cannabisnews.com: House Opposes Effort by States To Allow Marijuana House Opposes Effort by States To Allow Marijuana Posted by CN Staff on July 07, 2004 at 21:28:59 PT By Alan Fram, Associated Press Source: Associated Press Washington -- The House voted Wednesday to let the federal government continue prosecuting people who use marijuana for medical reasons in states where local law allows its use by patients.The 268-148 vote turned aside an amendment by Democrats and some conservative Republicans that would have barred the federal government from preventing states from implementing their own medical marijuana laws. Nine states have passed laws allowing people to use marijuana if recommended by a doctor: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. "It won't encourage the use of marijuana," Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., one of the sponsors, said of the amendment. "It won't encourage drug use in children. It won't legalize any drugs."Supporters of the federal restrictions said that constitutionally, federal statutes must override state laws. They also argued that medical marijuana laws only encourage the abuse of marijuana and other drugs.The amendment would hurt by "sending the message to young people that there can be health benefits by smoking marijuana," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.The Bush administration has supported the strong enforcement of anti-marijuana laws. Wednesday's defeat of the amendment by the GOP-run House, just four months from Election Day, came as little surprise.Last July, the House overwhelmingly rejected a similar move by opponents of federal curbs over state marijuana laws.Some patients being treated for cancer and other diseases say marijuana helps ease chronic pain and other problems."The Justice Department is working overtime to put sick people and those who would help them in jail," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.But opponents of marijuana use said more is involved. Rep. Max Burns, R-Ga., said the defeated proposal was "simply the first step in a scheme to overturn all the substance abuse laws."The Supreme Court said last month that it will decide whether the federal government can prosecute patients who use marijuana following a doctor's advice.Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the federal law outlawing marijuana should not apply to people using the drug on a doctor's recommendation. The Bush administration appealed that decision - which only covers the western states in the 9th Circuit - saying federal anti-drug laws supersede state laws.The amendment was offered to a bill providing $39.8 billion next year for the departments of Justice, State and Commerce. The Senate has yet to write its version of the legislation. Complete Title: House Opposes Effort by States To Allow Medical Marijuana Source: Associated Press Author: Alan Fram, Associated PressPublished: July 07, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Associated Press Related Articles & Web Site:The Debate: Hinchey - Rohrabacher http://freedomtoexhale.com/dofcomm.htmCongress To Vote on Medical Marijuana Raids http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19144.shtmlFeds' Wayward Path on Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19142.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #35 posted by L7 on July 09, 2004 at 14:29:22 PT Thank you We need to do this. I am 100% with you. I am not an attorney though and am uninformed on how to begin. I would bet that a guy like Soros would help to fund this major movement. Once the facts are laid out fairly...no doubt we win.Seriously....where do we begin? [ Post Comment ] Comment #34 posted by Max Flowers on July 09, 2004 at 11:11:34 PT L7, now you're talking I've been saying that for years. A class action lawsuit on a massive scale (hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs). That will get attention to the issue of a kind that all the verbal activism in the world might not. Let's organize it. Who is willing to work on drafting the complaint? Is there an attorney among us? Mr. Zuckerman? Maybe Richard Glen Boire will do it. I can contact him. Ashcroft/DOJ was successfully sued on the issue already, so we know it can be done. I have past experience as a paralegal and private investigator so I can help as well. How about 100,000 plaintiffs instead of two. Would that get their attention? Getting people to sign on as valid complainants will be the least of the difficulties.The goal should be not money damages but rather some sort of substantive action on the issues: congressional hearings, or something that will get this aired out properly once and for all. We all know that with all the facts laid out on the table fairly, we will prevail. [ Post Comment ] Comment #33 posted by L7 on July 08, 2004 at 15:42:43 PT B.S. It's about time for a class action lawsuit. We can win in a court of law when all the arguments are on the table. [ Post Comment ] Comment #32 posted by