cannabisnews.com: House Nixes Medical Pot Amendment House Nixes Medical Pot Amendment Posted by CN Staff on July 26, 2007 at 13:46:00 PT By Josh Richman, Staff Writer Source: Oakland Tribune California -- The House again has rejected an amendment to protect medical marijuana patients from federal prosecution, the fifth such vote in as many years. But while the amendment continued its trend of picking up a few votes each year, half of the House's freshman Democrats opposed it Wednesday _ including Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton.``I have spoken to many law enforcement officials concerned about the effect of drug use on our communities, particularly in San Joaquin County. The problem is real,'' McNerney said in a statement issued Thursday. ``Just yesterday, Stockton police announced a successful drug sweep _ in cooperation with other law enforcement agencies _ that led to 51 arrests and the seizure of over 12 pounds of illegal substances.``We are facing a drug crisis with meth and other drug use on the rise. Until we get a handle on the crippling drug use in our society, I cannot support the relaxation of current drug policy.''The Stockton sweep was part of a drug and gang crackdown; seized in the sweep were roughly 7.7 pounds of methamphetamine, 2.3 pounds of crack cocaine, 1 pound of marijuana, 3/4 pound of heroin and 3.4 grams of PCP.The bipartisan amendment to the Science-State-Justice-Commerce Appropriations bill introduced by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., would have prohibited the Justice Department from spending any money on arresting or prosecuting medical-marijuana patients in the 12 states _ including California _ where medical marijuana is legal.Bruce Mirken, communications director for the national Marijuana Policy Project, said McNerney's statement ``deliberately confuses apples and oranges, and insults every California patient struggling to maintain life and dignity in the face of cancer, AIDS, MS, and other horrible illnesses.``No sane person considers it a `relaxation of drug laws' that physicians are allowed to prescribe methamphetamine, cocaine and morphine, and no one seriously suggests depriving patients who need those drugs of their benefits just because someone else might misuse them,'' Mirken said. ``This statement reads like an excuse, not a reason, to justify what McNerney thinks is a politically safe vote.''But that political calculation is wrong, Mirken insisted; three quarters of California voters support the state's medical marijuana law, ``and those who worked and donated money to put McNerney in office will be the most bitterly disillusioned by his betrayal of the most vulnerable Californians.''Wednesday's vote was 165-262. The amendment was defeated last year on a 163-259 vote; it got 161 votes in 2005, 148 in 2004 and 152 in 2003.Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, didn't vote on it Wednesday but has supported it in the past. Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Atwater, opposed it Wednesday as he always has; his spokesman has said Cardoza doesn't believe use of marijuana for medical purposes should be legal, and that the amendment is an attempt to circumvent existing federal law.A series of judicial defeats _ including the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in a case brought by Oakland activist Angel Raich _ has had medical-marijuana advocates pinning most of their hopes on Congress. ``A lot of us believed, with a Democratic majority and with a Speaker of the House who's been supportive of the issue, that if it didn't pass we'd at least see more growth in support than we did,'' Mirken said.Source: Oakland Tribune, The (CA)Author: Josh Richman, Staff WriterPublished: July 26, 2007Copyright: 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc. Contact: triblet angnewspapers.comWebsite: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Related Article & Web Site:Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Medical Marijuana Backers Say They'll Fight Onhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23208.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #22 posted by FoM on July 27, 2007 at 07:28:12 PT afterburner I agree with you. People hate dope but cannabis is good medicine. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by Had Enough on July 27, 2007 at 07:23:20 PT State Treasurer Suspended After Indictment on Drug http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=50785 [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by afterburner on July 27, 2007 at 07:15:05 PT OT: Blind Anger One of the things I learned in the last 2 days of scandal in the Tour de France: people hate "doping." They become angry at perceived cheating, whether it is "blood doping" (transfusion), steroids, synthjetic testoterone, or even cannabis (which is on the Cycling Federation's banned substances list.We in the cannabis community have had charges of using medical cannabis as a stalking horse for full legalization. This type of rhetoric brings out the blind anger and makes prohibitionists imperious to logical arguments. We must overcome this stigma.Cannabis is a medical plant, not dope. Cannabis patients are not cheaters! [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by John Tyler on July 26, 2007 at 21:44:40 PT in the news I saw in the paper that the Republican State Treasurer of South Carolina was arrested for possession of 500 grams (17 ounces) of cocaine. He is also the state presidential campaign coordinator for Rudy G. Very strange. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by FoM on July 26, 2007 at 20:45:28 PT RevRayGreen We watched the piece on Colbert. It was sort of funny but I can't think of much more to say. I guess I am not in a funny mood because of the negative news. Maybe someone else can expand on it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by FoM on July 26, 2007 at 17:29:45 PT About My State Back years ago my state had a terrible penalty for marijuana and what they did has worked well ever since from what I have been told. They increased the penalties for hard drugs and made marijuana a civil citation. That worked because our governor at that time was a republican and the trade made him happy I guess. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by FoM on July 26, 2007 at 17:16:36 PT RevRayGreen We will watch tonight. We like Jon Stewart but haven't really watched Colbert more then a few times. I hope he doesn't get pounced on. I know Colbert is on our side though. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by RevRayGreen on July 26, 2007 at 17:07:16 PT Let's see what Junior has to say tonight Aaron Houston will appear on Comedy Central's "Colbert Report" tonight (11:30 p.m. EST)no cable, I'm sure I can get a rebroadcast tomorrow. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by FoM on July 26, 2007 at 16:45:38 PT One More Thought I like the way New Mexico is trying to do it. Having the Governor behind the law should help. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on July 26, 2007 at 16:18:05 PT Taylor121 I want to see people changing their opinions of what marijuana has been made out to be. People accept change once they know that it won't hurt them or society. We learn to accept what we don't think is right when we are kindly and thoroughly taught. I guess that means quality education is important to me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Taylor121 on July 26, 2007 at 16:12:50 PT FoM "I don't think anything will change until it is addressed on a Federal level. States don't have any rights. Maybe they do but I haven't seen any for a long time. It will cost a lot of money to push more state initiatives and so far it hasn't worked well. I don't think people believe the laws will ever change. I thought I wouldn't be doing news this long for sure."Things have already changed. Thousands of patients are protected from state and local arrest in 12 states. States have the right to control their own law enforcement. That is why you only hear about the Feds busting up shops in those states that have legalized it for sick patients. If you look at the states that have legalized it, it has pushed those Congressmen/women in the House of Representatives to vote in favor of medical marijuana. If you want to change Federal law on this issue, you have to have grassroots support. I'm sorta confused on how you would change the law FoM. On one hand you say "don't lobby the Feds, that's immoral", now you are saying "don't change state laws to at least help some people because i don't see a difference". I'm curious as to what you DO support to make a change. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on July 26, 2007 at 16:08:39 PT greenmed I can't think of an answer because I don't believe we have any chance of that happening. I am a realist at this point in my life. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by greenmed on July 26, 2007 at 15:59:01 PT Fom #2 I agree. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by greenmed on July 26, 2007 at 15:53:01 PT a question Suppose that in January 2009 we get a progressive president who delivers on the promise to call off the DEA from invading state-sanctioned Cannabis dispensaries. Would the raids stop permanently, even if in 8, 12 or 16 years another prohibitionist were elected?Would support for DEA's agenda against Cannabis dry and shrivel up over time as the sky continues not to fall? [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by dongenero on July 26, 2007 at 15:34:34 PT we are committed C'mon everyone. We are committed to making this happen.The DEA is on the ropes. Attacking medical marijuana patients is about the only thing they can do that shows. For rabid, hateful prohibitionists that may be enough. It will not be what most people in this country are looking for however.Many kids and young adults lives are being wasted by meth and other hard drugs. The DEA has nothing to show for this! They are desperate to make some kind of showing. Medical marijuana is where they are doing it, despite the risk of backfire. It's all they have but, one thing it is; easy pickings.We have to stay on it. If anything, be more vocal. Send letters. Push for initiatives. We have to hold their feet to the fire on every front. Grass roots, local, state, federal.These questions MUST be raised in the debates! If you can't count on support by party line, then we need to find who the thoughtful and reasonable politicians are, no matter what stripes they wear. We can't let it be swept under the rug. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by FoM on July 26, 2007 at 15:14:01 PT Taylor121 I don't think anything will change until it is addressed on a Federal level. States don't have any rights. Maybe they do but I haven't seen any for a long time. It will cost a lot of money to push more state initiatives and so far it hasn't worked well. I don't think people believe the laws will ever change. I thought I wouldn't be doing news this long for sure. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Taylor121 on July 26, 2007 at 15:08:42 PT Reality Congress is impossible to lobby for. They have barely moved an inch towards supporting medical marijuana. The FDA is run by the Administration indirectly through informal political pressure. The Feds are off limits.The only way to help people in this country and the only way to eventually change Federal law is to pass state bills and voter initiatives. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on July 26, 2007 at 15:04:36 PT Taylor121 I wish I knew but I just don't know. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Taylor121 on July 26, 2007 at 14:55:39 PT California Perhaps they should tighten up the law in Cali similar to other medical marijuana states? [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on July 26, 2007 at 14:52:19 PT greenmed Maybe Stark sees what is going on in California and he doesn't agree anymore. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on July 26, 2007 at 14:50:29 PT greenmed I think it is because they don't want to have a recorded vote one way or the other. It isn't something they are interested in. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by greenmed on July 26, 2007 at 14:32:48 PT four minutes "Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, didn't vote on it Wednesday but has supported it in the past."Of the ten representatives that did not vote on Hinchey (roll call vote 733) at 10:52 PM, three did manage to vote on roll call 732, four minutes earlier, at 10:48 PM: Bachus (R-AL), Boucher (D-VA) and Stark (D-CA).Why did these three representatives not vote? Hinchey was the last roll call vote of the evening. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment