House Votes To End DEA Raids On Legal Medical Marijuana Operations

[RainDog]

Source: Buzzfeed by way of other outlets

WASHINGTON — The House passed an amendment late Thursday night to restrict the Drug Enforcement Administration from targeting medical marijuana operations in states where it is legal.

The 219-189 decision came on a bipartisan appropriations amendment spearheaded by California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and California Democrat Sam Farr. The amendment still faces several procedural hurdles before it is ratified, but this is the first time such an amendment has succeeded in the House.

The vote is an encouraging one for marijuana advocates, who say it shows the congressional pendulum is finally tilting in their favor. “The significance of it is a symbolic importance,” said Dan Riffle, director of federal policies at the Marijuana Policy Project. “We are nearing a point now where the United States Congress is essentially ready to end marijuana prohibition.”

The amendment needed 218 votes to pass.


Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/house-votes-to-end-dea-raids-on-legal-medical-marijuana-oper

---

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO CALLED YOUR REPRESENTATIVES!!!!!

“We are nearing a point now where the United States Congress is essentially ready to end marijuana prohibition.”

[tofuandbeer]

1. Proud of California for this. Good work Rohrabacher and Farr!

[Mr.Bill]

2. Symbolic only as long as Marijuana remains illegal under federal law. n/t

[RainDog]

3. LOL

It's happening in baby steps. We still have idiots in Congress who deny any medical benefit from cannabis - so, those are the idiots people need to vote out of office.

I or someone else needs to post the voting rolls when MPP lists them.

This issue is a great way to campaign against candidates among younger voters.

[Mr.Bill]

4. I agree, it's a long, slow battle.

Just another issue for the Republicans to be on the wrong side of history.

[MADem]

5. This was a bipartisan effort -- one of the cosponsors was GOP. They like that weed, too. nt

[Enthusiast]

33. They know it's a winning issue.

This issue alone accounts for much of Ron and Rand Paul's support. That and cutting the military.

[RainDog]

35. Rand Paul supports the War on Drugs

Anyone who supports him because they think he's pro-marijuana is ill-informed.

He wants to maintain prohibition cause he's so ayn-randy and all. LOL. WHAT A JOKE. Rand Paul is just another Republican who cares more about arresting minorities than he does freedom of choice or treating adults as adults.

[Enthusiast]

38. I'm no Paul fan. Either one.

But I was under the impression they were in favor of relaxing the laws.

[RainDog]

39. Rand supports the bill to crack down on legal states

He and other so-called "libertarians" are Republicans who are playing younger voters. He's just another sleazy drug warrior.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/14/rand-paul-backs-bill-that-could-lead-to-crack-down-on-states-where-voters-legalized-weed/

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has thrown his support behind legislation that Republicans could use to force President Barack Obama to crack down on legal marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington.

Speaking to Fox News on Thursday, the libertarian-leaning senator said he supported the Enforce the Law Act, which has been approved by the House. The legislation would allow Congress to sue the president for failing to faithfully execute laws.

WHAT A HYPOCRITICAL ASSHOLE!!!!!!

Legislation exists for the House and then Senate to vote on that would deal with this issue. What does little AynnyRandy Paul do, instead of pressure Sensebrenner or Golmert to deal with this issue? HE ATTACKS OBAMA.

If he REALLY cared about this issue, he would not be doing this. All he cares about is his political career, not the actual ISSUE of whether or not Americans should be able to have a Congress that actually passes laws that represent the will of the voter.

So, if any "libertarian" wants to claim Rand supports legalization - ask them if they know he is trying to force the DEA to invade Colorado and Washington to enforce laws the majority of those states do not want - and law THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOES NOT WANT.

I am so freaking sick of libertarians who think they're anything other than just one more racist, corporate Republican. If they care about the issue of legalization, they will never vote for a "libertarian" (i.e. Republican.)