shrox on July 08, 2004 at 12:22:44 PT List of losers All these people will be getting a fax from me.Aderholt Akin Alexander Baca Bachus Baker Ballenger Barrett (SC) Barton (TX) Bass Bereuter Berry Biggert Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonilla Bonner Boozman Boswell Boyd Bradley (NH) Brady (TX) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Brown-Waite, Ginny Burgess Burns Burr Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp Cannon Cantor Capito Cardoza Carson (OK) Carter Castle Chabot Chandler Chocola Clyburn Coble Cole Cooper Costello Cox Cramer Crane Crenshaw Cubin Culberson Cummings Cunningham Davis (AL) Davis (TN) Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Tom Deal (GA) DeLay DeMint Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Doolittle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Emanuel Emerson English Etheridge Everett Feeney Ferguson Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Gerlach Gibbons Gillmor Gingrey Goode Goodlatte Gordon Goss Granger Green (TX) Green (WI) Greenwood Gutknecht Harris Hart Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herger Herseth Hill Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Hostettler Houghton Hulshof Hunter Hyde Isakson Issa Istook Jenkins John Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) Kildee King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline Knollenberg Kolbe Lampson Langevin Latham Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Lynch Manzullo Marshall Matheson McCotter McCrery McHugh McInnis McIntyre McKeon McNulty Meeks (NY) Menendez Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, Gary Mollohan Moore Moran (KS) Murphy Murtha Musgrave Myrick Nethercutt Neugebauer Ney Northup Norwood Nunes Nussle Ortiz Osborne Ose Oxley Pallone Pearce Pence Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Pombo Pomeroy Portman Pryce (OH) Putnam Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Regula Rehberg Renzi Reyes Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Ros-Lehtinen Ross Rothman Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sandlin Saxton Schrock Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Snyder Souder Spratt Stearns Stenholm Stupak Sullivan Sweeney Tanner Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Toomey Turner (OH) Turner (TX) Upton Visclosky Vitter Walden (OR) Walsh Wamp Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Wu---- NOT VOTING 17 ---Blumenauer Boucher Cardin Carson (IN) Collins Deutsch Hall Hastings (FL) Hinchey Honda Jones (OH) LaHood Matsui Meek (FL) Tauzin Young (AK) Young (FL) http://www.shrox.com/spiceflow.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by cloud7 on July 08, 2004 at 11:47:52 PT ... I hope every one of these 268 lords gets to watch a loved family member come down with an illness and die a extremely painful, drawn out death where conventional medicines are having no effect. This is no less then what they wished on the rest of their subjects. This bunch of soft-spined traitors are too blinded by their rigid ideology to ponder that growers and users *authorized by the state* should not be the DEA's highest priority. As far as I know, marijuana is not legal in any state and the DEA has the federal and state governments seal of approval to shoot family members and dogs, and to steal the property of anyone *suspected* of growing non-medical marijuana. Let's be honest here though, does a single person here think the federal government would have given half a damn if this had passed? Of course not, they would still shoot and seize. And if the person said it was medical? They would call them a liar and say that no one needs to grow this much for medical reasons, that it was too sophisticated and that it was "suspicous activity" that led them there in the first place. All this while not allowing a medical defence in federal court. [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by mamawillie on July 08, 2004 at 11:08:47 PT disgusted I'm so utterly disgusted because my guy(D) voted against it. So I called him, and you know what he said? 1)he doesn't want to legalize marijuana 2)no medical groups approve of marijuana as a medicine 3)there are other drugs out there to be used instead.I was polite, firm and I gave him an education (and it was so clearly obvious that I knew much more about this topic than he did... as noted in lies #1,2,3 above)....to which he alternately sighed, stuttered, was silenced with nothing to rebut and then nervously laughed here and there when I made my trump points.And I pounded my main point home over and over again, which was the government does NOT belong in a doctor/patient relationship.And then he admitted that more people had called him who were against it than for it.So there you have it.. just about an all out admission that he didn't know the freak about medical MJ, and that he really saw the vote as a moral one.Thank God for the court system. It is our only way. [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by schmeff on July 08, 2004 at 10:07:23 PT It's Magic From Rep. Ose's charade, below."