Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Hill, The (US DC)
Copyright: 2005 The Hill
Contact:  http://www.hillnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1509
Author: Mark H. Rodeffer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

AMENDMENT WOULD BAR MEDICAL-POT RAIDS

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) plans to introduce an amendment next
week that would prevent the federal government from going after
medical marijuana users, a law-enforcement action the Supreme Court
yesterday ruled is constitutional.

The court did not strike down state laws allowing medical marijuana
use, nor did it require a federal crackdown. Rather, the court ruled
that the federal government has the authority to prosecute people with
a prescription for pot in states where the practice is legal.

The House is expected to take up science-state-justice-commerce
appropriation legislation next week, and Hinchey plans to offer an
amendment to bar the Justice Department from spending money to arrest
and prosecute medical marijuana users.

Hinchey's amendment is not a response to the Supreme Court ruling. He
has offered it three times since 2001 and was planning to introduce it
again this year even before yesterday's ruling.

The House rejected the amendment last year, 268-148.

"We hope that the amendment will keep growing in support every year,
but we are realistic that there probably won't be a huge jump," said
Wendy Darwell, Hinchey's chief of staff.

The court case stems from a 2002 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
raid in Butte County, Calif.

Angel McClary and Diane Monson, both medical marijuana users, sued the
federal government after DEA agents and local sheriff's deputies
raided Monson's home on Aug. 15, 2002, and destroyed her marijuana.

DEA spokesman Bill Grant said the agency does not keep track of how
often it busts medical marijuana users because its mission is to go
after large-scale drug-trafficking operations, not individual users.

California and nine other states have laws allowing marijuana use for
medicinal purposes.

The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling yesterday reversed an earlier decision
of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Darwell said Hinchey's office is studying the ruling and is not sure
if it will require changes to the planned amendment.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake