Hinchey-Rohrbacher Amendment

[Midnight toker]

June 15, 2006


The Science of Medical Marijuana Prohibition
Kenneth Michael White
OpinionEditorials.com

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently opined that smoked marijuana has no scientifically accepted medical uses. The FDA received much criticism for this decision because in 1999 the Federal Government’s own scientists concluded that even in smoked form marijuana has medical uses.

At the heart of the debate about medical marijuana is the question of science. But what, exactly, is science? Since modern civilization bases itself on a belief in the ability of science to solve any and all problems (human or otherwise), prudent people are obligated to at least try to understand just where the faith of modernity really rests.

Modern science starts with the concept of “pure reason,” as articulated by the philosopher Descartes—who said, “I think therefore I am.” In short, Descartes argues that the quest for knowledge, i.e., “science,” is based on an objective understanding of that which human beings can see, touch, smell, taste, or hear.

According to the people we call “scientists,” there are three types of activities that pass for “science,” though it is important to note that these activities are inseparably interrelated. First, there is the descriptive method. Second, there is the empirical method. Third, there is the theoretical method.

The descriptive method generally relies on case studies, which amounts to the observation of (either from afar or up close) the behavior of one or more persons and the objective reporting of what was experienced. The benefit of the case study is that a single phenomenon or event can be described “thickly” and in great detail, such that there is a “deep” appreciation for what is being studied.

The empirical method generally takes many individual case studies, gathered either by experiments or surveys, and then uses numbers (statistics) to objectively report or “model” what was experienced. The benefit of the empirical method is that it appears more objective than the case study because it can “control” for confounding explanations. The empirical method is indeed a more precise science; however, the descriptive method is reliable and valid, too.

Literally, behind both methods is the theoretical method, which provides the basis or reason for doing either descriptive or empirical science in the first place. Basically, descriptive or empirical science is a “test” of some particular theory. The irony of the theoretical method is that sometimes what a scientist assumes theoretically is exactly what a scientist finds descriptively or empirically.

In 1937, for example, the 75th Congress theorized that Spanish-speaking immigrants were “low mentally” because of “social and racial conditions” and, since some of these immigrants used medical marijuana, the Federal Government “reasoned” (over the objection of the American Medical Association) that medical marijuana should be criminalized. It is an ugly truth: racism represents the beginning of today’s Federal medical marijuana prohibition.

Anyone doubting whether racism is in fact behind the founding of today’s Federal medical marijuana prohibition should read the legislative history of The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Anyone doubting whether race still plays a role in the war on drugs should read the American Civil Liberties Union’s policy report on race and drug prohibition. That Federal medical marijuana prohibition stems from Jim Crow thinking is beyond doubt to everyone who takes the time to research and consider the issue with an open mind.

Science is only as good as the theory that drives it. Since the FDA operates from a misinformed viewpoint based in large part on the racial stereotypes of 1937, no case study or double-blind experiment could ever show that the marijuana plant in its raw form has medical utility. Why? Follow the money.

The FDA is politically prohibited from recognizing the value of a medicine that can be grown by people for free because the agency has such close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. This is my “theory” because shortly after the FDA said that marijuana has no benefit in smoked form the agency recognized the medical efficacy of a pill-based marijuana medicine. Is it a coincidence that the FDA discourages the use of a medicine that can be grown for free, but endorses the use of that same medicine if produced synthetically for profit?

Soon the 109th Congress will vote on an amendment that would recognize, under Federal law, the legitimacy of the medical marijuana programs in the various states that have passed medical marijuana laws. Let’s hope—a bold hope, in these partisan times—that a majority-of-the-majority in Congress will finally end a 69-year-old error and thereby follow a more factual and compassionate theory when it comes to medical marijuana.

Call your representative now and instruct him or her to support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment. In a sense, the future of science is at stake.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004).