[Enthusiast]

64. Okay.

If that is all true, and I have no reason to believe it is not true. Why have so many House Republicans voted for this measure?

I find it hard to believe there are that many Republicans that understand the issue and also have the interest of their constituents in mind.

[RainDog]

65. The majority of Republicans voted against it

172 of them voted against it... so, it's not like some radical change in position for the party as a whole - and Rand Paul wants to run for President as the leader of that party, so he is going to kowtow to the constituents of that party.

ergo: he wants to put science up for sale...how convenient for major corporations - http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/senator-rand-paul-says-forget-fed-s-11-02-04/

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has introduced a bill that would chop a half trillion dollars out of the federal budget. And although Paul was trained as an ophthalmologist, his axe doesn’t show any mercy to science.

The National Science Foundation would lose 62 percent of its budget because Paul argues that private industry and the states, not the federal government, should be paying for research. But there’s no evidence that industry wants to foot that bill, and the states are already financially strapped.

This, alone, is motivation for me to vote against Paul and to make sure everyone I know would oppose him because this is the sort of "Stalinist" capitalism that would destroy an entire nation. That's no exaggeration, imo, when you know about the way scientists have been made to dispute reality to please their employers. This, to me, makes him like the anti-christ of Republicans. That's how horrid he is. I say "Stalinist" because of Lysenko-ism - science forced to comply with extremist ideology - whether communist, in Lysenko's case, or corporatist, as in Paul's case.

His lies about his stance toward the drug war are just part of being a Republican. We'll see how he votes on this issue and others.

HOWEVER - the other Republicans? Rohrabacher is in California and is a co-sponsor of the Polis bill to remove cannabis from the CSA and have it controlled by the ATF (like alcohol.) California isn't Kentucky. Rand did go in with McConnell on the hemp bill, however.

I can't tell you why others voted as they did, but my guess, as I noted here before, is these congress people want to provide cover for legal medical marijuana in their states based upon seeing actual incidents, via Gupta's reports, that showed mmj isn't just about an excuse for stoners - there are legitimate reasons to use cannabis as medicine - an herbal supplement...

Since Gupta's report, the FDA has fast-tracked an epilepsy study... while, before Gupta's report - research on treatment of PTSD for vets couldn't even get a response, and then it was a no....Even tho Israel already treats vets with cannabis for PTSD. Gupta's reports made it impossible for most people to continue to claim there's no medical benefit without looking like a fool or tool.

I really can't stress enough how important Gupta's reportage was because he busted all the stupid stoner stereotypes that have been used to dismiss this issue for so long.

He outright challenged the DEA and said federal agencies had lied to him, the rest of the medical community, and the American people. Gupta APOLOGIZED for being so wrong on an issue. People saw children who were having multiple seizures in a day with epilepsy - which can lead to permanent brain damage or death - in fact, one child in Indiana died right after Gupta's report, from seizures.

Look at the list of all these "red" states that have pending legislation for medical marijuana this year.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002481

These legislators in state houses don't want to vote for medical marijuana and then deal with DEA raids. The reason for this spate of medical mj legislation, again, is a direct consequence of Gupta's reports on cannabis.

This is why what Gupta did is so important. And, I assume, why 49 Republicans signed on to this amendment.

[okaawhatever]

46. Rand makes statements that sound like he's for legalization when the audience supports it. It's

something i've noticed and mm isn't even one of my hot button issues.

[Enthusiast]

63. Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

[MADem]

45. The tax revenues alone are a Big Deal. nt

[RainDog]

48. Medical marijuana isn't always taxed

This amendment was, I think, more about responding to the number of states who now have medical marijuana bills in the legislature or under consideration.

The reason for those many bills is because Sanjay Gupta vaulted the propaganda wall from the DEA, the NIDA, the Drug Czar's office, etc. with his reports on CNN about the use of medical marijuana for children, even, with life-threatening illnesses. Gupta also addressed the issue of the "entourage effect' of cannabis medicines (i.e. why synthetics are not good enough or even good) because whole plant cannabis works best as a medicine in its natural form, with all cannabinoids present.

