Call Congress TODAY! - Medical Marijuana Vote Could Happen Tuesday

[dirtybongwater]

Recieved this email today from DPA.

Call Congress TODAY!><O></O>
<O></O>

Medical Marijuana Vote Could Happen Tuesday<O></O>

<O></O>

Thank you to everyone who has urged lawmakers to protect medical marijuana patients in the wake of the Raich Supreme Court decision. The amendment that gives Congress an opportunity to do just that is up for a vote this week - possibly as soon as Tuesday afternoon! The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment would protect cancer, AIDS and other patients who use marijuana for medical reasons from federal prosecution. Lawmakers need to hear that their constituents demand protection for sick people, so call your Representative as soon as possible and forward this alert to everyone you know.<O></O>

<O></O>

What to Do: Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Ask to speak to your Representative. If you're not sure who represents you, the operator can tell you. You can also look up your Representative at www.house.gov by entering your zip code at the top.<O></O>

<O></O>

What to Say: Once the operator transfers you to your Representative's office, give the person who answers the phone the following message: "Hi, I'm a constituent. I'm calling to urge my Representative to vote for the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment to the Justice spending bill, which will be voted on this week. I would also like him (or her) to send me a letter letting me know how he (or she) voted. This issue is very important to me." If you emailed your Representative last week in support of the amendment, you should mention that. Say that your phone call is a follow-up to an email you sent. (Hinchey-Rohrabacher is pronounced Hinchee Roy Bocker.)<O></O>

<O></O>

Then forward this alert to friends, family, etc..<O></O>

<O></O>

Thank you for all your work to create reforms that will help patients!<O></O>

<O></O>

Sincerely,<O></O>

Bill Piper<O></O>

Director of National Affairs<O></O>

Drug Policy ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comlace>Alliance</ST1lace></st1:City><O></O>

<O></O>

More information:<O></O>

<O></O>

On Monday, June 6th the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the federal government has the authority to prosecute medical marijuana patients and their caregivers, even in states where marijuana is legal for medical use. The Majority, which expressed sympathy for medical marijuana patients, declared that it was up to Congress to change federal law to protect sick and dying patients. When the U.S. House of Representatives considers a Justice Department funding bill this week Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-22nd/NY) and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-46th/CA) will offer a bi-partisan amendment on the House floor prohibiting the Justice Department and DEA from spending any money undermining state medical marijuana laws. 148 Representatives voted for a similar amendment last year - 70% of Democrats and 19 Republicans.<O></O>

<O></O>

The amendment would not prevent the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from arresting people using, growing, or selling marijuana for recreational use. Nor would it prevent the DEA from arresting patients for medical marijuana in states that have not approved it. It simply prevents the federal government from arresting cancer, AIDS, and other patients who use marijuana for medical reasons in states that allow it. <O></O>

<O></O>

Contact the Drug Policy <st1:City><ST1lace>Alliance</ST1lace></st1:City>:<O></O>

<O></O>

Drug Policy <st1:City><ST1lace>Alliance</ST1lace></st1:City><O></O>

<st1:Street><st1:address>70 West 36th Street</st1:address></st1:Street>, 16th Floor<O></O>

<ST1lace><st1:City>New York</st1:City>, <st1:State>NY</st1:State><st1:PostalCode>10018</st1:PostalCode></ST1lace><O></O>

<O></O>

For subscription problems please contact<O></O>

Jeanette Irwin, Director, Internet Communications<O></O>

jirwin@drugpolicy.org | 202.216.0035

[IndianaToker]

By Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer
Source: Associated Press

Washington, D.C. -- Advocates for medical marijuana hope a recent setback in the Supreme Court will boost their strength in Congress, and a New York and California lawmaker plan to force a House vote on the issue Tuesday. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, has long supported allowing patients to use marijuana in states where it can be legally prescribed by a doctor. He will offer an amendment to a spending bill Tuesday that would bar federal authorities from making arrests in such cases.

"This is a responsibility Congress should face up to," said Hinchey, who is offering the amendment with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

Hinchey, known for his blistering broadsides against the Bush administration on issues ranging from the Food and Drug Administration to the war in Iraq, said the court's decision is a call for legislators to act.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 6 that federal drug laws trump medical marijuana statutes in 10 states, allowing federal authorities to prosecute people who smoke marijuana for pain relief on the recommendation of their doctors. New York does not permit doctors to prescribe medical marijuana.