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."How is it that the THC in marijuana has "absolutely no value whatsoever", but the THC in Marinol is FDA approved. It's magic! The magic of corporate greed. [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by dongenero on July 08, 2004 at 09:56:14 PT hoodwinked voters? Rep. Ose doesn't give the voters much credit for their intelligence! So, the voters of nearly 20% of the states in our union have been "hoodwinked" into medical marijuana? Please Rep. Ose, the only evidence you pose (unintentionally) to back up your opinion of the gullability of the voters is that you're in office! Time to vote these ding-dongs out of office folks. November is coming. I know my "Representatives" time has come. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by Virgil on July 08, 2004 at 09:40:48 PT Anyone But Kerry or Bush The system is designed to make people think their vote does not make a difference. That is why we have such low voter turnout in the US. There are many people that want nothing to do with Bush or Kerry, myself included. What I advocate most is not to stay at home, but at least vote. Voter turnout in itself might send a small message, plus the Senate needs completely cleared of every member in the worst way.But be vocal in saying that Bush is the worst president ever and a war criminal. Be vocal in saying Kerry is just a lesser evil and will not change much of anything except the monograms on the towels in the Whitehouse. But do vote. Make the Dims think this is no sure thing and lay it on Kerry just like Bush. At least we can wake some people up with one on one talk and we should encourage everyone to turn out on election day and take advantage of early voting too where they have it.Please vote. [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by ubas on July 08, 2004 at 09:34:49 PT Rep. Ose's Got to Go 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. [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by billos on July 08, 2004 at 09:22:54 PT ...westnyc................................ we spend about $600 per SECOND on the war on drugs. That's federal and local. [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by dididadadidit on July 08, 2004 at 09:12:39 PT Weapons We Have Left Weapon number one, the vote, and there is a difference starting to show (FINALLY). The difference on this vote between this year and last is insignificant. Six fewer no's outta the Repugncans with 3 more yes's. One more no outta the Dems with 7 less yes's. This leaves the Repugs voting "compassion" with their conservatism at the 8.6% level. The Dems, who are reading the polls, even with a little election year slippage (gotta OUTSTUPID the opposition to show how tough one is on drugs) are still at 66% on the right side of this vote. That is encouraging to say the least. One branch of the one party system (consisting of two branches and the illusion of a choice) is actually showing some independence from the usual lockstep competition to see who can be stupider on drugs. We need a major housecleaning in November. Get as many Repugs out of the House of Representatives (Souder's hang out, by the way) as possible along with Kerry in for flightsuitboy and a return of the senate to Dem control. Punish the Repugnicans for their intransigence, reward Dems for starting to get it. We know bu$hco with asscroft and johnny pee and crowd are sworn enemies, absolutely no question. Kerry and Dem control across the board can be no worse, and this house vote, two years running, does show a clear difference in favor of replacing Repugs with Dems where ever possible.Weapon number two: Political process on the state level. Keep on doing what we are doing. The stinking feds can be marginalized on the issue as state after state reflects the true will of the people with state progress on both the medical and recreational front. Screw the feds on the state level.Number 3: The courts. Both from the standpoint of the courts striking down existing fed excesses and from the standpoint of forcing jury trials for the most insignificant offense and accelerating the jury nullification idea.Number 4: The rest of the civilized world. Again, there is a difference between flightsuitboy and Kerry as flightsuitboy could give a s--- less what the rest of the world thinks about anything HE does as HE is taking HIS marching orders directly from consultation with HIS heavenly father. The rest of the world can go Cheney itself. Kerry plans to reestablish working diplomacy with our traditional allies, which can only help as good relations with "civilized" countries will allow a greater exchange of ideas between them. Just think Canada, for example. Bu$hco constantly threatens them over their high potency pot with border backup and trade threats. Kerry might. Kerry might not. BUSH DOES.Hang in there. Vote the known bastards out. Look for this amendment to do better next year as more will feel free to vote yea in a non-election year; plus if we turn the house back to the Dems in a convincing fashion, a part of that may be seen by the Dems as tied in with our issues and a real shift our way could show up.Cheers? [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by hubbs on July 08, 2004 at 08:50:54 PT Here's how they voted You know what to do everyone: if your Rep voted against it politely call and voice your displeasure. Conversely if your Rep voted for it (thankfully mine did), call them and thank them. Both positive and negative feed back helps. Please, whatever you do, please be polite. Final vote concerning the removal of funding for the DOJ in MM cases: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll334.xmlH.AMDT.646 to HR 4754 (Admendment stated: "An amendment numbered 6 printed in the Congressional Record prohibit the use of funds in the bill to prevent the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont or Washington from imlementing state laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana.") http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:7:./temp/~bdfyOL::|/bss/d108query.html|HR 4754 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR04754: L&summ2=m&|/bss/d108query.html|#status H.AMDT.646Find you Rep. http://www.vote-smart.org/ Final vote results for roll call 334 concerning H.AMDT.646 to HR 4754 [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by westnyc on July 08, 2004 at 08:14:29 PT EJ! I'll try my best to explain! I do agree with what you are saying - there is no guarantee that Kerry would appoint someone who would be on our side. It certainly wouldn't be another Ruth Bader Ginsburg. However, if she were to be replaced by Bush in favor of an Owens or an Estrada, it would be the end of the Bill of Rights once and for all. I know that Kerry wouldn't appoint someone on our side but it couldn't be worse than who Bush would appoint. Many life altering decisions by the Supremes have been 5-4 votes in favor of the conservatives. Bush's appointment to the presidency being one of them. Roe vs Wade hangs by one vote.I don't want to vote for Kerry. I hate the thought of it and I still havn't decided. I want to vote for Nader eventhough I know he can't win - it's just that he stands for everything I believe in. I know that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. It's the Coke or Pepsi, personally I don't like either; but, if I had to choose one because Fanta wasn't an option, I'd have a Coke.The problem as I see it is the Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan in order to come to fair decisions. However, that is not the reality. I know that the Democrats (liberal party) are not our friends. They accept bribes from corporations as much or more than the Republicans.Like all politicians - (sigh) I guess it comes down to who will be the lesser of two evils! :-( [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by E_Johnson on July 08, 2004 at 07:37:33 PT westnyc why would a LIBERAL judge help? Federalism is something liberals traiditonally oppose, and even cast as evil. I get called an evil right winger by feminists whenever I bring up the subject of limiting federal power. Big federal power is supposed to be unquestioningly good on the left.So why would any liberal judge support a strict definition of interstate commerce applied towards the CSA?The idea of limiting federal power is traditionally opposed by people who see the government as the solution to all of society's problems.I can see Kerry appointing judges who would NOT be on our side at all.I don't see any magic heroic force in the Democrats. I mean, Clinton already killed one of us, didn't he?Maybe Kerry will off a few more, who knows. I don't think the future is that predictable. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by runruff on July 08, 2004 at 07:28:33 PT: Postage cost...... PSSend either cash for postage check or money order. Make the check out to Jerry Sisson. I'm not in any way trying to profit from this only that I may live long enough to see our goals accomplished.FREEDOM FIRST! [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by runruff on July 08, 2004 at 07:17:03 PT: Voting is not enough! If you feel as passionate about this issue as I do you must do more. I have done much investigating on the matter that hemp/cannabis is the answer to many of our planets ills. I can't elaborate enough here but I did make the first video in America perhaps in the entire world to try and address this subject. My own dedication to this subject was such that I spent the money I had saved for a down payment on my house to produce this amature video because it needed to be done. It is entertaining and full of info. It is based on Jack Herrer's Book "The Emperor Wears NO Cloths" Jack hemself helped with the project and is in the video. I made this documentry in 1993 and Paul Sanford has it posted on his web site