A pharmaceutical company can only achieve this by also using whole-plant cannabis to make medicine - which is what GW Pharma has done with Sativex (although they are still doing research on synthetics.)

GW Pharma has petitioned the DEA to allow them to sell Sativex in the U.S. Andrea Barthwell, formerly of the Drug Czar Barthwells.. lol... and another Bush Jr. appointee have been lobbying for marijuana since they left office -but they pretend that's not what they're doing by claiming Sativex is not the same as whole plant cannabis, when video exists showing GW Pharma making Sativex out of whole plant cannabis.

It would be a joke if these people didn't make money putting people in prison for no crime, destroying families, wasting taxpayer money for prohibition of something safer than alcohol and lying their asses off since then.

I have little respect for anyone who has been involved in the prohibition side of the drug war - they don't deserve any.

[MADem]

49. Where medical mj exists, recreational will follow.

And recreational will be taxed robustly.

[RainDog]

50. Well... California has had medical mj since the late 1990s

and recreational mj is still illegal - tho it was decriminalized by Ahnuld before leaving office to undercut the first legalization bill they had (which many argued was not a good bill.)

[bemildred]

51. Next time we will pass it. Third time is the charm. nt

[RainDog]

53. Hope so

California has been a leader in so many ways on this issue.

One thing that's part of the medical marijuana legacy that is so moving to me was the way Democrats, doctors, and marijuana advocates, growers and more responded to the HIV/AIDS crisis. When so many had so little hope, there were people in California who reached out to help ease the suffering of those dying from AIDS-related illnesses.

Of course, one Californian, Ronald Reagan, reacted differently.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Reagan-s-AIDS-Legacy-Silence-equals-death-2751030.php

Reagan could have chosen to end the homophobic rhetoric that flowed from so many in his administration. Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, has said that because of "intradepartmental politics" he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan administration. The reason, he explained, was "because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's advisers, Koop said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.' "

How profoundly different might have been the outcome if his leadership had generated compassion rather than hostility. "In the history of the AIDS epidemic, President Reagan's legacy is one of silence," Michael Cover, former associate executive director for public affairs at Whitman-Walker Clinic, the groundbreaking AIDS health-care organization in Washington. in 2003. "It is the silence of tens of thousands who died alone and unacknowledged, stigmatized by our government under his administration."

Bush Sr., when he was in office, stopped the Compassionate Care Investigative Project that, federally, supplied only about 30 people at the most, because he was afraid requests for the nation's Mississippi Marijuana would surge because of AIDS patients.

Clinton sided with the DEA when CA legalized medical marijuana and, when he was president, the DEA killed a man by making it impossible for him to use marijuana a condition of his bail. Larry McWilliams, a libertarian writer, choked on his own vomit because the DEA thought it was important to deny AIDS patients the herb that made it possible to keep life-saving medications down.

So, yeah. It's time to defund this agency - a little bit now, a lot more to come. Unfortunately, agencies don't reap what they have sown....

[MADem]

52. Wait till CA sees how much money CO makes.

They could fund a shitload of stuff with recreational MJ.

The cut off of funding for DoJ raids is another step forward. It will happen. It will take time, but it will happen. When the barriers fall, they'll fall quickly I think.

[RainDog]

55. The first state in in the midwest

will make a shiteload because there's no place west of the rockies with legal marijuana and the midwest is so much more accessible to major population points in the midwest, south, and east.

Unfortunately, however, too many of those states have regressive legislators who respond to the regressive religious right wing in their states.

They always seem to miss these "teachable" moments in history... alcohol prohibition, how they're always on the wrong side of every social/cultural issue, how the world constantly passes them by and they remain mired in backward thinking that fails to attract new industry and people who work in them...

oh well.

It's the west's gain.