After the decision, federal officials said their focus has been on criminals engaged in drug trafficking, not the sick and dying.

Hinchey's supporters say the decision only puts more pressure on Congress to craft a caring policy for those who want to treat their health problems with marijuana.

And California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has in the past supported pot use by the sick, said the ruling means "it is now up to Congress to provide clarity."

In the past two years, the Hinchey and Rohrabacher amendment has mustered only about 150 of 435 votes in the House, and even its boosters concede there is little chance of passage Tuesday.

Opposition to Hinchey's amendment is being organized by Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., who heads the House drug policy subcommittee.

Souder dismisses the effort as a political, not scientific, effort to to gradually legalize marijuana. The lawmaker argues that if scientific data supports marijuana as a pain medication, it should be studied and vetted through the regular FDA process.

Hinchey dismisses such arguments. He said even if Congress isn't ready to accept it, public opinion in the nation has rejected past concerns about marijuana usage leading to other forms of drug abuse.

Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that supports laws allowing medical marijuana, said they hope to pick up about 10 votes.

"That would send a message to the Justice Department that there are political consequences to their actions," said Piper. "If the Justice Department realizes momentum is building on this amendment, they're going to be less likely to go into states like California and arrest people for medical marijuana."

The ten states with statutes that permit doctors to prescribe medical marijuana are California, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaiii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington state.

Complete Title: Medical Marijuana Proponents Seek House Vote Tuesday

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer
Published: June 13, 2005
Copyright: 2005 The Associated Press
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20853.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Richard Cowan
Source: Reuters

Washington, D.C. -- Supporters of medical marijuana said on Monday they were gaining support in Congress but not enough to pass a measure expected in the U.S. House of Representatives this week that would prevent the federal government from prosecuting patients who use the drug. Conservative California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher will team up with liberal New York Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey on a measure that would prohibit the U.S. Justice Department from going after patients in 10 states that allow the use of marijuana as prescribed by their doctors.

A vote could come as early as Tuesday when Rohrabacher and Hinchey attempt to attach their amendment to a bill to fund Justice Department activities next year.

On June 6, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal government had the power to stop cancer patients and others from smoking home-grown marijuana, even where it is legal under state law.

California is the most populous state allowing patients to use marijuana. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have similar laws.

Smoking marijuana can ease nausea caused by cancer treatments and can stimulate appetite in patients too sick to eat.

The Supreme Court ruling was a victory for the Bush administration, which has said it would be hard for the government to enforce the nation's drug laws if an exception was made for medical marijuana.

But a coalition of lawmakers and health and religious leaders was hoping the House amendment gained strength in the face of recent polls indicating strong public support for medical marijuana.

The coalition also hoped a divided Supreme Court, with dissent from Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, all conservatives, helped its cause. The three justices argued states should have the authority to set their own laws.

Last year, the House defeated similar legislation by a vote of 268-148.

"There's a growing number of Republicans" favoring the legislation, said an aide to Rohrabacher, who asked not to be identified. He noted that four years ago, only Rohrabacher and one other Republican voted to allow medical marijuana use. "We're hoping to get about 30 by tomorrow," he added.

If the measure fails this week, as expected, supporters are expected to try again later this year and in 2006.

"Seriously ill people should not be subject to criminal sanctions for using marijuana," said Jim Winkler, a United Methodist Church official in Washington.

Speaking to reporters, he added his church had "a long record of being anti-alcohol, anti-tobacco, anti-drug. This is not a denomination that is advocating drug use."

Angel Raich of Oakland, California, was one of two patients who brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 39-year-old mother of two, who has an inoperable brain tumor and other serious illnesses, was in Washington this week lobbying Congress for the medical marijuana legislation.

"Justice (John Paul) Stevens, in the Supreme Court decision, specifically said that this issue should be heard in the halls of Congress and that's what I'm here to do," said Raich, adding she needed "cannabis every two hours to survive."

Source: Reuters (Wire)
Author: Richard Cowan
Published: June 13, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Reuters Limited
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20854.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Emma Burgin, Knight Ridder News Service
Source: KRT

Washington, D.C. -- Seated and steadied by her husband's hand, Angel Raich's eyes welled up with tears at the mention of her son. "He's 19 and tomorrow night he'll be going into the U.S. Army," she said. Raich is thankful she has lived to see him grow up. She wasn't always sure she would. Since she won her case against former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2002, Raich has become a public face for the legalization of medical marijuana.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals prohibited the Bush administration from prosecuting Raich and her suppliers, who grow about 8 pounds of cannabis each year for her at no charge. They all live in California, which legalized medical marijuana in 1996 through a statewide referendum.

