Drug czar John Walters is making noise this week about how a decline in cocaine availability is causing price increases. Walters always jumps on these price blips to tout the success of US eradication and interdiction policies...then the prices go down again. We will see what happens this time. In the meantime, I wonder what cocaine prices are in your neighborhood. I lived in Austin in the 1980s, and a gram of cocaine (usually obtained from a Nicaraguan college student...go figure) went for between $120 and $150. Just last night I was on the phone with folks in Austin, and they report that a gram can now be had for $40. Gee, maybe it's up from $35 last month; I don't know. But the long-term trend is undeniable: Down in price by about two-thirds since the '80s. What are cocaine prices like in your neighborhood? Historically and currently. Let's get us a little unscientific survey going.

We will have a new president in January 2009, and that means we will have a new cabinet as well, including a new head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP--the drug czar's office). Who should the next drug czar be? Do we want another general? Another drug war true believer? (Would that be a job requirement?) A doctor? A public health person? A lawyer? An activist? A politician? The progressive web site The Backbone Campaign is seeking "shadow cabinet" nominations. Anyone can nominate anyone. Here's the list so far for the drug czar position:

Nominee(s): Ethan Nadelmann Dean Becker Tom Hayden Gary Johnson Rep. Maxine Waters Russell Simmons Bill Maher Al Sharpton Keith Stroup

I'd be happy with any of these folks, including our buddy Dean Becker from the Drug Truth Network. I'll also suggest a couple more: Professor Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland, co-author of "Drug War Heresies," knows drug policy issues inside and out and is a pretty progressive fellow on these issues. And, of course, in a perfect world, the next drug czar would be Tommy Chong. But I don't know if he could make it through the committee hearings... Who's your nominee?

I've performed a meta-analysis of various scare stories about marijuana appearing in major papers this week. The results of my research are as follows:

Hypothesis:

Alarmist reports about marijuana will turn out to be wildly exaggerated and in some cases completely fictitious. Obvious inconsistencies will be overlooked by the press and widely available contrary evidence will be ignored.

Methodology:

I read various stories about marijuana and used basic logic and reasoning to determine whether their conclusions made any sense. In some cases, I used Google and other sources to search for other information that contradicted seemingly dubious claims.

Findings:

Marijuana Increases the Risk of Psychosis by 40%: This one turned out to be totally wrong. Apparently a correlation between marijuana use and psychosis doesn't necessarily mean that marijuana caused the psychosis. Many of the researchers made this clear in their findings, but reporters left it out. Furthermore, none of the stories on this topic explained that the risk of psychosis is small, so a 40% increase isn't that significant to begin with. Reporters also failed to observe that massive increases in marijuana use over the past century have not corresponded with increased rates of psychosis.

Smoking a Joint is as Bad For Your Lungs as 5 Cigarettes: This report also turned out to be almost entirely bogus. Shockingly, "air flow" was the only category (of several) in which marijuana was determined to be more harmful. Researchers stated that marijuana was 2.5 to 5 times more harmful than tobacco in this category, which reporters simply rounded up to 5 for the headline (behold the lofty journalistic standards of Reuters). Reporters also failed to mention conclusive research proving that marijuana does not cause lung cancer; a notable omission since "bad for your lungs" likely implies cancer for many readers. Finally, media reports failed to explain that marijuana users consume far less per day, and do not continue using for nearly as many years as tobacco smokers.

Marijuana May Cause Skin Cancer: I don't know anything about skin cancer, so I won't attempt to refute the findings of this Harvard study. The manner in which it was reported, however, leaves much to be desired. The FOX News headline reads "Study: Marijuana Use May Cause Skin Cancer." Only upon reading the article does the reader discover that only one extremely rare form of skin cancer has been associated with marijuana, and that the researchers claim that more research is needed. Furthermore, only people with weakened immune systems are even susceptible to this infection. A more appropriate headline would have been "Study: Marijuana May Cause Skin Cancer Under Very Rare Circumstances."

Conclusions:

Reading coverage of marijuana research in the mainstream press increases the risk of becoming misinformed by 50-300%. More research is clearly needed to identify further sources of flawed marijuana reporting. The risk of bad reporting remains stable despite concerted efforts to inform the media that hysterical claims about marijuana frequently lack scientific merit. Exposure to poorly researched news about marijuana is correlated with support for costly, ineffective, highly punitive marijuana laws.