<span class=postbold>See Also:</span> political: Hinchey-Rohrbacher

[palmspringsbum]

House OKs Medical Pot Prosecutions

The San Francisco Chronicle
- By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, June 28, 2006


( 06-28 ) 15:43 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --


The House on Wednesday voted to continue to allow federal prosecution of those who smoke marijuana for medical purposes in states with laws that permit it.

A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can prosecute medical marijuana users, even when state laws allow doctor-prescribed use of the drug.

By a 259-163 vote, the House again turned down an amendment that would have blocked the Justice Department from prosecuting people in the 11 states with such medical marijuana laws.

Advocates say medical marijuana use is the only way that many chronically ill people, such as AIDS and cancer patients, can relieve their symptoms.

The vote came as the House debated a $59.8 billion bill covering the departments of Commerce, Justice and State.

"If the voters have seen to it and a doctor agrees, it's a travesty for the government to intercede ... to get in the way of someone using something to alleviate their suffering," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. "This is something that should be left to the states as American tradition dictates."

"Marijuana is not harmless as some claim," said Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa. "Marijuana continues to be the most widely abused drug in the United States."

Opponents of the amendment said Marinol, a government-approved prescription drug that contains the active ingredient in marijuana, offers comparable relief for pain and nausea.

Eight states — Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — have legalized medical marijuana by voter referendums. The legislatures of three others — Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont — have legalized the practice. All require a doctor's approval.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 312D44.DTL

[palmspringsbum]

immediate release
JUNE 28, 2006

Record Support for Medical Marijuana Amendment

Public Pressure Led to Record House Vote, Advocates Say

WASHINGTON D.C. -- The Marijuana Policy Project

An amendment to stop the U.S. Justice Department from arresting medical marijuana patients in the 11 states where medical marijuana is legal received a record vote on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today. Although the measure failed to pass, 163-259, medical marijuana advocates hailed the record vote as the result of a growing groundswell of support for medical marijuana from across the political spectrum. Last summer, the amendment received 161 votes, which was the previous record until today's vote.

The improvement was due to Republican "yes" votes, which increased from 15 last year to 18 this year.

"Support for medical marijuana has hit yet another high-water mark in Congress, 11 states have legalized medical marijuana in 11 years, and the latest national poll shows that an astounding 78 percent of voters want to see medical marijuana legal," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) in Washington, D.C. "It's hard to imagine a scenario where Congress will not pass our medical marijuana legislation by, say, 2009.

"The most significant thing is that the amendment gained votes during an election year," Kampia said. "The last time the House voted on this amendment during an election year was in the summer of 2004, when support dropped from where it had been a year prior. The amendment's strong showing this year probably has something to do with the fact that Citizens Against Government Waste and other conservative organizations are now lobbying alongside a host of medical and other organizations, including the American Nurses Association, to pass the amendment. And it's also worth noting that every member of Congress who has voted for medical marijuana legislation and run for reelection has won reelection, and the only member attacked for his medical marijuana vote won by more than five to one."

The amendment, which was supported by a bipartisan coalition led by Congressmen Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), would have barred the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere with the medical marijuana laws now in effect in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. A national Gallup poll released in November 2005 found that 78 percent of voters favor allowing physicians to prescribe marijuana "to reduce pain and suffering."

With more than 20,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate it in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit http://MarijuanaPolicy.org.

<center>####</center>

[palmspringsbum]

July 01, 2006


Medical Marijuana From the Patient’s Point of View

opinioneditorial.com
Kenneth Michael White

The House of Representatives recently voted down an amendment to a spending bill that would have prevented the Justice Department from spending Federal tax dollars on medical marijuana investigations and enforcement actions in those States that have decriminalized marijuana for medical use. From the perspective of a person with a serious illness whose doctor has recommended the medical use of cannabis, the congressional vote was an unfortunate 259 to 163 against common sense.