On Tuesday, Raich was in Washington to support an amendment to an appropriations bill that would prohibit the Justice Department from spending taxpayer money on medical-marijuana prosecutions in states that allow its use.

"It is an absolute waste of public funds," Raich said. "They will be prosecuting us like criminals even though we're sick."

Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., proposed the one-sentence amendment Tuesday in response to last week's Supreme Court ruling that deemed it constitutional for Congress to prohibit the cultivation and use of medical marijuana in California and the 10 other states allowing such activity.

"It is a travesty for the federal government to step in and override a state law that would permit this activity," Rohrabacher said. "The people of the states have a right to make this decision."

Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have legalized medical marijuana. All except Hawaii and Vermont held statewide votes on the measure.

Raich, who said she has been ill since adolescence, suffered an allergic reaction in 1995 to birth control. Since then, she's been diagnosed with a multitude of medical conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor.

Restricted to a wheelchair in 1996, Raich was not able to keep down any synthetic drugs. Her doctor then recommended medical marijuana, which Raich said has restored her appetite and helped her manage chronic pain.

"It has restored my mobility," she said. "When I get out of the bed in the morning, I can't move without cannabis."

Critics say the younger generation might have a hard time distinguishing between the medical use and the illegal use of marijuana.

"You just need to be open with kids about everything in life," said Raich, who also has a 16-year-old daughter.

The measure's sponsors also acknowledged the fight against the culture created by the recreational use of marijuana.

"The decision-making surrounding this drug has been clouded by other consideration," Rohrabacher said. "It's time to leave the '60s behind."

Complete Title: Measure Aims To Prevent Medical-Marijuana Prosecutions

Source: Knight Ridder News Service (US Wire)
Author: Emma Burgin, Knight Ridder-Tribune News Service
Published: June 14, 2005
Copyright: 2005, Knight Ridder News Service
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20858.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Neil S. Siegel
Source: News & Observer

Durham, N.C. -- It is critical for Americans to understand what the Supreme Court decided -- and what it did not decide -- in its medical marijuana ruling last week. The court held, 6-3, that the Constitution authorizes Congress to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in states allowing such activity. But the justices did not conclude that the federal prohibition on medical marijuana is sound ethically or scientifically. To the contrary, the court suggested just the opposite. Now Congress and the president should act to allow ill individuals to possess small amounts of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Under settled Supreme Court precedent, Congress may regulate a commodity produced for non-commercial use within a state if the failure to regulate it might impede federal regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. Applying this bit of constitutional law to locally grown and used marijuana, the court decided that "Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control" would affect the supply and demand nationally, because of the "likelihood" that the high demand for marijuana in the interstate market would draw marijuana grown for home consumption into that market. The court reasoned that "the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety."

The decision means that people who use marijuana because their doctors recommend it to alleviate pain may be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws. Two such people are the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, who suffer from several serious medical conditions. After conventional treatment and pain management options failed, their doctors prescribed marijuana and later concluded that it is the only drug that affords effective treatment and symptom control. Both Raich and Monson rely heavily on medical marijuana to function.

In light of these heartbreaking facts, the court was clearly uneasy about the prospect of approving application of the federal drug law to Raich's and Monson's situations -- "the troubling facts of this case," as the majority opinion put it -- even if Congress could rationally believe that a medical marijuana exception would undercut enforcement of the federal ban on recreational marijuana use to some extent. Justice Stevens wrote for the majority that "(t)he case is made difficult by respondents' strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes."

He stressed that the question before the court "is not whether it is wise to enforce the statute in these circumstances." Stevens even concluded the court's opinion by tendering other "avenue(s) of relief" -- specifically, the statutory "procedures for the reclassification" of marijuana, through which medicinal uses of the drug could become legal, and "the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with (Raich and Monson) may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

The Supreme Court, therefore, voiced well-grounded concerns about the wisdom and compassion underlying Congress' refusal to allow medical marijuana. Yet the justices put their misgivings aside, recognized the distinction between law and politics, and executed their responsibilities admirably by deciding the case based on their considered judgment that the Constitution required deference to Congress. By engaging in judicial restraint, moreover, the court avoided jeopardizing many other federal statutes, ranging from drug laws to environmental protections to civil rights acts.

Now it is time for Congress and the president to step up and earn the deference our Constitution confers.

Congress has the right to prohibit medical marijuana, and the president therefore has the right to order the Justice Department to pursue sick people who use marijuana for medicinal purposes. But that legal reality does not make either exercise of federal power the right thing to do. Congress should read between the lines of the Supreme Court's decision, register the good sense contained therein and seriously consider reclassifying marijuana to provide for some medical uses.

In the meantime, Congress should make an exception to the federal ban for medical marijuana use permitted under state law. And until Congress acts, the president should order the Justice Department not to bother the Angel Raiches and Diane Monsons of our world.

It is painfully perverse that the federal government would expend any of its scarce law enforcement resources on making life even more difficult for people who seek only to manage their enormous suffering. The Supreme Court's medical marijuana decision provides scant authority for the propriety of such government conduct.

Neil S. Siegel, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk, is an assistant professor of law and political science at Duke University.

Source: News & Observer (NC)
Author: Neil S. Siegel
Published: June 14, 2005
Copyright: 2005 The News and Observer
Contact: forum@nando.com
Website: http://www.newsobserver.com/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20857.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Josh Richman, Staff Writer
Source: Oakland Tribune

Washington, D.C. -- On the eve of a vital vote in Congress, medical marijuana advocates Monday unveiled a new poll showing significant public opposition to federal raids on patients who use pot. A poll of 732 randomly selected registered voters across the nation found 68 percent said the federal government should not prosecute medical marijuana patients now that it has been given the go-ahead to do so by last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The sentiment was slightly higher among men than among women, among those under 45 than those older and among Democrats than among Republicans or independents. But no demographic group's majority supported the raids.

The poll also found 65 percent agreed that adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes. The poll was commissioned by the Marijuana Policy Project and conducted Wednesday through Saturday by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. of Washington, D.C., with a 3.7 percent margin of error.

The MPP revealed the results Monday, one week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Oakland medical marijuana patient Angel McClary Raich and co-plaintiff Diane Monson of Oroville. The court rejected an argument that the federal government is constitutionally barred from regulating activity that's completely within a state's borders and doesn't involve money changing hands.

Raich is in Washington today as the medical marijuana battle moves from the courts to Congress. She and other advocates are lobbying hard for a spending-bill amendment co-authored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, that would forbid the Justice Department from spending money to raid or prosecute patients or providers in states with medical marijuana laws.

The United Methodist Church and the American Nurses Association wrote to Congress on Monday urging lawmakers to support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment.

MPP spokesman Bruce Mirken noted Monday that White House drug czar John Walters last week pronounced medical marijuana dead as a political issue. A day later, Rhode Island's state Senate voted 34-2 for a medical marijuana bill.

An AARP poll of 1,706 adults aged 45 and older conducted late last year found 72 percent believed adults should be allowed to legally use medical marijuana if a physician recommends it.

Note: Results out a day before Congress considers bill backed by medical users.

Mason-Dixon Medical Marijuana Poll: http://www.mpp.org/2005MasonDixonPoll

Source: Oakland Tribune (CA)
Author: Josh Richman, Staff Writer
Published: Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Copyright: 2005 MediaNews Group, Inc.
Contact: triblet@angnewspapers.com
Website: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20856.shtml

[sensimil]

thank em or spank em!

I got that email today too dbw

guys this is a chance to make YOUR voice COUNT. Becuase, it REALLY DOES.

[IndianaToker]

By David Whitney
Source: SHNS

Washington, D.C. -- A week after the Supreme Court ruled that medical marijuana laws in California and nine other states are no bar to federal drug prosecution, the House voted down an amendment that would have stopped the Justice Department from bringing such cases. While medical marijuana advocates never thought they would have the votes to bar federal prosecutions, some had predicted that, because of the heightened interest after the Supreme Court's ruling, they would do better than the 264-161 vote they received Wednesday.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said Tuesday that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had been working the issue hard among Democrats and that he felt certain there would 180 or more votes for the amendment to a 2006 Justice Department funding bill.

Still, there was some comfort in Wednesday's vote for medical marijuana advocates. Since 2003 when the chamber took its first vote to bar spending money on federal prosecution of medical marijuana users, the number of members saying no to that idea has dropped by 11.