CRRH.org. It's titled "Let My People Grow" I have a limited number of copies left. If you want to own one to show your frinds and or pass around just send me the cost of postage and I'll send out as many as I have left for free. Write me at, Seven Thunders Video PO Box 2067 Cave Junction, Or. 97523 One day while watching William Bennett in an interview early in the year of 1993 he was ask; About marijuana, why are you unwilling to dicuss or publicly debate the subject? He said,"marijuana is bad, Marijuana is illigal,end of debate". I was livid. I knew I had to do something. Gods gift of the greatest most useful plant on the planet was being trampled on as a pearl before swine. Get active. Help save the planet. Arm your self and others with Knowledge. It's been a long up-hill ten year battle for me. please help. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by westnyc on July 08, 2004 at 07:07:09 PT It's Scary! Imagine what would happen if one of our liberal justices died or retired before Bush leaves office. Someone brought-up this point yesterday I believe. Imagine who he would appoint to this lifetime position. Reversal of Roe vs Wade would only be the beginning! [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by westnyc on July 08, 2004 at 07:03:05 PT The Supremes The Supreme Court voted in 1988 an absurd decision in a case called Buckley vs Valeo. The court held that money is the same thing as free speech. This is where all the corporate money and the selling of our democracy was given the greenlight. They call it Campaign Financing but everyone here knows that it is nothing more than "Legal Bribery." I believe this is the worst decision ever decided - even worse than drug testing. It is the point where our society began its decent into decadence. It is the point where special interests outweigh and pay for a scewed government in contrast the rational and betterment of the common people. Our democracy is rotting before our very eyes because our politicians work for them. Our Supreme Court first decides their vote before looking into the reason and rational; and, then begins a process of finding a way around the unconstitutionality of an issue to suit their own beliefs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by ekim on July 08, 2004 at 06:52:05 PT http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2004& ok the recorded vote shows that 65 dems voted against this compassionate bill and 10 dems did not even bother to vote. so you add u[p 75 votes to the 148 that did stand up you have 223 to 193 and the dems wonder why they can not get people out to vote. http://www.leap.cc [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by westnyc on July 08, 2004 at 06:28:23 PT Anyone know how much cannabis prohibition costs $$ I just read today that approximately 30 million people are infected with the AIDS virus worldwide; and, that the Eastern Hemisphere accounts for 1 in 4 new infections. The UN Health Organization is scrambling to raise 10 billion a year for treatment and research for those already affected or those soon to be affected. They say that the percentage of cases in North America is still very low but will soon begin to rise as it has in Africa and as it is in Asia. I was just wondering how much money we spend on Cannabis Prohibition each year protecting the children! The way it seems to me is that the US Govt. and the UN Health Org. see Cannabis as a more severe threat to kids than a disease which causes horrible and widespread death.Nobody here knows anyone who has died of Cannabis Intoxication; but, who here has witnessed the waste and suffering associated with a friend or family member, or neigbor who has passed on because of AIDS? [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on July 08, 2004 at 06:03:27 PT: Please! Don't forget to thank the ones who did the right thing.Here's what I said to my Rep who did:The Honorable James XXXXX, House of Representatives,Dear Sir,I'd just like to thank you for the support you gave in your vote for the Farr Amendment, commonly referred to as the Hinchey/Rohrabacher amendment.Even though the amendment did not pass - largely due to those legislators who inexplicably equate relief for the sick and dying as somehow sending the wrong message to children - you stood firm in resolve to aid your fellow Americans being harrassed by agents of the Federal government. (Who surely have better things to do - like catch terrorists - than to stick guns in the face of the aforementioned sick and dying and steal their medicine.)Your courage and vision in taking a stand in this seemingly politically unpopular vote brings you head and shoulders above many of your peers. Although I am a transplanted Virginian, I am proud to know you represent me and other citizens of this great State. Again, many, many thanks for your vote of compassion for those who need it the most.Sincerely,Signed (Me) [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by billos on July 08, 2004 at 03:46:06 PT