Medical Marijuana

House Votes to Stop Medical Marijuana Raids

|

Wikipedia

Early this morning, by a vote of 219 to 189, the House of Representatives approved an amendment aimed at stopping federal interference with state laws that "authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." The amendment, which would have to pass muster in the Senate to take effect, prohibits the Justice Department, which includes the Drug Enforcement Administration, from spending taxpayers' money on dispensary raids or other attempts to stop medical use of marijuana in the 22 states that allow it.

Similar meaures have failed in the House six times since 2003. This year the amendment attracted record support from Republicans, 49 of whom voted yes, compared to 28 last time around. "This measure passed because it received more support from Republicans than ever before," says Dan Riffle of the Marijuana Policy Project. "It is refreshing to see conservatives in Congress sticking to their conservative principles when it comes to marijuana policy. Republicans increasingly recognize that marijuana prohibition is a failed Big Government program that infringes on states' rights." Before the vote, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, argued in Politico that it "ought to be an easy 'yes' vote for members of the 10th Amendment Task Force on Capitol Hill and other believers in limited government and federalism."

The 10th Amendment Task Force, founded in 2010, is a project of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), where conservative legislators are supposed to develop policies consistent with their principles. How many founding members of the RSC task force devoted to the 10th Amendment voted for federalism this morning? Four out of nine, which is one more than last time. Rep. Ron Bishop (R-Utah), founder and chairman of the task force, voted no in 2012 but changed his mind this year, joining Reps. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), Cynthis Lummis (R-Wyo.), and Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) in the yes column. Reps. John Culberson (R-Texas), Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), Mike Conaway (R-Texas), and Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) voted no. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who voted no in 2012, did not vote this time. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

39 responses to “House Votes to Stop Medical Marijuana Raids

  1. It is refreshing to see conservatives in Congress sticking to their adopting conservative principles when it comes to marijuana policy.

    Fixed.

  2. So now they just have to claim that they believe it was being sold outside of medical use and get the judge to not allow anyone to mention the medical business. Like they do now. Why do I doubt this stops the drug warriors?

  3. The amendment … prohibits the Justice Department, which includes the Drug Enforcement Administration, from spending taxpayers’ money on raids

    “Ha! It’s *not* taxpayers’ money! We’re borrowing it from the Chinese!”

  4. What are the odds that this makes it through the Senate and doesn’t get vetoed?

    1. I give to a 50/50 chance of getting past the senate, but a 90% chance of a pocket veto.

      1. Nah, no chance of a “real” Presidential pocket veto; it’s an appropriations bill. If he wants to block it quietly, he’ll get Harry Reid to prevent it from coming up in the Senate, or get it removed from the bill during conference.

    2. It has to:

      1) Have a similar amendment be allowed to come to a vote in the Senate by Harry Reid;
      2) Be passed in the Senate;
      3) Be preserved in the House-Senate conference over the bill.

      It’s an amendment on an appropriations bill, so there’s (almost) no chance of a pocket veto. Obama would be totally insane to veto an appropriations bill over it. Much, much more likely that he gets Reid to block it from consideration or gets it stripped out in conference, if he wants to oppose it.

  5. But if this passes, will county SWATzi teams still get to flashbang 19 month olds?

    Cause if not, we’re headed for anarchy.

  6. OT: STOP THE PRESSES! Chemtrails: German Aerospace Worker Sacked For Revealing Installation of Devices May, 2014 (English Subtitles)

    I got this from the Tweeterz, so it must be true.

    Germans and rockets – they go together like peanut butter and jelly…

    http://forums.delphiforums.com…..2135783148

    1. Link to a log-in page? Is this the kind of nonsense they are teaching you in your fancy Left Coast elitist community colleges nowadays?

      1. I was just happy I didn’t You the link…

  7. prohibits the Justice Department, which includes the Drug Enforcement Administration, from spending taxpayers’ money on raids or other attempts to stop medical use of marijuana in the 22 states that allow it.