Of course, common sense is not always common (especially in Washington, D.C.). In this sense, the congressional vote against medical marijuana is nothing new. For example, the 75th Congress started the trend of ignoring reality when it comes to medical marijuana by passing The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Over the objection of the American Medical Association, the 75th Congress allowed prejudice (directed primarily towards Spanish-speaking persons in the Southwest) to trump intelligence. America has paid dearly for this mistake, both in terms of wasted tax dollars spent punishing unpopular people and the inevitable loss of liberty associated with asking the government to protect people from themselves.

The 259 members of the 109th Congress who failed to vote in favor of correcting a mistake of 69-years and counting have given de-facto approval to the practice of punishing sick and dying people. Granted, the Drug Enforcement Administration has promised the United States Supreme Court that it does not target individual medical marijuana patients, but the agency nevertheless opposes the end of medical marijuana prohibition and therefore desires to, at least, threaten legitimate medical marijuana patients with criminal sanction. But, why? Why is it so hard to accept the private medical use of marijuana?

Are people upset with the medical use of marijuana because they believe it looks like lawlessness? Would such people change their view about medical marijuana if they knew that the American Medical Association once considered the plant to be medicine? If they knew that the Chinese have been using the plant as medicine for thousands of years? If they had a family member who needed marijuana to ease the symptoms associated with cancer, AIDS, and/or chronic pain?

Are people upset with the medical use of marijuana because they believe that some medical marijuana patients do not “look” sick? Well, should Congress order doctors to only prescribe medicine on the basis of who “looks” sick to the average person with no medical background or training? What, exactly, is a cancer patient supposed to look like anyway? How about an AIDS patient? An MS patient? Glaucoma? Arthritis? Is it even possible or desirable to judge by a glance which person deserves a disabled parking permit and which person does not?

Are people upset with the medical use of marijuana because they think that marijuana is addictive? Would such people change their view about medical marijuana if they knew that the supervised use of pain medication is not the equivalent of the unsupervised abuse of pain medication? If not, then should Congress prevent doctors from recommending the use of all medicines that could be addictive or could be abused? Why should people be deprived of useful medicine on the basis that certain individuals cannot be trusted with such medicine? Isn’t it simply cruel to threaten to punish people with incarceration for privately following their doctor’s advice?

Are people upset with the medical use of marijuana because they think that marijuana is dangerous? Would such people change their view about medical marijuana if they knew that no one in recorded human history has ever died from overdosing on marijuana? Alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana, so should we re-prohibit alcohol and bring back organized crime figures like Al Capone? If not, then why should we keep medical marijuana prohibition in place when it helps foster a black market that provides ready funding to international terrorists? Is it possible that the war on drugs is more dangerous than the medical use of marijuana? Isn’t it the current system of drug regulation that subjects our children to dangerous streets and dangerous temptations? Has Coors Brewing Company ever sponsored a drive-by shooting or otherwise used violence to profit from the sale of beer? Has a legitimate medical marijuana patient’s use of marijuana ever caused measurable harm to society?

According to the polls there is only 20% of the American population that does not favor medical marijuana. That means a whopping 80% of the country favors making marijuana available for doctors to prescribe to patients without government interference. Despite the fact that both federalism and conservatism seem to call for letting States enact medical marijuana laws and keeping government out of people’s private lives, a majority-of-the-majority in the Republican Party refuses to recognize any comity or restraint, and the Democratic Party is sometimes too afraid to stand up for what is often viewed as a “hippie” drug. The result is an out-of-touch Congress that criminalizes the sick and dying.

Oh well, maybe next year common sense will, finally, prevail in Congress again. In the meantime, people who need medical marijuana to survive are forced to go on living with the stigma of being a violator of an unjust law, which is still some kind of law after all, and which, for conscientious citizens, does not feel good to disobey. The good news is that medical marijuana patients are on the side of truth; however, the bad news is that they have to beg Congress to catch up with them for at least one more year.

<hr>


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004).

[palmspringsbum]

Support the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act

The Tenth Amendment Center | 19 Jun 09
by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, along with over a dozen cosponsors, reintroduced legislation in Congress to strengthen legal protections for state-authorized medical marijuana patients.