Truly amazing how.......................... they can hem and haw, spend hours on this issue just to spoon it up the publics' butt, while fully aware of what they voted on with the nays grinning with deceit. Yet, when it comes to something like the Patriot Act they sign it into law without reading it at all, let alone debate it.If what FoM says about voting turned out to be true, that voting is worthless, and with violence not an option then what weapon left do we have? Can someone tell me that? [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by sukoi on July 08, 2004 at 03:45:14 PT That just sucks! Guess that we'll have to hope that the SCOTUS decides to do the right and Constitutional thing! This was posted at the Kerry forum and I thought that many here may find it a useful resource:The Medical Marijuana Source Book~ A comprehensive guide to national medical marijuana legislation, up-to-date resources and other details that some people don’t want you to know ~http://www.medindica.com/Medical_Marijuana_Source_Book.htm [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by kaptinemo on July 08, 2004 at 03:35:20 PT: Another vote against sanity and compassion Only one good thing came of this: we have a clear view of who our enemies are. 268 of them. November is coming. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by OverwhelmSam on July 08, 2004 at 02:39:17 PT The Only Thing Left To Do The only thing we can do now is challenge the prohibitionists during the elections. That's tbe only thing that will work effectively to get the ever increasing harsh marijuana laws off the books. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on July 07, 2004 at 23:26:33 PT greenmed Thanks for the link. I will vote in November. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by greenmed on July 07, 2004 at 23:15:14 PT final roll call on the Farr Amendment to H.R. 4754:http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2004&rollnumber=334Please vote in November. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by observer on July 07, 2004 at 23:10:15 PT Classic prohibitionist ''reasoning'' "sending the message to young people that there can be health benefits by smoking marijuana," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. ... Rep. Max Burns, R-Ga., said the defeated proposal was "simply the first step in a scheme to overturn all the substance abuse laws."So classic.Like an ongoing morality play, this same issue gets played out-repeatedly today with a new cast of characters. As bills are introduced to lower criminal penalties for various illicit drugs, one can anticipate any number of legislators standing to attack reduced penalties as an invitation for use and a first step toward legalization of drug X. Themes In Chemical Prohibiton, NIDA, 1979, http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme7.htm#7 http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pot breaking pot news, 24/7 [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on July 07, 2004 at 22:46:53 PT BGreen I'm really sorry to read that. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on July 07, 2004 at 22:43:44 PT Virgil I understand. I don't care who becomes the next president because none of them really care except for what is important to them. Voting probably is just a waste of time. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Virgil on July 07, 2004 at 22:33:43 PT FoM, they understand just fine It is the citizenry that does not understand that the public good is meaningless as the Congress is a servant of the Corporations.I can understand voting for Lesser Evil. I am better than Anybody But Bush. I am Anybody But Bush and Kerry as they are just pro-Empire. The unyielding call to evaporate all wealth upward is in real jeopardy of violence. All the onerous laws might control most people, but then again an unjust law to a terminally ill person is an unjust law worthy of a final attempt to make the world a better place. Not only can I see how someone could see those that opposed such a half-assed policy to reduce the harm and outragousness of a totally flawed prohibition as murder, I do see it as murder.Anybody But Bush or Kerry. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by BGreen on July 07, 2004 at 22:31:08 PT Nol Van Schaik Extradited To France Sorry if this has been posted today. This really sucks! :-(The Reverend Bud Green Nol Van Schaik Extradited To France [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Virgil on July 07, 2004 at 22:22:47 PT We need the names of the bastards Surely NORML will take the time to put up those that voted against this amendment. We need to know who they are.Cynthia McKinney is running for Congress. I wonder if she will say anything about this hideous decision by the Corporation's representatives. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on July 07, 2004 at 22:20:56 PT What's Next? When will they understand? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment