Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment Debate 2005 Here are some of the highlights from the Hinchey debate from the actual transcripts: In Favor of the Amendment Some of the best material was in the opening statement by Hinchey himself: This amendment would prohibit funds for the Department of Justice from being used to prevent patients in States that have medical marijuana laws from following those laws. Over the past 9 years, 10 States have adopted laws which allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. They legalized the use of marijuana to relieve the intense pain that accompanies debilitating diseases, including AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma. With the exceptions of Hawaii and Vermont, all of those laws were adopted by referendum, passed by the people. Thousands of patients have testified, explained, and acknowledged that marijuana helps relieve symptoms, such as nausea, pain, and loss of appetite associated with serious illnesses. These people have found that marijuana is the only remedy that improves their quality of life. Yet the DEA has been targeting these people for arrest and sending them to jail. This needs to stop. It is unconscionable that we in Congress could possibly presume to tell a patient that he or she cannot use the only medication that has proven to combat the pain and symptoms associated with a devastating illness. How can we tell very sick people that they cannot have the drug that could save their lives simply because of a narrow ideology and bias against that drug in this Congress? A 1999 Institute of Medicine report for the National Academy of Sciences described the legitimate use of medical marijuana. It stated: ``Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana. Today there is no such alternative available.'' This amendment would affect only the States that allow the use of medical marijuana by preventing the Justice Department from arresting, prosecuting, suing, or otherwise discouraging doctors and patients in those States from following the laws of those States to relieve their physical injuries and conditions. In the Supreme Court's majority opinion last week, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the issue can be addressed ``through the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.'' With this amendment, we intend to use the powers granted us in the Constitution and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court last week to do just that. Opponents of this amendment have tried to misrepresent it. This amendment does not encourage the recreational use of marijuana. It does not encourage drug use in children. It does not legalize marijuana. It would give relief to people suffering from horrific diseases and allow their doctors to decide which drugs will work best to do so. Organizations including the Nation's largest medical organization, the 2.7 million member American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the New York State Medical Society, among others, have publicly endorsed the medical use of marijuana. Our amendment is about compassion, in allowing patients the simple right of using the most effective medicine possible. Taxpayers' dollars should not be spent on sending seriously or terminally ill patients to jail. A vote for this amendment is a vote for States rights and for compassion. Ten States have decided to use medical marijuana in their laws. The Federal Government should not stand in their way. Nancy Pelosi also had some good comments: In my district in San Francisco, we have lost more than 20,000 people to AIDS over the last two decades. Twenty thousand people. I have seen firsthand at the bedsides of these patients the suffering that accompanies this dreadful disease. Medical marijuana alleviates some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting syndrome and nausea. It is not confined to AIDS, but also cancer and so many examples that our colleagues will point out. This is just the compassionate way to go. The previous speaker says he knows of no scientific or medical institution that has said anything positive about this. I beg to differ. The fact is this has been supported by science. 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 treating pain. Medical journals and other recent articles attest to the fact that active components in medical marijuana inhibit pain. Other proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of life, as I mentioned before, for patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis and other severe medical conditions. That is why many medical associations support legal access to medical marijuana, again, if the State allows it with a doctor's prescription, including the American Academy of HIV Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association and the AIDS Action Council. In addition, more than 10 States, including my own State of California, have adopted these laws since 1996. Most of these laws were approved by a vote of the people. Numerous polls indicate that three-quarters of the American people support the right of patients to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription. A recent AARP poll showed that 92 percent of America's seniors support the use of medicinal marijuana with a doctor's prescription in the States where it is allowed. Religious denominations also support legal access to medical marijuana, including 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. Here's some from co-sponsor Farr, which he didn't have time to say on the floor, but added into the record: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment and am proud to be a cosponsor of that amendment. Oppenents of this amendment would want you to believe that this amendment is all about legalizing pot, or about unfettered access to street drugs, or about creating a generation of drug addicts. They know it's not and their exaggeration won't change the facts. The facts are-- This amendment is about States rights and the ultimate right of the citizens to empower their government through the democratic process. his amendment is about health care, under a doctor's prescription and direction. This amendment is about compassion and caring for persons who suffer from chronic pain and/or terminal illnesses. This amendment is not about legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana. This