I've said here, before, I could see a shift in power in electoral politics as the west becomes the leader on issues that the east/midwest/south cannot address because they lack the courage to tell religious right wing voters the truth - which is that legalization is going to occur and it's smarter to be first in rather than last, as far as revenues for a state go.

[Comrade Grumpy]

54. It's coming in 2016. The big boys with the money will do an initiative then.

California Cannabis Reform Coalition

ACLU of Northern California

Drug Policy Alliance

...and more have the money and are already laying the groundwork for 2016. If you want to have any influence on what legalization is going to look like in California, this will be where you want to have a say.

[RainDog]

56. do you have any links

to progress thus far?

[Comrade Grumpy]

57. Well, here's a start:

This is from the Drug War Chronicle in February. Since then, I think all the 2014 initiative efforts have given up the ghost. But these guys are ready to play in 2016.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2014/feb/18/big_players_will_wait_until_2016

Big Players Will Wait Until 2016 on California Marijuana Legalization Initiative
by Phillip Smith, February 18, 2014, 04:05pm, (Issue #822)

The Los Angeles Times reported today that a deep-pocketed marijuana reform coalition including the Drug Policy Alliance had decided not to move forward this year with an initiative to legalize the weed in the Golden State. Instead, the coalition will aim at 2016.

That means marijuana legalization will most likely not be on the ballot in California this year. Three other legalization initiatives have been filed, but two of them appear to lack the funds to complete expensive signature gathering efforts -- 504,000 signatures are needed by April 18 -- and the third has yet to be cleared for circulation.

The coalition, which is supported by billionaire financier George Soros, and which included the late Progressive Insurance founder Peter Lewis, had consistently argued that 2016 was more doable than this year, but filed the Control, Regulate and Tax Marijuana Act late last year after polling numbers suggested victory was within reach.

At the time, spokesmen said they would make a decision on whether to move forward or not around the beginning of February. Now, that decision has been made.

The decision to wait was a "very close" call and "one that came down to the wire," Graham Boyd, counsel to Lewis, told The Times. "We see this as a trial run or dress rehearsal for 2016," he said.

Boyd and DPA executive director Ethan Nadelmann told The Times in interviews Monday that they wanted more time to do outreach with elected officials, law enforcement, and public health leaders, an approach they said worked in Washington state. They also said money was an issue, and that the death of Peter Lewis had an impact.

"We believe the best way to go forward with any state ballot initiative is to have a strong funding base in place before launching the campaign," Boyd said. "It is certainly true that Peter Lewis' death made that a much more difficult process to do in the time we had."

The initiatives that in the signature-gathering phase are the Marijuana Control, Legalization and Revenue Act of 2014, sponsored by Americans for Policy Reform, and the Hererite California Cannabis Hemp Initiative 2014. A legalization initiative sponsored by "Guru of Ganja" Ed Rosenthal, the Cannabis Policy Reform Act of 2014, is still awaiting approval at the attorney general's office.

With the prospects slim for any of those initiatives making the ballot this year, at this point, Alaska is the only state that will definitely vote on a marijuana legalization initiative this year. Oregon is another likely contender, but it remains to be seen whether either of the two initiatives filed there will make the ballot.
CA

[RainDog]

62. Thanks so much!

Did you already post this as an OP in the Drug Policy forum? (if not...)

[Tsiyu]

6. WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!1!!!1!!!!This is HUGH!1!1111!

Yipppee Kayyayyay!!!!!!!!!!


Thank you for keeping this issue front and center!

It's been a very bad day for me, but this just gives me so much hope that we are moving forward








THANK YOU CONGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RainDog]

15. Yeah, always happy to hear good news!

thanks for the kicks to keep the issue present here.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Thanks for your good work, RainDog.