An important fact to understand about the medical marijuana debate is that the federal government knows perfectly well that marijuana is an effective medicine:

*They've been providing it for decades to a select group of seriously ill patients, and continue to do so.
*They've approved a synthetic drug with the same active ingredient (THC).
*They commissioned a huge study in 1999, which explicitly said it works.
*They've been blocking research, which makes no sense if they think the results will favor them.

So the debate over medical marijuana isn't even about whether it has medical properties. It is about something else entirely, stated perfectly by ONDCP's Tom Riley just the other day:

"…a lot of the people who are behind this aren't really interested in sick people who need medicine, they're interested in marijuana legalization and they're playing on the suffering of genuinely sick people to get it." [Reuters]

As silly as it is, this argument explains everything there is to know about why the government actually opposes medical marijuana. Though countless mainstream medical, legal,  and religious organizations support medical marijuana, the federal government remains fixated on drug policy reformers and our role in defending the rights of patients.

The simple truth is that they are afraid that medical marijuana could lead to full-blown legalization of marijuana for recreational use. And it's not an irrational concern. If you're struggling to prevent accurate information about marijuana's effects from reaching the scientific community and the public, the last thing you want is a huge user population that can speak openly about their experiences with the drug.

Ironically, it is ONDCP's obsession with legalization that has turned medical marijuana into a great controversy, not ours. Similarly, it is ONDCP that exploits patients for political purposes, not us. Opposition to medical marijuana is not championed by doctors or scientists. It is funded and carried out by political operatives who want to keep marijuana illegal for everyone. That's the real medical marijuana conspiracy.

80-year-old Isaac Singletary had a habit of chasing drug dealers off his property. Then, one fateful day, he emerged with a pistol to threaten two dealers that were creeping around his yard. They turned out to be undercover cops, and Singletary was promptly shot and killed.

That was six months ago, and the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office is almost ready to explain what the hell happened:

While a Jacksonville Sheriff's Office review of the shooting is scheduled for next week, State Attorney Harry Shorstein said in April that while he was very concerned with how undercover operations like this one were conducted, he would not file criminal charges against the officers. [News4Jax.com]

That's how this works, folks. The determination that police weren't at fault tends to emerge quickly, while actual reports explaining what happened take several months. How they figure out that the police were innocent without yet completing the report is a trade secret, I guess.

Perhaps they're right that the police didn’t do anything illegal, but that's a huge part of the problem. It should be illegal for police to dress up as drug dealers and trespass on private property. And it should be even more illegal for police to shoot innocent people who don’t know they're the police.

If police act so much like criminals that well-intentioned citizens can’t tell the difference, those officers should not be permitted to defend themselves with deadly force. So, once again, if these officers' actions turn out to be legal, it's time to change the law.

User "puregenius" reports over in the Reader Blogs that Republican and Democratic senators -- Jeff Sessions and Pat Leahy -- queried Alberto Gonzales about his views on the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, in last Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Dept. of Justice oversight. Short answer -- he likes it, they don't. Update: Just saw this link on TalkLeft to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Derrick Kimbrough, a federal prisoner serving time on a crack cocaine offense. LDF contends that "The Crack Cocaine Sentencing Guidelines Have Resulted in Vast Racial Disparities" and "The Racial Disparities Associated with the Crack Cocaine Sentencing Guidelines Have Caused Widespread Distrust of the Law.

Regulation of medical marijuana distribution can have some interesting side effects. The following email, sent to a dispensary operator by an employee of the San Francisco Department of Health, shows that the city is requiring clubs to be more careful in their measurements:

Dear MCD Applicant;

It has come to my attention that some MCD's [medical cannabis dispensaries] are using the incorrect equivalent conversion between grams and ounces. You must use 28.35 grams/ounce, not 28 grams/ounce for all cannabis sold by weight. The law behind this is in the State Business and Professions Code, which is typically enforced by Weights and Measures (State Dept of Agriculture). As they currently are not addressing weights and measures issues regarding cannabis clubs, the City's MCD Inspection Program will enforce this requirement.

