Pubdate: Thu, 16 Jun 2005
Source: Ventura County Star (CA)
Copyright: 2005 The E.W. Scripps Co.
Contact:  http://www.staronline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/479
Author: David Whitney, Sacramento Bee
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project ( www.mpp.org )
Cited: Gonzales v. Raich ( www.angeljustice.org/ )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

HOUSE VOTES DOWN POT PROVISION

Amendment Would Have Stopped Prosecutions for Medical
Marijuana

WASHINGTON -- A week after the Supreme Court ruled that medical
marijuana laws in California and nine other states are no bar to
federal drug prosecution, the House voted down an amendment that would
have stopped the Justice Department from bringing such cases.

While medical marijuana advocates never thought they would have the
votes to bar federal prosecutions, some had predicted that, because of
the heightened interest after the Supreme Court's ruling, they would
do better than the 264-161 vote they received Wednesday.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said Tuesday that House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi had been working the issue hard among Democrats and that
he felt certain there would 180 or more votes for the amendment to a
2006 Justice Department funding bill.

Still, there was some comfort in Wednesday's vote for medical
marijuana advocates. Since 2003 when the chamber took its first vote
to bar spending money on federal prosecution of medical marijuana
users, the number of members saying no to that idea has dropped by
11.

"We pick up votes each time as we continue to educate the public,"
said Steve Fox, communications director for the Marijuana Policy
Project. "This is just a matter of time."

Among California House members, 35 of the state's 53 House members
supported the amendment -- roughly the same division as in earlier
votes. Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Newport Beach, did not vote.

Last week the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that state laws permitting
marijuana possession and cultivation by sick persons with a doctor's
recommendation are not a bar to federal enforcement of drug laws.

But in the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high
court expressed sympathy for the sick for whom marijuana has been
recommended by their doctors. The opinion urged a congressional review
of the treatment of marijuana under federal drug laws.

Marijuana is now treated like heroin or other street drugs that are
flatly illegal under any circumstances because they are not classified
for medical use.

In many ways, the debate over medical marijuana reflects a clash of
cultures. While many advocates cite studies showing marijuana can be
highly effective in treating the harshest symptoms of cancer, AIDS and
other deadly diseases, opponents see the substance as merely a
dangerous recreational drug and its medical uses a ruse for its
eventual legalization.

Calling it a backdoor attempt to legalize marijuana, Rep. Mark Souder,
R-Ind., said it was "shysters and quacks" who were prescribing it.

But among the key sponsors of the amendment was Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,
R-Calif. Rohrabacher said that many drugs are harmful but still have
medical benefits when taken under the guidance of a physician. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake