been deemed ``medical'' marijuana.

As you know, despite opposition by the American Medical Association and other credible medical and health organizations, drug legalization activists have chosen to seek the medicalization or legalization of marijuana by relying on the emotions of local voters rather than science based data and the recommendations of the medical community. This reckless approach has resulted in several states adopting medical marijuana laws and relying on public emotion rather than science to approve crude, smoked marijuana for medical use. This action has circumvented the patient protections provided in the Pure Food and Drug Act, which have served to keep Americans safe from dangerous or untested remedies since it was enacted in 1906.

Because marijuana enforcement by Federal officials is now the only effective enforcement of the marijuana laws in several states where medical initiatives have all but legalized the drug, the passage of this amendment would have disastrous results. This enforcement of marijuana laws provides a strong deterrent to the use of marijuana, which also helps reduce the use of hard drugs and the resulting property and violent crimes. Enforcement also sends a strong message to our young people that marijuana use is dangerous and unacceptable. And finally, law enforcement provides a social stigma to marijuana use that helps to prevent the normalization of drug use. Without this enforcement, many people will be lured into believing that marijuana use is safe and poses no threat of addiction.

Federal investigations of marijuana cultivators also serve to disrupt larger drug trafficking organizations, particularly in the state of California, where marijuana is sometimes traded for precursor chemicals for methamphetamine into 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 effective on state and local law enforcement of both drug laws and of other crimes affecting public safety in states where it would apply.

The members of the NNOAC strongly encourage you and your colleagues in the Congress to support their local law enforcement officers, health-care workers, educators, and community anti-drug activists, who are dedicated to working towards safe drug free communities by vigorously opposing this dangerous amendment. The passage of the HINCHEY Amendment would have a catastrophic effect and would result in increased drug use and related violence, marijuana related DUI collisions, lost productivity and work place accidents.

Please accept the thanks of our 60,000 members for all that you and your colleagues do to support law enforcement and to help us keep this great nation safe and drug free.

Sincerely,

Ronald E. Brooks,
President.

--
July 6, 2004.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: I have dedicated the past three decades to fighting the war on drugs and as such, I am urging you to oppose the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment because of the staggering effect it will have on society.

I have helped form public policy in the United States' campaign against drugs through participation in the White House Conference for a Drug Free America, as a member of the Governor's Drug Policy Task Force in Florida and as a board member of DARE Florida (Drug Abuse Resistance Education.) I presently reside in Rome while my husband serves as the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Italy.

With this experience, I can tell you that drug legalization efforts abound today in the United States with deceptive campaigns that exploit the sick and dying. Medical excuse marijuana is the most common tactic used by legalization proponents. This new amendment intends to prohibit the U.S. Justice Department (including the DEA) from interfering with state medical excuse marijuana laws. If passed, the pro-drug lobby will once again undercut the federal government.

In reference to using the medical marijuana excuse, there has never been controversy about the use of purified chemicals in marijuana to treat any illness; however, marijuana cigarettes are not medicine. The false portrayal of smoked marijuana as a helpful medicine has contributed to the increased use of marijuana and other drugs by young people. Sixty percent of youths in drug treatment today are there for marijuana addiction.

In areas where medical excuse marijuana is legal, people are toking up under the guise of treating conditions such as premenstrual syndrome, athlete's foot and migraines. The Institute of Medicine (IOM), found marijuana effective in addressing symptoms of nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety. However, the same report concluded that, ``smoked marijuana is unlikely to be a safe medication for any chronic medical condition.''

Our nation is under attack by extremely well-financed groups, whose sole intention is to profit from drug legalization. They don't care about civil liberties or our nation's children. They only care about getting rich at the cost of a deteriorated society. They frequently use compassion for the sick and dying as one of their manipulative tactics to normalize drug use. These groups would like nothing more than to eliminate governmental regulation. It is imperative that state government be accountable to federal government, especially when it comes to drug policy.

As a drug prevention and policy expert, caring mother and grandmother, I urge you--do not vote for the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment.

Sincerely,
BETTY S. SEMBLER,

Founder and Chair,
Drug-Free America Foundation.

--
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC, July 7, 2004.
Hon. FRANK WOLF,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Department of Justice would oppose any amendment to appropriations legislation preventing the Justice Department or the Drug Enforcement Administration (``DEA'') from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act with respect to marijuana either generally or in specified States. Any such limitation would interfere with the protection of public health and safety against marijuana, which is dangerous to both users and non-users and is the most widely abused illicit drug in America. Moreover, a provision applying only to certain States would unfairly and inappropriately prevent uniform enforcement of Federal law nationwide.

