Thursday, July 8, 2004

DARE to be Fascist Despite the fact that all studies show DARE is a failure, it still has its fans. But in Marshfield, Tavares said he has received only positive feedback about the program and he firmly believes it's a needed resource. As an example, he talked about the recent case of a DARE graduate who called the police on his mother after finding marijuana in the house. 7:19:46 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

More on the Amendment I now have the full text of the debate online. Parts of it are very much worth reading. All of Farr's opening remarks were excellent. Rohrabacher had some nice points on states' rights. Also speaking in favor were Paul, Woolsey, Pelosi, and Drug WarRant's endorsement for the Democratic nomination Dennis Kucinich. Oddly, since it's often been referred to as the Hinchey amendment, Hinchey himself did not speak or vote. I assume he had a major conflict or illness. The opponents mostly came up with the same tired old disproved arguments - that marijuana is dangerous because most people in treatment are there for marijuana (No, most people in treatment are there for marijuana because they've been forced there by law enforcement, not because of any actual danger.) - and, of course, the old "message to the children" argument. They also showed how much they were in the pocket of the pharmaceutical companies by their continual advertisements for Marinol. Confirmed drug warrior Mark Souder submitted a bunch of letters that he solicited from die-hard drug warriors who need the status quo (and mostly lied to support their position). And then he sunk to his lowest point yet. He used anecdotes of tragedies (that had absolutely nothing to do with medical marijuana) to get people to vote against the amendment. 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. This is just sick. First, in Ohio, as of today no official cause has been given in the crash in Ohio, and even this guy was at fault, and even if he was impaired, and even if it could somehow be traced back to his marijuana use and not his alcohol or valium use, what possible connection would that have with cancer patients in California? Then there's the Irma Perez case. This is one that has more to do with the fact that ecstasy is illegal so her friends were afraid to get help. Here's what happened: According to several sources close to the investigation, Perez had a strong negative reaction April 23 after taking a blue pill presumed to be MDMA, known on the street as ecstasy. Toxicological tests are still pending to show whether the pill was contaminated with other substances. Perez complained of feeling awful and said she felt like she was "going to die," the sources said. In response, her friends gave her water and helped her take a bath. She also was given ibuprofen and possibly marijuana, apparently because the friends knew that drug is sometimes used to treat cancer patients, sources said. The two girls also contacted a 17-year-old boy who allegedly supplied them with the drug and asked him for advice, the sources said. He has since been arrested on the same charges as the two girls. So Souder wants to keep harassing medical marijuana patients because some twit girls tried everything they could think of to avoid authorities who would arrest them. Oh yeah, they also tried Ibuprofen. Better make that illegal. By the way, via Random Act of Kindness I learn of another voice that supported the amendment -- Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik: "That our congress consistently acts against the will of the people on this issue is certainly no surprise to me. That the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment even needs to be offered indicates the disdain that our congress has for the Constitution. Individuals have the right to use whatever medication they see fit." That's class. 6:32:55 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Ignorance in the House of Representatives The amendment that would have prevented the Federal government from harrassing medical marijuana patients in states where it's legal has failed. It's what we've been calling the Hinchey/Rohrabacher amendement, but showed up in the House proceedings as the Farr Amendment (Final name was the Farr/Rohrabacher/Hinchey/Paul amendment due to additional sponsors). In favor of the amendment: 19 Republicans, 128 Democrats, 1 Independent Opposed: 202 Republicans, 66 Democrats See how your representative voted. If they voted against the amendment, send them a letter saying how disappointed you are, and then vote them out of office. It looks like we can't count on the House of Representatives to do what's right. We may be dependent on the Supreme Court. I may have more on the debate later. Update: Here's the beginning of the debate. Well said by Representative Farr: 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. 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? 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? 7:32:01 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []