Pelosi: Use of Medicinal Marijuana Should Be Left to States

U.S. NewsWire ^

[Sub-Driver]

Pelosi: Use of Medicinal Marijuana Should Be Left to States

6/15/2005 4:25:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Brendan Daly or Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616, both of the Office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Web: http://democraticleader.house.gov

WASHINGTON, June 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke today on the House floor in favor of an amendment offered by Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) that would permit the use of medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. Below are her remarks:

"Mr. Speaker, this amendment is especially timely, coming on the heels of the Supreme Court decision last week in Gonzales v. Raich. The Court's decision makes clear that federal regulatory and statutory changes are needed, and I strongly support Mr. Frank's proposed legislation that would change federal law to permit medical marijuana, pursuant to state law.

"My colleagues, make sure you know that what we are talking about here is in regard to states passing their own laws or initiatives. What would happen with this initiative, which is needed because we don't have a federal law to respect states rights specifically in terms of medicinal marijuana, is necessary because it would prohibit the Justice Department from spending any funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. It would leave to the discretion of the states how they would alleviate suffering of their citizens. This is a states' rights issue.

[lastchance]

I sense a disturbance in the Force.

[America_Right]

1st, Last, and Only time I will agree with her. Yech...

[ol' hoghead]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For the rats who don't recognize these words, they are the tenth amendment, Ms. Pelosi. You obstructionist rats should use it to help overrule the Supreme Court ruling Willard v Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942). That case is what the USSC used to deny Cali's law and extend the gov't expand it's power unconstitutionally.

[planekT]

According to the current Governor of California, California is paying more into the Fed then it is receiving. I believe what he said was that if elected, he would not only be known as the "Terminator", but as the "Collectinator".

So, who's really on the receiving end here?

[Alia]

No, no -- you are right about the funds. Last I saw for every dollar sent to DC (from CA), CA got, 11 cents back.

However, other rules do apply. For example, private schools. If they receive one penny of fed money? They have to enact the host of Federal rules. Like quotas, etc. So, a CA med-pot smoker, for example, shouldn't be receiving any type of fed subsidy; to be in compliance with both sets of law, state and fed, as they currently exist.

Or so I've read.

[R W Reactionairy]

Pelosi? I knew that if I lived long enough I would agree with her on some issue and it finally happened. Right answer -- actual rational concepts ... but a states rights argument from that socialist?

I do side with Justices Thomas [bravo], Rehnquist and O'Connor and ... [yikes] Pelosi on this one.

Interstate commerce isn't every conceivable item that might somehow enter the stream of commerce or cause some other widget not to be enter the steam of interstate commerce. Either the Constitution has a meaning or it doesn't. Scalia and the liberal block voted to "preserve" Federal powers that by the Tenth Amendment do not exist.

[shawnlaw]

If our fine conservative SCOTUS and legislators would get their heads out for one minute, they would recognize that the only constitutional method of controlling mary jane is to class it as a legal medication THEN control the crap put of it under the interstate commerce clause via the FDA. Instead we get the liberal "legislation by fiat."

[philman_36]

This is a states' rights issue.
Simply amazing. I didn't know Democrats recognized such things. They have been so pro "centralized government" for so many years I'm actually dumbfounded. And from Pelosi of all people.

[A CA Guy]

This is a staple of the far left, love of illegal drugs.

If you read the enemy over at DU now and then or the few junkies that post on FR, you'd see this is classic stuff and not unexpected. Maybe she is going after the libertarian vote again.

[NewLand]

Thanks for that (sad) info and stats. Can I ask where they come from, so I can use these as well, with the source identified and validated.

Thanks in advance.

[TigersEye]

Each section of information is linked to the source I got it from. The table is from The National Center for Health Statistics (as noted at the bottom of it) but I took it from the linked website. Please spread it far and wide. ; )

[A CA Guy]

Here's a link to the far left's love and defense of illegal drugs.
Autie Pinko! LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/auntie/02/68.html

[Archon of the East]

Instead we get the liberal "legislation by fiat."

