Conservatives for Medical Marijuana

Citizens Against Government Waste has endorsed an amendment that would prohibit the Drug Enforcement Administration from using taxpayer money to interfere with the medical use of marijuana users in states that allow it. The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the measure, sponsored by Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), any day now. (Last year it was defeated by a vote of 264 to 162, which was not as bad as the 268-to-148 margin in 2004, which in turn was better than the 273-to-152 score in 2003.) In a report issued Monday that praises the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, CAGW criticizes the federal government for "using valuable taxpayer dollars to track down and persecute medical marijuana patients that are using the drug legally in their state," calling those efforts "useless." Other conservative groups that have condemned the federal crackdown on medical marijuana include Americans for Tax Reform and the American Conservative Union.

The CAGW report also criticizes other aspects of the federal war on drugs, including the government's anti-drug ads. "Numerous studies done by public and private organizations revealing the failure of the campaign and the unearthing of scandals have proven the media campaign to be an abysmal failure," says CAGW.

Comments

madpad | June 28, 2006, 2:32pm | #

What "scandals"? Not that I doubt they exist...I just don't know any details.

TF | June 28, 2006, 2:52pm | #

madpad - the article talked about a non-competitive bidding process to hire the ad agency for the campaign.

madpad | June 28, 2006, 3:06pm | #

That's a scandal? Haliburton owes its whole Iraqi franchise to non-competitive bids. Not much of a scandal, if you ask me. The failure of the program and the money thrown at it, of course, are scandalous.

Glad the conservatives are getting behind this issue.

TF | June 28, 2006, 3:17pm | #

There were a few other scandals mentioned as well. But I agree, none of them more 'scandalous' than the need for such an amendment in the first place.

supermike | June 28, 2006, 4:16pm | #

As a non-dopesmoker, I say:
Legalize it!

Postmodern Sleaze | June 28, 2006, 4:20pm | #

Any more word on whether or not Rohrbacher still wants to reinstate slavery rather than let any more wetbacks into the country?

Gene Berkman | June 28, 2006, 4:21pm | #

In 1969 Sen. Barry Goldwater called for legalizing marijuana. It is good to see some conservatives catching up with him.

Isaac Bartram | June 28, 2006, 5:09pm | #

In 1969 Sen. Barry Goldwater called for legalizing marijuana. It is good to see some conservatives catching up with him.

I got the impression that Barry was on-again/off-again on the MJ issue.

I do know that Karl Hess went to the ranch in the 70s or early 80s to do some writing for him. He was given the old bunkhouse (it was no longer a working ranch) as quarters while he was there. Karl enjoyed his pot and while there felt free to indulge. Apparently the Senator came to see him one evening and sniffed the air.

A smile came over his face and he said, "Hmm, reminds me of the old days. I haven't smelt that smell since we had real cowboys working here".

Isaac Bartram | June 28, 2006, 5:16pm | #

And I almost teared up just now remembering when we had real men like Barry Goldwater instead of the lizards that are in office now.

Lowdog | June 28, 2006, 5:31pm | #

Speaking of Barry, I'm friends with one of his grandchildren. Pretty cool guy, intelligent, and definitely using that trust fund money for good purposes. I brought up his grandfather once, saying how I admired his politics and whatnot, and he told me he didn't really know much about his grandpappy. Didn't seem to really care, either. I soon dropped the subject.

Anyway, that's my contribution to the discussion...I need to feel that I'm somebody. ;)

Russ 2000 | June 28, 2006, 5:32pm | #

Good luck driving to the pharmacy to get your medical MJ scrip filled.

Kwix | June 28, 2006, 5:47pm | #

Yet again the elected representatives have failed to enact the will of the people. 163 Yea/259 Nay. Big suprise there.

madpad | June 28, 2006, 5:58pm | #

the numbers keep moving in the right direction though. Maybe they'll just do what the anti-flag-burners are doing...keep putting it up for a vote and where people down til it passes.

Got a long way to go, though, if that's the plan.

sedated | June 28, 2006, 6:07pm | #

The way this will pass is when more and more states pass laws. Representatives from states with medical MJ laws are more likely to support this.

Zach | June 28, 2006, 6:25pm | #

I live in nevada where medical MJ is legalized yet i've heard only 27 or so people in the entire country are allowed to smoke it medicinally and it's only in joints they can't use bongs or anything to make the smoke less harsh.

And I'd love to see how these peopel get thier weed, do they just go to thier local pharmacy and say I need some more weed and he whips out a kilo of the stuff liek in half baked.

Eryk Boston | June 28, 2006, 8:27pm | #

Jacob, how many times must I say this?

The drug war ads are not a failure. People only say they are a failure because they think their purpose is to reduce drug use in which case they are a complete failure. Consider, however, the possibility that the ads are intended to reinforce anti-drug paranoia among voters in general and parents in particular. It's hard to say if they are a failure under this standard because the feds aren't about to release such data but I'll bet those numbers have been done and they were very positive which would explain why the feds keep running these ads...aside, of course, from the simple fact that mere ineffectiveness has never been a counter to the force of inertia on government spending.

SteveInClearwater | June 28, 2006, 11:41pm | #

What Eryk said...

Help us reform failed drug policies

http://www.mapinc.org/resource

Dar | June 29, 2006, 10:29am | #

Government and failure in the same sentence. Wow who would have thought.

sedated | June 29, 2006, 11:38am | #

Maybe the purpose of drug war ads is a kickback to the creators of the ads and to the media outlets who run them.