    “We will do the raids pro bono.”

    -DEA

    1. Well I don’t blame them. These dogs ain’t gonna shoot themselves.

  8. Ha ha, I hope we get an 80-10 senate veto override as they go for a bi-partisan FU

    1. So 10 “present” or “Not voting”?

  9. “Some people are suffering, and if a doctor feels that he needs to prescribe something to alleviate that suffering, it is immoral for this government to get in the way,” Rohrabacher said, his voice rising.

    Come off it, Congressman.

    Who really knows what’s better for the country: a physician who “feels”, or a *Constitutional Scholar*?

    1. if a doctor feels that he needs to prescribe something to alleviate that suffering, it is immoral for this government to get in the way

      If I worked at the FDA, this would make me very nervous.

      Well, if I believed he meant a syllable of it, it would.

      1. It’s Dan Rohrabacher. He’s believed it for at least 45 yrs.

  10. Incidentally, this is one more piece of evidence that the real body of Congress blocking things is the Senate. The House leadership has allowed open votes on all sorts of amendments, and even let quite a few things opposed by the leadership pass. The Senate, under Reid, has refused to even allow voted on any but a handful of amendments. He likes to fill the tree.

  11. It’s going to be interesting when this dies in the Democrat controlled Senate.

    How are the ‘liberals’ going to spin this when their leaders basically kill a pro medical MJ bill that the GOP controlled house, passed?

    1. Also, Rand gets to get some floor time and taunt the hell out of the Senate Dems on this one.

      1. I wish he’d end his speech with, “Now GO AWAY, or I shall taunt you a second time!”

        That would be awesome…

    2. they’re counting on not having to spin it, that most media (those not named Reason) will basically ignore it. Come on; you really expect the alphabet soup networks and major dailies to spend a lot of airtime and inches on this?

    3. I’m sure they’ll kill it in a committee so as to avoid having to actually go on record with a vote.

    4. GOP voted 49 Ayes to 172 Noes.

      Dems voted 170 Ayes to 17 Noes.

      Just saying. The GOP as a whole did fuckall here. Still the same big govt douchebags they always were. I need to go take a shower now that I’ve sort of stuck up for Dems.

      1. Yeah. Last time this came up was 2007, when it got 167 Ayes, 25 Reps. The 50 extra Ayes were split evenly among both parties. The R Ayes were pretty much who you’d expect.

        Also, note that two industrial hemp bills passed, blocking the DEA from interfering with states there. Those passed 260-160.

      2. Although, one thing you can say is that the House GOP leadership let it come to a vote, unlike what Harry Reid likes to do in the Senate.

        1. Harry Reid has to kill it before a vote, to save the King from the possibility of having to veto it.

          1. More likely the embarrassment of having to come up with a new excuse for keeping on keeping on.

  12. This is encouraging, but this is another law which affirms what is already in the Constitution. Sad that it has come to this.

    1. What exactly is purpose of a 2nd Amendment when simply bearing objects mistaken for arms, let alone arms themselves, serves as acceptable justification for law enforcement to murder on sight?

      1. A better question – what the hell is going on in Prince George’s County? From the police force swatting the mayor and all the other crazy goings on to this – it seems PGC police are out of control there.

        1. PG is THE county in MD that you do not want to live. You know, I mean if you have to live in MD.

      2. serves as acceptable justification for law enforcement to murder on sight?

        They don’t need any justification. They just start shooting, people die, they investigate themselves, officers responsible go on vacation for a while, and after no wrong doing has been found, it’s back to business as usual.

    2. @PGPDnews
      Officers document the scene where two weapons were recovered. Neither of our veteran officers was injured. http://t.co/WrHygkI98h

      Well thank fuck for that.

  13. Anyone who remembers Iran-Contra sees the loophole in this.

  14. Anyone who remembers Iran-Contra sees the loophole in this.

  15. This is great news 🙂

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.