Last edited Fri May 30, 2014, 04:12 AM - Edit history (1)

[RainDog]

14. Thanks to you and others for kicking the "call" thread

I hope DU was well represented among our different legislators.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Yes, thanks to everyone

but you have kept this issue front and center here at D.U. and I believe D.U. Daily Kos and other progressive sites have a major impact on the Democratic Party, to a lesser degree the general populace and in some respects even the Republicans.

Kudos to you.

[RainDog]

19. Thanks for the kind words

It's great to see how an issue works its way through the legislative process.

It's time to end this stupid prohibition and stop wasting taxpayer money on laws American citizens do not want.

[RainDog]

43. btw

I was reading the comments on some major magazine site online... not sure which one. I regularly read The Atlantic online, Slate... those are the two most mainstream tilts toward conservative sometimes I read regularly.

anyway, someone in the comments, in response to someone else talking about whether or not Democrats and Republicans were the same on this issue said to that person, "You should read Democratic Underground".



...but I agree. They should read Democratic Underground, and check out the archives in the Drug Policy forum to learn about the history of this issue since the 1930s up until legislation this week.

[Uncle Joe]

44. That's an excellent and I believe even enlightening suggestion.

[TeamPooka]

8. Prohibition is a failed public policy. nt

[Cha]

9. Kick for sanity!

[DeSwiss]

10. Michele Leonhart!

- K&R

[nikto]

11. Legal weed? AAAhhhh!! it's the end of the world!!

Dogs and cats living together, etc

[progressoid]

12. It's a start!

[TRoN33]

13. Will Senate pass it?

No doubt Rand Paul is going to flip flop and will turn against it. Ted Cruz and his Teabagging followers are going to attempt to filibuster it. McConnell, for his sake of reelection, he will vote yea for it. It's time for Reid to hit the red button of nuclear opinion and eliminate filibuster for good.

[RainDog]

16. It's an amendment to a larger bill

So, Republicans can hide behind that if their constituents want to arrest parents who want to use cannabis for children with Dravet's epilepsy...

[Throd]

18. A (rare) vote for sanity

[RainDog]

20. Here's a list to find your Senator

...to encourage her or him to support this measure to defund DEA raids on medical marijuana facilities.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[Marrah_G]

21. WOW!

[Reter]

22. Please please please let me see the roll call

I want to see how that asshole Michael Grimm voted.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Here it is, Reter.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll258.xml

It looks like Grimm voted against it.

[RainDog]

25. LOL

[Reter]

27. Thank you!

What a strange mix. The neo-cons seemed to all oppose it, while the Tea Party and and the most liberal aligned and voted for it! 49 Republicans supported this bill. Sadly, 17 Democrats opposed it.

[RainDog]

28. Another welcome to DU to you, Reter

[Comrade Grumpy]

31. Only a handful of Dems voted against it, including Debbie Wasserman Schulz. WTF?

Most of the Dem "noes" were ancient geezers in Texas.

[Enthusiast]

34. Debbie is an insider all the way.

Not just on the pot issue.

[RainDog]

37. Pelosi voted FOR

You don't get much more insider than that. Women in the House need to STEP UP. If they don't understand that medical marijuana is a real issue, they need to get informed. Wasserman Schultz - that vote was a disgrace.

HALL OF SHAME: Democrats who voted against this issue:

Barrow (GA)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Cuellar (TX)
Gallego (TX)
Hinojosa (TX)
Keating (MA)
Levin (MI)
Lipinski (IL)
Matheson (UT)
McIntyre (NC)
Peterson (MN)
Rahall (WV)
Sewell (AL)
Wasserman Schultz (FL)
Wilson (FL)

[Uncle Joe]

40. I wonder if Wasserman Schultz and Wilson are in heavily gerrymandered districts and the idea of

voting yes on this issue intimidated them?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014815486#post10

Fred Sanders (970 posts)
10. The same expert testified the gerrymandering created a 8% point advantage to Republicans.