The bill, entitled the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act of 2009, seeks to amend the discrepancy between federal law and the laws of over a dozen states that have enacted regulations governing the therapeutic use of cannabis.

Thirteen states – Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington – have enacted laws prohibiting medical marijuana patients from state prosecution.

Passage of the the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act would ensure that medical cannabis patients or providers who are compliant with state law, such as Charles Lynch (who was sentenced in federal court), would no longer have to fear arrest or prosecution from federal law enforcement agencies.

Previous versions of the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act were introduced in both the 108th and 109th Congress, but failed to receive a public hearing or a committee vote.

While campaigning for the presidency, Barack Obama promised not to use Justice Department resources “to try and circumvent state (medical marijuana) laws” — a pledge that has been repeated in recent months by US Attorney General Eric Holder.

Nevertheless, agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration have continued to target medical marijuana providers in states that allow for the drug’s use, and federal prosecutors have continued to bring federal anti-drug charges against defendants who were acting in accordance with their state’s cannabis laws.

It is time that we allowed our unique federalist system to work the way it was intended. Patients and their state representatives should have the authority to enact laws permitting the medical use of cannabis — free from federal interference.

Please write your members of Congress today and tell them to stop targeting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers.

Click Here to Take Action

House Bill 2835, The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act of 2009

[palmspringsbum]

<small>For Immediate Release: June 12th, 2009 | Americans for Safe Access</small>

Congress Introduces HR 2835, The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act

<span class="postbigbold">Bill would reschedule marijuana for medical use, end federal interference in state laws</span>


Washington, D.C. -- In another effort to change federal policy on medical marijuana, Congressional Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced the "Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act," HR 2835, late yesterday. The bill, which was co-sponsored by 13 bipartisan Members of Congress at the time of introduction, would change federal policy on medical marijuana in a number of ways. Specifically, the Act would change marijuana from a Schedule I drug, classified as having no medical value, to a Schedule II drug, which would recognize marijuana's medical efficacy and create a regulatory framework for the FDA to begin a drug approval process for marijuana. The act would also prevent interference by the federal government in any local or state run medical marijuana program.

Although similar versions of the Act have been introduced in previous Congressional terms, the Obama Administration's willingness to change federal policy on medical marijuana creates a new political context and may facilitate passage of this important legislation. "We are encouraged by the federal government's willingness to address this issue and to bring about a more sensible and humane policy on medical marijuana," said Caren Woodson, Government Affairs Director with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a nationwide advocacy group working with the Obama Administration, Representative Frank and other Members of Congress to change federal policy. "It's time to recognize marijuana's medical efficacy, and to develop a comprehensive plan that will provide access to medical marijuana and protection for the hundreds of thousands of sick Americans that benefit from its use."

In addition to rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), HR 2835 would provide protection from the CSA and the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for qualified patients and caregivers in states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana. Specifically, the act prevents the CSA and FDCA from prohibiting or restricting: (1) a physician from prescribing or recommending marijuana for medical use, (2) an individual from obtaining, possessing, transporting within their state, manufacturing, or using marijuana in accordance with their state law, (3) an individual authorized under State law from obtaining, possessing, transporting within their state, or manufacturing marijuana on behalf of an authorized patient, or (4) an entity authorized under local or State law to distribute medical marijuana to authorized patients from obtaining, possessing, or distributing marijuana to such authorized patients.

The Obama Administration has made repeated statements that it intends to end federal enforcement against medical marijuana, but has yet to provide a detailed plan of implementation. A lack of clarity on this policy change has prompted Congress to take action. In addition to the introduction of Frank's bill yesterday, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) introduced language Tuesday within the Commerce, Justice and Science Departments (CJS) Appropriations bill seeking clarification on the Administration's policy. "It's imperative that the federal government respect states' rights and stay out of the way of patients with debilitating diseases such as cancer who are using medical marijuana in accordance with state law to alleviate their pain," said Hinchey in a press release issued Tuesday.