A Trickle of Compassion

Legislation that would have barred the U.S. Justice Department from spending money to persecute medical marijuana users failed by a vote of 264 to 161 in the House of Representatives today. It attracted 13 more votes than a similar bill did last summer. You could say that's encouraging, since the Supreme Court just last week confirmed the federal government's authority to snatch homegrown medicine from sick people. Or you could say it's discouraging, since the Court's decision should have stirred to action all those principled conservatives who, like Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, may not approve of marijuana as a medicine but believe the matter should be left to the states. My fear is that it did.

Comments

[SPD]

I've said it before and I'll say it again... democracy just doesn't work.

[dead_elvis]

Quote from our idiot-in-chief, who obviously didn't read the Supreme Court decision (which encouraged sick patients to seek relief through congress) yet feels qualified to comment on it:

"On Tuesday, the Bush administration urged the House to defeat the marijuana measure, saying Congress should not "circumvent the recent Supreme Court decision."

[friendofliberty]

where can we see a roll call on this vote. Mark Souder is quite the idiot.

Rep. Mark Souder (news, bio, voting record), an Indiana Republican who worked to defeat the marijuana initiative, accused supporters of "hiding behind a few sick people to try to in effect legalize ... marijuana in this country."

"The rhetoric about marijuana as a treatment for medical purposes was probably dreamed up at some college dorm," he said.

[digamma]

Roll call here.

Souder's comments were even more brilliant than the WaPo quoted. He told a story about a college girl who died from an ecstacy overdose because her friends, instead of taking her to a hospital, gave her marijuana because they'd heard it was medicinal.

I've heard Advil has medicinal value. If I give it to someone who's dying of snake poison, should we ban it too?

[zeroentitlement]

Well, there is a bright side, you know. It's likely that during probes by the Justice Department, and/or their lengthy trials, medical marijuana users will die from whatever it is that necessitated their MJ use in the first place. And thus, they'll never have to spend a night in federal prison.

Ban Tums! It does nothing for athlete's foot.

[Phil]

That's great, dead elvis. Our Leader sure runs hot and cold on the whole judicial activism thing, eh?

[Eric the .5b]

the Court's decision should have stirred to action all those principled conservatives who, like Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, may not approve of marijuana as a medicine but believe the matter should be left to the states. My fear is that it did.

There are 161 principled conservatives in the House?

I disbelieve.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Remember being a child and getting the "Because I SAY SO" line from your parents? Same thing here.

"There are a significant amount of people who are convinced that MJ has some medicinal value. Most people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt".

"Nope. MJ is baad"

"But.."

"END OF DISCUSSION"

[Steve S.]

Eric: I think you misunderstand - take 161, subtract Democrats. What's left are your principled conservatives that the vote managed to rally.

[Jim Henley]

We should look at this as an excellent opportunity to compile an enemies list. Yes, it could be everyone who voted No, but I prefer a little more focus: Every Congressman who voted to send the Schiavo case to federal court AND voted against Hinchey-Rohrbacher. Because THAT level of sadism - live forever and suffer like the damned! - is in a class all its own.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Jim Henley says, "We should look at this as an excellent opportunity to compile an enemies list. Yes, it could be everyone who voted No, but I prefer a little more focus..."

For sure, anyone who voted against the amendment, who is from a state that now permits medical mj, should be defeated next time around. I haven't had the time to cross-check medical mj status against the NOES list yet, but if I find any targets meeting this criterion, I'll post 'em.

On the other hand, the fact that so many people have -- after much consideration and reconsideration -- approved medical marijuana in their states, and that sentiment to so approve runs high across the country, ought to have informed the other nay-sayers to take the Supreme Court's hint and do the right thing. That it did not proves the 161 were stupid for at least two reasons: 1) They blew a chance to affirm popular will; 2) They blew a chance to relieve the pressure that this issue is causing. Now, the pressure cooker will just keep building toward a big explosion, which the Congress could have forestalled by simply letting sick people use proven medicine. Pathetic.

CSA and its enforcement killed Peter McWilliams and numerous others. 161 congress members said yesterday that they just don't care. Don't you think even one death is worth 161 firings?

Speaking of firing, isn't it about time to impeach the President? I also caught his remark about "respecting the Supreme Court decision." I was driving home at the time and almost went off the road. How clueless can you possibly be? Don't they get Supreme Court Decisions Illustrated comics over at the White House?

[friendofliberty]

James,

It is not 161 but 264. 161 were the good ones.

Bush's comment not to "contravene the Supreme Court" was certainly rediculous. Raich and the others were doing exactly what the Majority decision said, seeking relief in the Congress not the courts. Because don't look at us (the Supreme Court) to defend your rights.

Besides didn't Bush ask Congress to controvene the Courts in that private medical matter in Florida.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Friend of liberty said, "James,

It is not 161 but 264. 161 were the good ones. "

Yes, it was a typo on my part -- In a hurry: My bad. Of course 264 is an even more depressing figure, even if a handful more Reps voted in favor of med mj than did the last time they had the chance. And the "161" are certainly not "the good ones." But in this case, they are the "less bad ones."