Medical marijuana issue moves to Congress

June 7, 2005

Congress may not want to see medical marijuana on its legislative agenda this year, but it looks like it might end up there anyway.

There are currently 11 states that permit medical use of marijuana under controlled and highly-regulated conditions. The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday did not strike down those laws, but did conclude that the federal government can ban possession of the drug. So, if you’re in Wyoming, and you qualify for the program, you can still get pot for medicinal purposes under state law, but you can also expect some nice armed folks from the DEA to stop by your house.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the states affected by the ruling, said yesterday that it is now time for Congress to “provide clarity” on the conflicting drug laws. In this case, he’s right. At least one House lawmaker is already on the case.

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 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.

At first blush, it seems unlikely that Hinchey’s amendment would go anywhere. Indeed, he’s offered it in the past and it’s always been defeated. Nevertheless, it’s incumbent upon Congress to do something to resolve the legal ambiguity here. Is there any chance Republicans will honor their “states rights” principles on the issue? Maybe.

Many of the states that have passed medical marijuana laws though state referenda are western “red” states that value independence, such as Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada, and Colorado. On top of that, most polls show widespread support for use of the drug. It’s not inconceivable that Congress — which hasn’t done anything popular in a long while — may consider clarifying this issue by allowing states to set their own policies on the matter.

The Bush gang is still opposed to the idea, of course, but yesterday’s ruling could prompt an interesting legislative fight.

This is part of a comment that I made on your earlier stem cell post, and now that you have this post I’ll add my comment here:

This issue, also (I think) widely supported by a broad cross-section of America, is the state- and doctor-authorized medical use of marijuana that the SCOTUS just overruled. If Congress fails to act to reverse that decision, it will just add to the drip, drip, drip of the Rethug political high tide going down the electoral drain.

P.S. Way OT, I know, but has there EVER been another time that O’Connor and Thomas were on the same side in a written opinion case, especially on the Dissent side? Whether for the same rationale or otherwise? Seems strange indeed.

  • That Thomas unjoined himself from Scalia is amazing. Perhaps there is still hope for the man. I hope that Congress will do the right thing for once, but if the past is any teacher, I won’t be holding my breath. The feds love their power.

    • Comments are closed.