Marijuana is a widespread health and social concern. More young people are currently in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol and all other illegal drugs combined, and mentions of marijuana use in emergency room visits have risen 176 percent since 1994, surpassing those of heroin. Marijuana also can have a dangerous impact on non-users, as demonstrated by the problem of drugged driving. Marijuana affects alertness, concentration, perception, coordination, and reaction time--skills that are necessary for safe driving. Use of marijuana and other illicit drugs also comes at significant expense to society in terms of lost productivity, public health care costs, and accidents. Accordingly, the Justice Department and the DEA continue to vigilantly enforce Federal laws against marijuana trafficking. Any limitation on enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act with respect to marijuana would jeopardize our efforts to continue reducing youth drug use and to protect the public.

The same considerations are important for persons who, contrary to controlling Federal law, would use smoked marijuana for purported medical purposes. States are free to define criminal acts and impose corresponding penalties, under State law, in the manner they see fit. However, it does not follow that the absence of penalties in a particular State for marijuana use in these circumstances ``legalizes'' conduct that remains clearly illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. Moreover, this issue is not only one of legal form; it also is a compelling problem of public health and safety. Smoked marijuana has not been approved for use

[Jimbo]

(continued)

[Page: H5306] GPO's PDF
under the rigorous Federal drug approval process conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (``FDA''), which prohibits drugs from being sold or distributed in interstate commerce as medicine unless they have been proven in sound clinical studies to be both safe and effective for their intended use. To date, no sound scientific study has shown that smoking marijuana is safe and effective for any disease or condition. The Institute of Medicine has concluded that ``[t]here is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication,'' and the British Medical Association linked its use to greater risk of heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema. The DEA, in conjunction with the FDA, has approved and will continue to approve research into whether discrete ingredients of marijuana can be adapted for medical use. However, with respect to smoked marijuana, the clear weight of evidence is that it is not medicine--it is harmful.
Finally, any amendment that would restrict enforcement and prosecution in certain specifically named States, but not in others, would prevent the Department of Justice from uniformly enforcing the law throughout the United States. As a practical matter, residents of States listed in such an amendment would be exempted from Federal enforcement and persecution for cultivation, distribution, and use of marijuana in certain circumstances, while residents of other States would continue to face potential criminal liability for precisely the same conduct. We also note that the amendment would effectively establish a classification among residents of different States with respect to the enforcement of the Federal drug laws. Consequently, Federal persecution of persons in non-covered States for marijuana-related drug violations potentially could be subject to challenge under the equal protection requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, particularly in States that may enact future medical marijuana laws that are not covered by the language of this provision.

Again, the Department of Justice opposes any amendment restricting enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. We appreciate your continued support of our efforts to continue meeting the goals of the President's strategy to reduce youth drug use in America.

If we may be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely,

William E. Moschella,
Assistant Attorney General.


[Begin Insert]

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleagues SAM FARR, DANA ROHRABACHER, MAURICE HINCHEY, AND RON PAUL, and I salute their courage in bringing it to the House floor.

This amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill would prohibit the Justice Department from spending any funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. It would leave to the discretion of the states how they would alleviate the suffering of their citizens.

Eleven states, including my home state of California, have adopted medical marijuana laws since 1996. Most of these laws were approved by a vote of the people. More than 70 percent of Americans support the right of patients to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

I am pleased to join organizations that support legal access to medical marijuana, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Bar Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, and the AIDS Action Council.

Religious denominations supporting legal access to medical marijuana or state discretion on this issue include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Churches, the National Progressive Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the United Methodist Church.

Proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of life for patient with cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other severe medical conditions.

In my city of San Francisco, we have lost nearly 20,000 people to AIDS over the last two decades, and I have seen firsthand the suffering that accompanies this awful disease. Medical marijuana alleviates some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting, and nausea.

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report that had been commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The study found that medical marijuana ``would be advantageous'' in the treatment of some diseases, and is ``potentially effective in treatment pain, nausea, and anorexia of AIDS wasting and other symptoms.''

To fight the war on drug abuse effectively, we must get our priorities in order and fund treatment and education. Making criminals of seriously ill people who seek proven therapy is not a step toward controlling America's drug problem.

Again, I commend Mr. FARR, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. HINCHEY, and Mr. PAUL for their leadership on this issue, which affects the health and well-being of so many Americans.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Farr/Rohrabacher/Hinchey amendment, which will 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 Sciences' Institute of Medicine report recommending its use in certain circumstances, federal law refuses to recognize its medicinal importance and safety. Instead, federal penalties for all marijuana use, regardless of purpose, includes up to a year in prison for the possession of even small amounts.

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, however has sought to override such state statutes, viewing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the same light as the use of heroin or cocaine. In 2002, federal agents raided the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana or WAMM, 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 WAMM's 225 members were terminally ill with cancer or AIDS.

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.

[End Insert]

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) will be postponed.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Ose) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4754) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

[The End]