He testified that an equal split if the state vote would result in 58%! of the legislature would be Republican...the evidence discloses intent to create disadvantage standing on its own.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/05/28/3442100/redistricting-expert-floridas-gerrymandered-maps-give-an-8-point-advantage-to-republicans/

"The maps had been put in place for the 2012 election, which saw Republicans keep control of the House though candidates received 1.4 million fewer votes overall than their Democratic counterparts."

"In 2012, Democratic House candidates won over 1.3 million more votes than Republicans. And, yet, Republicans control the House thanks, in part, to gerrymandering that extended well beyond Florida.

(Not is pure why the quoted posted has a numbers discrepancy)

“In this case, they did a really good job of following the recipe about how to do a partisan gerrymander,” California Institute of Technology statistics professor Jonathan Katz said Tuesday.
He found that even if there were equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats who turned out to vote, Republicans would win 58 percent of seats.

The boundary issues were the most apparent in the state’s most pivotal districts, he said, adding that the maps were the most lopsided he had ever examined.
Hours later, Stanford political scientist Jonathan Rodden, who was also paid to analyze the maps for the trial, said it was “virtually impossible” that the maps were crafted with the intent of creating equally competitive districts.

[RainDog]

41. I also wonder about Cooper's vote

Nashville is full of liberals - the music industry - Vanderbilt Hospital - why did he vote with the medical quackery faction?

[Uncle Joe]

42. Yes, that was a major disappointment as well.

[DeSwiss]

59. Cooper isn't one of them.....

[okaawhatever]

47. Was Debbie voting against the larger bill? Sometimes that happens with amendments. nt

[RainDog]

60. Only 17 Democrats voted against it

I can't imagine 170 Democrats would vote for the amendment but only DWS has great "principles" concerning some issue in the bill. She reps Ft. Lauderdale and Miami Beach - not exactly bastions of probity... I used to live there.

She's the head of the Democratic Party Coalition and her party overwhelmingly supports full legalization of marijuana in greater numbers than any other group. Democratic Party Platforms in states across the nation in the last two election cycles have included legalization as one of their planks.

No, the only reason I can fathom that she voted against it is because she's the head of the new and improved DLC called the New Democratic Coalition. They're the conservative wing of the Democratic party, but they call themselves moderates. Compared to tea baggers, I suppose. Maybe there's some mysterious reason I don't know about - but I think it's more likely she aligns with Patrick Kennedy, who aligns with David Frum, former speech writer for Bush, in opposition to legalization.

If this is the case, she will get no support from me.

I hope she will explain her vote so that Democrats can know her rationalizations for denying doctors and patients the right to determine their medical choices, rather than the freaking DEA. Honestly.

What a disappointment. I hope Hillary doesn't team up with the regressives - if so, she will find many have moved beyond the Clinton years of the Democratic Party and the hypocrisy of Bill's "beat up on Democrats via the Drug War" strategy. That era is dead, Zed.

If DWS has presidential ambitions, she should realize that Democrats are noting who is on the wrong side of history on this issue.

[RainDog]

24. Grimm was grim

he needs to turn that frown upside down and stop being such a PITA!

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll258.xml#N

[Uncle Joe]

26. P.S. Welcome to D.U. Reter.

[RainDog]

29. Link to list of Democrats who voted against this amendment

and a note on the vote - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025026147

[Aristus]

30. Let's hope this leads to a sharp decrease in the number of no-knock, kick-down-the-door

raids that end up with dead children and dead dogs.

[RainDog]

32. That would be a good thing

And it's good for our members of Congress to know we're keeping track of their votes on this issue.

[Sissyk]

36. I K&R the post in GD but will do so here too.

Here's my post:

1. Very good news!

I think that was the biggest hurdle. I'm hoping for fast action from all other parties.

This would do so much to help the folks with chronic pain lead a more normal life.

Thank you for posting this, RainDog!

[Ash_F]

58. The House actually did something?

Drop the ballons!

[RainDog]

61. LOL! n/t