Please feel free to share this with any club operator (I do not have email
for most operators).

Thank you for your cooperation.

In other words, San Francisco is ordering dispensaries to give patients more bud for their buck. The extra 3rd of a gram per ounce isn’t going to put any providers out of business, but it's amusing to see the city intervene on behalf of medical marijuana consumers.

This is the kind of regulation the marijuana industry actually needs. Hopefully someday, when the DEA shows up at your dispensary, it won’t be to confiscate your proceeds and product, it will be to warn you: "It's come to our attention that you're selling skimpy sacks…"

You know, a guy gets tired fighting for decades for the right to do something which should be our right anyway. Yeah, I know the litany: We've got to play the game...if you don't like the law, change it...the political process is slow...we can't be impatient...we have to educate politicians and cultivate law enforcement....blah blah blah. Well, in the face of the no-progress Hinchey-Rohrabacher vote and the continuing defiance of the will of California voters by the DEA, not to mention all the other drug war horrors, I'm prepared to once again make inciteful (if not insightful) calls for direct action against these downpressors. 1. Let's take the DEA's war on medical marijuana patients and providers to the DEA. Let's shut 'em down in California. Blockade their offices, and not for symbolic civil disobedience purposes, but for the actual purpose of disrupting their activities. 2. Let's really take it to the DEA. These black-suited, paramilitary-style goons presumably have homes in the area. I'd like to see protestors on the sidewalk in front of their houses. Ooh, but you say it's not polite or uncouth to do that sort of thing! Well, I frankly find DEA goons kicking down doors and arresting harmless people who didn't do anything to anybody pretty impolite and uncouth. Maybe they'll enjoy explaining to their neighbors (two out of three of whom voted for Prop 215) how they earn a living. These thugs need to pay a price for what they do, and I personally don't care if it offends the sensibilities of some of our more delicate members. And I don't buy their "I'm only following orders" excuse, either. It didn't fly at Nuremburg, and it shouldn't fly now. It's time for public shaming and shunning. 3. And maybe we should be focusing on a mass march aimed at national DEA headquarters one of these months. Again, the purpose would be practical--not symbolic--to shut the monster down. This is an agency that needs to be abolished, and until we can accomplish that, the least we can do it make it impossible for it to function properly. 3. More broadly, let's attack the snitch system that underpins the drug war. Last week, we did a newsbrief on the couple in Philadelphia indicted for posting flyers outing a snitch. They copied information from the Who's A Rat? web site, which is protected by the First Amendment. The folks in Philadelphia are charged with intimidating witnesses--by making public information about what they are doing--and I hope they fight that case all the way. Snitches have no right to have their exploits go unsung. In solidarity with the Philadelphia folks, and everyone who has suffered from drug war snitchery, I propose that DRCNet enter into a collaboration with Who's a Rat? by posting the information about one undercover officer (they list more than 400) or one snitch (they list over 4000) online each week. Personally, I would rather go after the narcs than the snitches, most of whom are victims themselves. ("You're gonna go to prison for 30 years and get raped by hardened cons if you don't give up the names..."). Snitches may be victims of circumstance (and a weak values system), but narcs do this horrid work for a living, either because they believe in or they like it. I want to see their names and mugs plastered across the internet. I don't suppose my boss will agree with me on this one, although I'd like to hear why not. 5. Police on a drug raid in Belfast this week were met by a rock-throwing mob. Mindful of the incitement statutes, I have no comment. Whaddya think, folks? I'm really, really tired of waiting for lamebrain politicians to protect me from these thugs. I guess I'm going to have to do it myself. With your help. More "responsible" members of our movement generally shy away from tactics like these. Let them be responsible. I want to fight back.

Another pain physician, Dr. William Mangino, was convicted on trumped up charges equating his reasonable prescribing of opioid pain medications in the course of practicing medicine with illegal drug dealing. He is in jail pending sentencing, unless someone comes up with the $3,500 bail he needs to get out. Dr. Mangino is a writer and a thinker, and throughout his lengthy travail he has sent a copious amount of email to people who are interested in this problem, including myself -- not just about himself but commentary on the issue too, and on prosecutions brought against other doctors, much of it very detailed. It always makes me sad when these cases turn out badly (or when most drug cases turn out badly, for that matter), but the combination of the absence of his emails with the news itself has reinforced the reality of it for me. It probably won't be long, though, before he writes some things for us about this latest stage and someone gets it typed up and posted. Alex DeLuca has an update that includes some of the defense strategies for challenging the conviction (which include a Motion for a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty), the address for writing to Dr. Mangino in jail, and other information.

This one is excerpted from a post made anonymously on our comment boards by a reader from Ohio:

I have had multiple sclerosis and a seizure disorder for 13 years now. I tried it the legal way and just got sicker and sicker, to the point of staying in bed all day. Then I tried marijuana, and it's like a wonder drug for me! I do not get high from the marijuana, it helps relax my muscles and takes the spasms away. Not to mention it's the only way I have an appetite to eat anything. How could someone tell me, no medical marijuana for you?

Good question.

After retaining the right to arrest medical marijuana patients and caregivers, ONDCP's Tom Riley was unable to contain his glee:

Riley called the vote "a really tough day" for backers of the medical marijuana legislation.
…

"More and more people are realizing there is a con going on…" [Reuters]

This is just false on so many levels. For starters, we're gaining votes every year and we know more or less what to expect. Yesterday's result is not some sort of shocking rebuke of our position. If anything, Riley should be a bit concerned that 165 members of Congress think his whole team has its head up its collective posterior.

Similarly, Riley's assertion that "more and more people" are turning against medical marijuana is utter nonsense. We would have liked to get more votes, of course, but this is still the most support medical marijuana has seen in Congress. Public support for medical marijuana is far greater, hovering between 70% and 80%. Riley knows perfectly well that this issue is a full-blown public relations nightmare for his office, and he should be supremely grateful that idiocy about medical marijuana is better represented in Congress than the general population.

The Hinchey results are in, losing by a vote of 165-262. This is only a very slight improvement over last year, when we lost 163-259. I'm disappointed. On the bright side, at least it increased by two. Suppose we had gotten fewer votes than last year? That would have really sucked. Here's a summary of the key stats:

• 165 members of Congress voted for the Hinchey medical marijuana amendment this year (150 of them Democrats), but 262 members of Congress voted against it. Ten members did not have votes recorded (plus Pelosi, for some technical reason as Speaker).
• 78 Democrats voted against the amendment, while 15 Republicans voted for it.
• Nine members who voted Yes on the amendment last year switched their votes to No this time (hiss), and three who voted No last year switched to Yes.
• 27 members of Congress who are either newly-elected or did not have a vote recorded on the Hinchey amendment last year, voted Yes, only one of them Republican.
• 45 members of Congress who are either newly-elected, or did not vote on the amendment last year, voted No, including 24 Democrats and 21 Republicans.
• Two members of Congress who voted Yes last year did not vote on the amendment this year, and seven members who voted No last year also didn't vote this year.

I guess a lot of Democrats are spooked about 2008 (but will they ever not be spooked?), and most Republicans are... just Republicans. (Sorry, Republican drug reformers, but those are the numbers. Be proud for at least getting the 15.) I have one more request to make of our members on this, which is to not get discouraged but to get angry instead. There will be more opportunities to take action, very soon. Following is a detailed compilation covering all the stats listed above, below the fold (meaning that if you don't already see it, you have to click the Read Full Post link appearing just below, or click through to this post's permanent web page here). Also, check back (maybe tomorrow, definitely by Friday for the Chronicle) for a report on which members of Congress spoke for or against the amendment on the Floor, and what they said. (We know already that Rep. Stephen Cohen, a freshmen Rep. from Tennessee, played a prominent role speaking in favor.)

• members of Congress who voted Yes (165)
• members of Congress voted No (262)
• members who did not have votes recorded (10, plus Pelosi, for some technical reason as Speaker)
• Democrats who voted No (78)
• Republicans who voted yes (15)
• members who voted Yes last year but voted No this year (9)
• members who voted No last year but switched to Yes this year (3)
• members in their first term, or who did not vote last year, who voted Yes (27)
• members in their first term, or who did not vote last year, who voted No (45)
• members who voted Yes last year who didn't vote this year (2)
• members who voted No last year who didn't vote this year (7)

165 members of Congress voted for the Hinchey medical marijuana amendment this year: Abercrombie (D-HI) Ackerman (D-NY) Allen (D-ME) Andrews (D-NJ) Baird (D-WA) Baldwin (D-WI) Bartlett (R-MD) Becerra (D-CA) Berkley (D-NV) Berman (D-CA) Bishop (D-GA) Bishop (D-NY) Blumenauer (D-OR) Brady (D-PA) Broun (R-GA) Campbell (R-CA) Capps (D-CA) Capuano (D-MA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carson (D-IN) Christensen (D-VI) Clay (D-MO) Cleaver (D-MO) Cohen (D-TN) Conyers (D-MI) Courtney (D-CT) Crowley (D-NY) Davis (D-CA) Davis (D-IL) DeFazio (D-OR) DeGette (D-CO) Delahunt (D-MA) DeLauro (D-CT) Doggett (D-TX) Doyle (D-PA) Ellison (D-MN) Emanuel (D-IL) Engel (D-NY) Eshoo (D-CA) Farr (D-CA) Fattah (D-PA) Filner (D-CA) Flake (R-AZ) Frank (D-MA) Garrett (R-NJ) Giffords (D-AZ) Gilchrest (R-MD) Gonzalez (D-TX) Green, Al (D-TX) Grijalva (D-AZ) Gutierrez (D-IL) Hare (D-IL) Harman (D-CA) Hastings (D-FL) Higgins (D-NY) Hinchey (D-NY) Hirono (D-HI) Hodes (D-NH) Holt (D-NJ) Honda (D-CA) Hooley (D-OR) Hoyer (D-MD) Inslee (D-WA) Israel (D-NY) Jackson (D-IL) Jackson-Lee (D-TX) Johnson (D-GA) Johnson (R-IL) Johnson, E. B. (D-TX) Jones (D-OH) Kanjorski (D-PA) Kaptur (D-OH) Kennedy (D-RI) Kildee (D-MI) Kilpatrick (D-MI) Kind (D-WI) Kucinich (D-OH) Langevin (D-RI) Lantos (D-CA) Larson (D-CT) LaTourette (R-OH) Lee (D-CA) Lewis (D-GA) Loebsack (D-IA) Lofgren (D-CA) Lowey (D-NY) Maloney (D-NY) Markey (D-MA) Matsui (D-CA) McCarthy (D-NY) McCollum (D-MN) McDermott (D-WA) McGovern (D-MA) McNulty (D-NY) Melancon (D-LA) Miller, George (D-CA) Mitchell (D-AZ) Moore (D-KS) Moore (D-WI) Moran (D-VA) Murphy (D-CT) Murtha (D-PA) Nadler (D-NY) Napolitano (D-CA) Neal (D-MA) Norton (D-DC) Oberstar (D-MN) Obey (D-WI) Olver (D-MA) Pallone (D-NJ) Pascrell (D-NJ) Pastor (D-AZ) Paul (R-TX) Payne (D-NJ) Perlmutter (D-CO) Peterson (D-MN) Porter (R-NV) Price (D-NC) Rangel (D-NY) Rehberg (R-MT) Renzi (R-AZ) Rodriguez (D-TX) Rohrabacher (R-CA) Rothman (D-NJ) Roybal-Allard (D-CA) Royce (R-CA) Ruppersberger (D-MD) Rush (D-IL) Ryan (D-OH) Sanchez, Linda T. (D-CA) Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schakowsky (D-IL) Schiff (D-CA) Scott (D-GA) Scott (D-VA) Serrano (D-NY) Sestak (D-PA) Shea-Porter (D-NH) Sherman (D-CA) Sires (D-NJ) Slaughter (D-NY) Solis (D-CA) Sutton (D-OH) Tancredo (R-CO) Tauscher (D-CA) Thompson (D-CA) Tierney (D-MA) Towns (D-NY) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Van Hollen (D-MD) Velazquez (D-NY) Walz (D-MN) Waters (D-CA) Watson (D-CA) Watt (D-NC) Waxman (D-CA) Weiner (D-NY) Welch (D-VT) Wexler (D-FL) Woolsey (D-CA) Wu (D-OR) Wynn (D-MD) Yarmuth (D-KY) ... but 262 members of Congress voted against it: Aderholt (R-AL) Akin (R-MO) Alexander (R-LA) Altmire (D-PA) Arcuri (D-NY) Baca (D-CA) Bachmann (R-MN) Baker (R-LA) Barrett (R-SC) Barrow (D-GA) Barton (R-TX) Bean (D-IL) Berry (D-AR) Biggert (R-IL) Bilbray (R-CA) Bilirakis (R-FL) Bishop (R-UT) Blackburn (R-TN) Blunt (R-MO) Boehner (R-OH) Bonner (R-AL) Bono (R-CA) Boozman (R-AR) Boren (D-OK) Boswell (D-IA) Boustany (R-LA) Boyd (D-FL) Boyda (D-KS) Bradley (R-NH) Brady (R-TX) Braley (D-IA) Brown (D-FL) Brown (R-SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny (R-FL) Buchanan (R-FL) Burgess (R-TX) Burton (R-IN) Butterfield (D-NC) Buyer (R-IN) Calvert (R-CA) Camp (R-MI) Cannon (R-UT) Cantor (R-VA) Capito (R-WV) Cardoza (D-CA) Carney (D-PA) Carter (R-TX) Castle (R-DE) Castor (D-FL) Chabot (R-OH) Chandler (D-KY) Clyburn (D-SC) Coble (R-NC) Cole (R-OK) Conaway (R-TX) Cooper (D-TN) Costa (D-CA) Costello (D-IL) Cramer (D-AL) Crenshaw (R-FL) Cuellar (D-TX) Culberson (R-TX) Cummings (D-MD) Davis (D-AL) Davis (D-TN) Davis (R-KY) Davis, David (R-TN) Davis, Tom (R-VA) Deal (R-GA) Dent (R-PA) Diaz-Balart, L. (R-FL) Diaz-Balart, M. (R-FL) Dicks (D-WA) Dingell (D-MI) Donnelly (D-IN) Doolittle (R-CA) Drake (R-VA) Dreier (R-CA) Duncan (R-TN) Edwards (D-TX) Ehlers (R-MI) Ellsworth (D-IN) Emerson (R-MO) English (R-PA) Etheridge (D-NC) Everett (R-AL) Faleomavaega (D-AS) Fallin (R-OK) Feeney (R-FL) Ferguson (R-NJ) Forbes (R-VA) Fortenberry (R-NE) Fortuno (R-PR) Fossella (R-NY) Foxx (R-NC) Franks (R-AZ) Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) Gallegly (R-CA) Gerlach (R-PA) Gillibrand (D-NY) Gillmor (R-OH) Gingrey (R-GA) Gohmert (R-TX) Goode (R-VA) Goodlatte (R-VA) Gordon (D-TN) Granger (R-TX) Graves (R-MO) Green, Gene (D-TX) Hall (D-NY) Hall (R-TX) Hastert (R-IL) Hastings (R-WA) Hayes (R-NC) Heller (R-NV) Hensarling (R-TX) Herger (R-CA) Herseth (D-SD) Hill (D-IN) Hinojosa (D-TX) Hobson (R-OH) Hoekstra (R-MI) Holden (D-PA) Hulshof (R-MO) Hunter (R-CA) Inglis (R-SC) Issa (R-CA) Jefferson (D-LA) Jindal (R-LA) Johnson, Sam (R-TX) Jones (R-NC) Jordan (R-OH) Kagen (D-WI) Keller (R-FL) King (R-IA) King (R-NY) Kingston (R-GA) Kirk (R-IL) Klein (D-FL) Kline (R-MN) Knollenberg (R-MI) Kuhl (R-NY) Lamborn (R-CO) Lampson (D-TX) Larsen (D-WA) Latham (R-IA) Levin (D-MI) Lewis (R-CA) Lewis (R-KY) Linder (R-GA) Lipinski (D-IL) LoBiondo (R-NJ) Lucas (R-OK) Lungren (R-CA) Lynch (D-MA) Mack (R-FL) Mahoney (D-FL) Manzullo (R-IL) Marchant (R-TX) Matheson (D-UT) McCarthy (R-CA) McCaul (R-TX) McCotter (R-MI) McCrery (R-LA) McHenry (R-NC) McHugh (R-NY) McIntyre (D-NC) McKeon (R-CA) McMorris (R-WA) McNerney (D-CA) Meek (D-FL) Meeks (D-NY) Mica (R-FL) Miller (D-NC) Miller (R-FL) Miller (R-MI) Miller, Gary (R-CA) Mollohan (D-WV) Moran (R-KS) Murphy (R-PA) Murphy, Patrick (D-PA) Musgrave (R-CO) Myrick (R-NC) Neugebauer (R-TX) Nunes (R-CA) Ortiz (D-TX) Pearce (R-NM) Pence (R-IN) Peterson (R-PA) Petri (R-WI) Pickering (R-MS) Pitts (R-PA) Platts (R-PA) Poe (R-TX) Pomeroy (D-ND) Price (R-GA) Pryce (R-OH) Putnam (R-FL) Radanovich (R-CA) Rahall (D-WV) Ramstad (R-MN) Regula (R-OH) Reichert (R-WA) Reyes (D-TX) Reynolds (R-NY) Rogers (R-AL) Rogers (R-KY) Rogers (R-MI) Roskam (R-IL) Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) Ross (D-AR) Ryan (R-WI) Salazar (D-CO) Sali (R-ID) Saxton (R-NJ) Schmidt (R-OH) Schwartz (D-PA) Sensenbrenner (R-WI) Sessions (R-TX) Shadegg (R-AZ) Shays (R-CT) Shimkus (R-IL) Shuler (D-NC) Shuster (R-PA) Simpson (R-ID) Skelton (D-MO) Smith (D-WA) Smith (R-NE) Smith (R-NJ) Smith (R-TX) Snyder (D-AR) Souder (R-IN) Space (D-OH) Spratt (D-SC) Stearns (R-FL) Stupak (D-MI) Sullivan (R-OK) Tanner (D-TN) Taylor (D-MS) Terry (R-NE) Thompson (D-MS) Thornberry (R-TX) Tiahrt (R-KS) Tiberi (R-OH) Turner (R-OH) Upton (R-MI) Visclosky (D-IN) Walberg (R-MI) Walden (R-OR) Walsh (R-NY) Wamp (R-TN) Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) Weldon (R-FL) Weller (R-IL) Westmoreland (R-GA) Whitfield (R-KY) Wicker (R-MS) Wilson (D-OH) Wilson (R-NM) Wilson (R-SC) Wolf (R-VA) Young (R-FL) 10 members did not have votes recorded (plus Pelosi, for some technical reason as Speaker): Bachus (R-AL) Boucher (D-VA) Clarke (D-NY) Cubin (R-WY) Davis, Jo Ann (R-VA) LaHood (R-IL) Marshall (D-GA) Michaud (D-ME) Stark (D-CA) Young (R-AK) 78 Democrats voted against the amendment: Altmire (D-PA) Arcuri (D-NY) Baca (D-CA) Barrow (D-GA) Bean (D-IL) Berry (D-AR) Boren (D-OK) Boswell (D-IA) Boyd (D-FL) Boyda (D-KS) Braley (D-IA) Brown (D-FL) Butterfield (D-NC) Cardoza (D-CA) Carney (D-PA) Castor (D-FL) Chandler (D-KY) Clyburn (D-SC) Cooper (D-TN) Costa (D-CA) Costello (D-IL) Cramer (D-AL) Cuellar (D-TX) Cummings (D-MD) Davis (D-AL) Davis (D-TN) Dicks (D-WA) Dingell (D-MI) Donnelly (D-IN) Edwards (D-TX) Ellsworth (D-IN) Etheridge (D-NC) Faleomavaega (D-AS) Gillibrand (D-NY) Gordon (D-TN) Green, Gene (D-TX) Hall (D-NY) Herseth (D-SD) Hill (D-IN) Hinojosa (D-TX) Holden (D-PA) Jefferson (D-LA) Kagen (D-WI) Klein (D-FL) Lampson (D-TX) Larsen (D-WA) Levin (D-MI) Lipinski (D-IL) Lynch (D-MA) Mahoney (D-FL) Matheson (D-UT) McIntyre (D-NC) McNerney (D-CA) Meek (D-FL) Meeks (D-NY) Miller (D-NC) Mollohan (D-WV) Murphy, Patrick (D-PA) Ortiz (D-TX) Pomeroy (D-ND) Rahall (D-WV) Reyes (D-TX) Ross (D-AR) Salazar (D-CO) Schwartz (D-PA) Shuler (D-NC) Skelton (D-MO) Smith (D-WA) Snyder (D-AR) Space (D-OH) Spratt (D-SC) Stupak (D-MI) Tanner (D-TN) Taylor (D-MS) Thompson (D-MS) Visclosky (D-IN) Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) Wilson (D-OH) ... while 15 Republicans voted for it: Bartlett (R-MD) Broun (R-GA) Campbell (R-CA) Flake (R-AZ) Garrett (R-NJ) Gilchrest (R-MD) Johnson (R-IL) LaTourette (R-OH) Paul (R-TX) Porter (R-NV) Rehberg (R-MT) Renzi (R-AZ) Rohrabacher (R-CA) Royce (R-CA) Tancredo (R-CO) Nine members who voted Yes on the amendment last year switched their votes to No this time (hiss): Brown (D-FL) Burton (R-IN) Butterfield (D-NC) Clyburn (D-SC) Dicks (D-WA) Jefferson (D-LA) Meeks (D-NY) Smith (D-WA) Thompson (D-MS) ... while three who voted No last year switched to Yes: Emanuel (D-IL) Peterson (D-MN) Renzi (R-AZ) There are 27 members of Congress who were either elected for the first time last November, or did not have a vote recorded on the Hinchey amendment last year, who voted Yes, only one of them Republican: (Most are freshmen; the several marked with an asterisk were members of Congress last time but did not vote on the amendment.) Broun (R-GA) Christensen (D-VI)* Cohen (D-TN) Courtney (D-CT) Ellison (D-MN) Giffords (D-AZ) Gonzalez (D-TX)* Hare (D-IL) Hirono (D-HI) Hodes (D-NH) Johnson (D-GA) Kanjorski (D-PA) Loebsack (D-IA) Mitchell (D-AZ) Murphy (D-CT) Norton (D-DC)* Perlmutter (D-CO) Rodriguez (D-TX) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schakowsky (D-IL)* Sestak (D-PA) Shea-Porter (D-NH) Sires (D-NJ) Sutton (D-OH) Walz (D-MN) Welch (D-VT) Yarmuth (D-KY) 45 members of Congress who are either newly-elected, or did not vote on the amendment last year, voted No, including 24 Democrats and 21 Republicans: (Most are freshmen; the several marked with an asterisk were members of Congress last time but did not vote on the amendment.) Altmire (D-PA) Arcuri (D-NY) Bachmann (R-MN) Bilirakis (R-FL) Boyda (D-KS) Braley (D-IA) Buchanan (R-FL) Cannon (R-UT) Carney (D-PA) Castor (D-FL) Davis, David (R-TN) Donnelly (D-IN) Ellsworth (D-IN) Faleomavaega (D-AS)* Fallin (R-OK) Fortuno (R-PR)* Gerlach (R-PA) Gillibrand (D-NY) Hall (D-NY) Hastert (R-IL)* Heller (R-NV) Hill (D-IN) Holden (D-PA) Johnson, Sam (R-TX) Jordan (R-OH) Kagen (D-WI) Klein (D-FL) Lamborn (R-CO) Lampson (D-TX) Mahoney (D-FL) McCarthy (R-CA) McNerney (D-CA) Murphy, Patrick (D-PA) Poe (R-TX) Roskam (R-IL) Sali (R-ID) Shays (R-CT)* Shuler (D-NC) Smith (R-NE) Souder (R-IN)* Space (D-OH) Stupak (D-MI)* Taylor (D-MS)* Walberg (R-MI) Wilson (D-OH) (At least two of these, Souder & Hastert, are known to be have always been strong opponents of medical marijuana.) Two members of Congress who voted Yes last year did not vote on the amendment this year: Michaud (D-ME) Stark (D-CA) ... and seven members who voted No last year also didn't vote this year: Bachus (R-AL) Boucher (D-VA) Cubin (R-WY) Davis, Jo Ann (R-VA) LaHood (R-IL) Marshall (D-GA) Young (R-AK)