I've posted this statement before but it describes how I feel, Justice Scalia's decision was dagger through the heart of hope to a return of Limited Govt. You know I'm not for legalizing the stuff at some point I do honestly believe that Conservatives are going to have to take a "slightly" more Libertarian view of things if we want to actually reverse course. I may be wrong but I come to that conclusion and see it as necessary.

[TigersEye]

Conservatives are going to have to take a "slightly" more Libertarian view of things ...

Anything to avoid taking a Constitutional view of things. /sarcasm

You don't have to be a Libertarian to take note that Federal drug laws are unConstitutional.

[planekT]

So this would seem to beg the question, how much money was California receiving from the Feds to subsidize Medical Marijuana?

This wasn't about Federal Medical Marijuana Subsidies (which I'm guessing do not exist). This was about California (and a dozen other States) who went against Federal policy on the issue.

It really didn't concern them all that much as far as I can tell. Look, you've got a bunch of States who think that sick folk who benefit from MJ should not be punished for treating their own illness. Is it part of a bigger push to legalize MJ? Probably, yes. But the Fed isn't having anything of it, even though they endorse legal alcohol, which has killed a lot of people.

It's a sad joke really. If a few hippies stand up and say pot is great, well, that's one thing. But when a dozen states say it probably is beneficial to some patients, well, that is quite another.

You can't compare the consensus of a dozen States to the lone hippie who wants it legalized for recreational use. There was more to it then that.

IMO, I wouldn't doubt that it does help patients with nausea and vomiting, as well as increasing appetite. Your mileage may vary. It made my brother puke his guts out. I never experienced that with it though.

Shouldn't it be left to the individual though? Who are they harming? It's a far stretch to say that they are going to effect Federal Commerce by growing a plant and smoking it for their own private medicinal purposes, as the Supreme Court has surmised.

To me the dumbest thing is to even worry about it (a virtually unenforceable law). If you're sick, need pot to help, good grief, buy some and smoke it and keep quiet about it. Why would you insist on the stamp of approval from Government? They will just make it cost more in the long run.

[R W Reactionairy]

Archon Wrote: "Conservatives are going to have to take a "slightly" more Libertarian view of things ..."

TigersEye responded "Anything to avoid taking a Constitutional view of things. /sarcasm

Libertarianism is compatible the Constitution. The currently practice form of conservatism is not. Read the Tenth Amendment. Recognize that in spite of such things as the earlier Harrison Act it was considered necessary to pass a constitutional amendment --- not just a friggin Federal Law -- to outlaw booze on a federal level.

[tacticalogic]

Sounds fine to me, Mz. Pelosi. Why don't you and the CA Dems simply halt all funds incoming from the Feds and return all funds covering welfare, education, medical/medicare, traffic, foody subsidies, WIC, HHD to the Feds. THEN you can have legal pot in CA.

Nah. Let California have medical marijuana if they want. We get to keep the Maadi-Griffins.

[Chena]

"Hell must have froze over
I agree with her"


This is the second time hell froze over this year for me. First time was another winter in Interior Alaska, second time is I agree with )@%#$%*@)#$(%* Pelosi on this one. Yikes!

[longtermmemmory]

If pelosi were serious she would simply remove the word medical and say "recreational".

[planekT]

I missed your whole point maybe in my post. Sorry. I see where you're coming from. Either the States abide by all the Fed rules or they don't.

But that would kind of make a moot point of powers reserved for the States wouldn't it?

Constitutionally, I think that the Fed's rights are actually quite limited. The States can do what they want, but it does have to be within the realm of the Constitution.

Maybe we need to stop and think about that. The Fed and the States are both bound by the Constitution. Outside of the Constitution however, I don't believe that the States are limited to law passed by the Feds, if indeed, it is not a power given to them under the Constitution. So, does the Federal Government have the Constitutional authority to impose whatever it wants to? Obviously not, or else no powers would have been accorded to the States in the Constitution.