amendment is not about unfettered marijuana growth, distribution or usage. It is about regulated, controlled access. My friends across the aisle seem to forget that this body, this House of Representatives gets its power from the people. In the United States the people empower their government, not the reverse. In this country the people have the right to tell government how to govern. In this country the people have the right to petition their government for change. And when that happens, this government, this House of Representatives, has an obligation to respond. When Americans called for an end to discrimination, we had an obligation to pass the Civil Rights Act. When Americans called for fairness to persons with disabilities, we had an obligation to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ten states and millions of American citizens have voted to make it the law in their states that marijuana is available through prescriptions for health care purposes. They are asking us--their representatives in Congress--to change the law to make it so. We have an obligation to respond. The Hinchey amendment is the responsible thing to do. It is the right thing to do. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on the Hinchey amendment. Opposed to the Amendment Now to some of the opponents comments -- truly vile stuff: Peterson: If passed, this amendment would open the door for drug dealers to use medical marijuana exemptions as cover for their growing and selling operations. [...] I speak with a little experience on this. I have some friends who grew up when marijuana was the hot issue, and some of the brightest young people I knew became somewhat dull and have remained that way all of their life because the recent study proves that marijuana use curtails the growth and development of the brain. King (Iowa): It is old ground, and we know the cause, and we know what the driving force is behind this. It is seeking to get the camel's nose under the tent, seeking to establish a very small sliver of marijuana so that eventually the people that are behind this, that want to legalize marijuana in their individual States and across this country, can drive that wedge in and eventually be able to legalize this substance that has not been supported by any branch of medicine that I can identify. [...] What we have here is an initiative that is designed to advance a social agenda, the social agenda of the people that want to legalize marijuana. And, in fact, if we do that, we are going to see it planted in more places around this country, not less, and more accessible to more people, and this society will be more replete with the abuse of this hallucinogenic drug, a gateway drug that reduces the productivity of the American people and causes more people to get on to serious drugs, such as methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, et cetera. Souder: If passed, this amendment would put people in danger of shysters and quacks willing to recommend a dangerous drug, marijuana, in place of federally approved safe and proven medicines. [...] Marijuana is just as much medicine as the carbolic smoke ball from the late 19th century was medicine. The carbolic smoke ball promised in this ad we can see promised to cure everything from asthma to sore eyes to diphtheria. Consumers were told to smoke the carbolic smoke ball three times a day for what ailed them. Similarly, snake-oil salesmen promised through their quackery that their product could cure all aches and pains. [...] One does not smoke pot. [sic] I have told this body several times before about Irma Perez, but many seem to have a short memory about this. The rhetoric about marijuana as a ``treatment'' for medical purposes, which probably was dreamed up at some college dorm, was a factor in the death of Irma Perez. She was 14 years old. She heard all this talk about medical marijuana even on the floors of Congress, and she was suffering from an Ecstasy overdose. And her friends gave her marijuana, thinking it was medical instead of getting her a doctor. A medical examiner said that had she received real medical attention rather than so-called medical marijuana, Irma Perez would still be alive. [see the real story] [...] There is a cost to Members of Congress standing up here and pretending that this is medical. This is not safe medicine. It is not safe and effective. It is dangerous. It contains more than 400 chemicals. Moreover, we know from survey data that so-called medical marijuana is not used for medicinal purposes except in very few cases, but for recreational and emotional reasons. [...] We have marijuana coffee houses proliferating in these States that are supposedly for cancer patients. There are people growing tens of hundreds of acres and putting medical marijuana in front of it and hiding and saying ``we are helping cancer patients,'' which is not true. Finally, pro-marijuana advocates exploit the stories of people who are suffering from real pain or illness as a wedge for their pro-drug agenda, claiming that marijuana is necessary to alleviate their pain. It is simply not proven, not true, and becoming less true every single year for even the exceptional case. [...] The bad news is that proponents of medical marijuana are perpetrating a fraud on the public by claiming that home-grown weed, pot, reefer, marijuana, or whatever one wants to call it, should be used as medicine. Medical marijuana is a ruse. Marijuana is a dangerous and illicit drug, period. Wolf: Marijuana is the most abused drug in the United States. According to the ONDCP and the DEA, more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or all other illegal drugs. Mr. Chairman, if I could just read that one more time: according to the ONDCP and the DEA, more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other illegal drugs. Souder again: Compassion is not limited to either side, but there is science and there is not science. In fact, the Carbolic Smoke Balls and the snake oil is very similar; getting high is the same as getting splashed. [...] We in Congress have a responsibility to lead in this country, not to buy into college dormitory-type thoughts of ``wouldn't it be great if we called marijuana medical, and then we could smoke pot?'' So what do you think? It seems pretty clear to me which side won the intellectual debate. [Full transcript available here.]