Skip to main content

Medical Marijuana

The People Support Medical Marijuana, Even If Congress Does Not

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.

Detailed Compilation -- Stats and Voting Lists -- for Tonight's Hinchey Medical Marijuana Vote

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.)

Meanwhile...

Meanwhile, the DEA raided at least six medical marijuana dispensaries in LA. Nice timing, DEA, on behalf of patients everywhere (especially in Los Angeles), thank you for your blind obedience to cruel authority. I'm going to put in another link to the letter I received from a medical marijuana patient this week. It's been pushed down by the flurry of posts tonight, but it deserves to be read.

Hinchey Roll Call -- medical marijuana amendment did not pass, total not yet available (online at least)

[UPDATE: I've learned by email the vote was 165-262. Don't look to the Democratically-controlled Congress to protect you, patients!] Didn't make it this time, according to the House Clerk web site. The Roll Call vote results will appear here. We are anxiously awaiting the numbers -- perhaps someone will post it here in the comments, if we haven't already done so first. Last year the amendment lost on a vote of 163-259. The reason we are waiting "anxiously" is that we want to see if there was improvement. It might be several hours, though, or tomorrow.

Hinchey Medical Marijuana Amendment Does Not Pass -- No Vote Count Yet

I just saw the following on the House Clerk's web site, posted at 8:31pm:
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Hinchey amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Hinchey demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
In plain English, this means that the amendment did not pass this time around. The question now is how many members of Congress voted for it and how many voted against, and which ones. Hopefully we will see an improvement over last year's totals. However, it is going to have to wait until later tonight, as they are continuing with to debate other amendments, before taking the time to record individual Representatives' votes on all of the amendments later. We are also awaiting reports on which members of Congress took part in the debate and what they said. Read the blog post I made just a few minutes ago for one good reason Congress really should have passed this amendment.

Letter from a Would-Be Medical Marijuana Patient

Following is one of the many emails we got from people since beginning our Hinchey amendment medical marijuana effort last week. It speaks for itself -- actually, it speaks volumes:
I am one of thousands of people who need the medicine marijuana. In short, I had an accident in 1983 and fell 20 feet from a ladder. I went through 10 operations and now I have no ankles, my joints do not fuse or mend. Since I have joint arthritis, everything I do is painful. This is just a sample of the problems I have had. All the doctors I have seen tell me I would benefit from the use of marijuana. It won't replace the medicines I am taking now, but it would make life worth living. Some days I ask God to take me from this hell. I have tried the medicine marijuana once before, but just tried. My wife and I have too much to lose if somehow I were arrested for possession. So for now I say to myself, I wish and hope they would legalize the medicine marijuana before I die.

Clinton Promises to End Federal Raids on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

Hillary Clinton continues to get the drug policy questions right:
During a visit to Manchester, New Hampshire on July 13, Len Epstein of Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana told the senator and presidential candidate: "Twelve states allow medical marijuana, but the Bush administrations continues to raid patients."

Clinton replied: "Yes, I know. It's terrible."

"Would you stop the federal raids?" Epstein asked.

"Yes, I will," she responded firmly. [MPP]
As I've said before, it's exciting to hear the democratic front-runner taking the right positions on our issues. Clinton has now pledged to fight racial profiling, reform the crack/powder sentencing disparity, promote treatment instead of incarceration, and now vows to end the federal war on medical marijuana patients and providers. That's a rock solid drug policy platform for a mainstream candidate.

Yes, I know there are long-shot candidates willing to go further (what's his name, Ron something?). But the willingness of front-runners – on the left, at least – to take common sense positions on drug policy reflects a growing awareness that reform is not political suicide.

Heck, given massive public support for medical marijuana, and Giuliani and McCain's refusal to defend patients, Democrats would be foolish not to step forward on this.

Showtime's "In Pot We Trust" is a Must-see

Wow, man. There's lots of heady nugs in this movie. Just pack your favorite bong, zap some popcorn, and get ready for the ride of your life.

Actually, no. In Pot We Trust doesn't make you want to smoke pot. It will make you want to give all your pot to Jacqueline Patterson. Jacqueline has celebral palsy, which manifests itself most notably in the form of a severe stutter. When she uses medical marijuana, Jacqueline can speak much more quickly and clearly, because the drug relieves her muscle tension. The difference is so obvious, I don’t know how anyone could watch this and say marijuana isn't medicine.

In Pot We Trust tells the story of four medical marijuana patients, against the backdrop of last year's Hinchey-Rohrabacher vote. The filmmakers follow MPP's Aaron Houston through the halls of Congress, then join the DEA as they uproot marijuana plants in the hills of California. Marijuana experts such as Lester Grinspoon provide insight into the drug's benefits, while prohibitionists Joe Califano and Robert Dupont explain why they've dedicated themselves to criminalizing sick people.

The film is invaluable because patients themselves make the best spokespeople for medical marijuana. The ulterior motives so often attributed to the medical marijuana legalization effort become irrelevant here, as we meet the actual people whose health and wellbeing lies at the center of this controversy.

I won't ruin the ending, but in case you haven’t heard, patients who rely on medical marijuana to maintain their quality of life are still criminals under federal law.

Rudy Giuliani's Position on OxyContin and Pain Management Is Correct

John Riley at Newsday has an interesting piece on Rudy Giuliani's role in helping Purdue Pharma preserve its image after the painkiller OxyContin was linked to widespread abuse. When Giuliani spoke out against medical marijuana, I repeatedly cited his work for Purdue Pharma as evidence of his hypocrisy. While I stand by that position, it should be noted that Giuliani's stance on pain management is actually quite good, in and of itself:
The OxyContin debate has been part of a larger fight in which patient advocacy groups that are worried about historic undertreatment of pain have joined with drug companies to argue against regulatory and law enforcement restrictions on painkillers that might unduly restrict their availability.
…

Giuliani was a key ally in that debate. He cast himself as an expert because of his prosecutorial background and his experience with prostate cancer. As part of his work for Purdue, he agreed to chair a group called the Rx Action Alliance, which promoted a "balanced" approach that would address abuse but maintain access for patients…

As the DEA continues its misguided war on pain management specialists, it's really quite refreshing to know that a front-running presidential candidate understands the problem. DEA's overreaction to OxyContin abuse has been disastrous, resulting in the reluctance of doctors nationwide to prescribe pain-relievers to deserving patients. Whether it was his prostate cancer, or the money Purdue paid his firm, something has led him to stand up for patient access and there's nothing wrong with that.

The only remaining question is why Giuliani is so hostile to medical marijuana. The fact pattern is remarkably similar: the stigma resulting from widespread recreational marijuana use has created a climate in which legitimate patients are denied medical access to the drug.

If only medical marijuana patients could afford to hire Giuliani Partners, LLC to help improve their public image…

Subscribe to Medical Marijuana