"We pick up votes each time as we continue to educate the public," said Steve Fox, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This is just a matter of time."

Last week the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that state laws permitting marijuana possession and cultivation by sick persons with a doctor's recommendation are not a bar to federal enforcement of drug laws making the weed.

But in the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high court expressed sympathy for the sick for whom marijuana has been recommended by their doctors. The opinion urged a congressional review of the treatment of marijuana under federal drug laws.

Marijuana is now treated like heroin or other street drugs that are flatly illegal under any circumstances because they are not classified for medical use. Other highly addictive drugs having medical use are classified differently and possession is not illegal if prescribed by a doctor.

In many ways, the debate over medical marijuana reflects a clash of cultures. While many advocates cite studies showing marijuana can be highly effective in treatment the harshest symptoms of cancer, AIDs and other deadly diseases, opponents see the substance as merely a dangerous recreational drug and its medical uses a ruse for its eventual legalization.

Calling it a backdoor attempt to legalize marijuana, Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., said it was "shysters and quacks" that were prescribing it.

"This is a camel's nose under the tent" for legalization, declared Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

But among the key sponsors of the amendment was Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

Rohrabacher said that many drugs are harmful but still have medical benefits when taken under the guidance of a physician.

"Marijuana is no different than that," he said. "Let's not have a power grab by the federal government at the expense of these patients."

Pelosi, D-San Francisco, called the vote "a state's rights issue" because it put the federal prosecution ahead of state laws that in eight instances, including in California, had been voter-approved.

"We must not make criminals out of seriously ill people," she declared.

Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.

Source: SHNS (DC)
Author: David Whitney
Published: June 15, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Script Howard News Service
Website: http://www.shns.com/
Contact: copelandp@shns.com
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20865.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Todd Zwillich, WebMD Medical News
Source: WebMD

Washington, D.C. -- Lawmakers on Wednesday voted down a measure that would have barred the federal government from prosecuting patients who use marijuana under doctor's orders in states with laws that allow the practice. The House vote comes a week after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the federal government may still enforce national antidrug laws in the states allowing medical marijuana use. The decision effectively gave Congress the right to decide how to regulate marijuana, regardless of state laws.

But lawmakers voted 161 to 264 against an amendment that would have barred the Department of Justice from spending any money arresting or prosecuting medical marijuana users. The amendment gained 13 more votes than an identical measure last year.

Medical marijuana supporters have long argued that smoking marijuana can offer relief to patients suffering from chronic pain or cancer, AIDS/HIV patients with severe weight loss, or nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy. In Washington, the debate has largely focused on whether California, Montana, and eight other states with medical marijuana laws have the right to regulate their own medical practices.

"Let's not have a power grab by the federal government at the expense of those poor patients and the right of doctors trying to make these decisions," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California republican and one of the amendment's chief sponsors. The state has allowed patients to use marijuana under a doctor's supervision since 1996.

Medical Marijuana Under Fire

Opponents argued that the measure would open the door to legalizing marijuana by legitimizing it as a medicine.

Several also warned that allowing states to set medication policy would undermine the Food and Drug Administration, which approves new drugs and monitors their safety.

Rep. Mark E. Souder (R-Ind.) attacked claims that marijuana has medicinal use, comparing it to the snake oil sold to unsuspecting consumers in the early 1900s and calling doctors who prescribe it "quacks."

Active Ingredient Already in Other Medications

Marijuana's active ingredient, THC, is already available in an FDA-approved pill used to treat nausea, Souder said. "You isolate the chemicals inside to treat the disease, you do not smoke pot."

"It's seeking to establish a small sliver of marijuana [in federal law]…and eventually be able to legalize this substance," said Rep. Steven King (R-Iowa).

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told lawmakers that marijuana is less toxic than many narcotic drugs already approved for use by American doctors. "This is not a bill to make marijuana generally available and it is not a bill to put it in baby formula," he said.

Wednesday's vote represented its third defeat in as many trips to the House floor in recent years. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) tells WebMD that he will continue offering the amendment to appropriations bills in the coming years.

State Situation Unclear

Despite the measure's rejection and last week's Supreme Court ruling, it remains unclear whether federal drug agencies will now step up raids that so far have been rare.

Just 16 medical marijuana growing operations in legalized states have taken place since 1996, according to the Drug Policy Alliance, a group favoring medical marijuana laws.

Several states, including Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Alabama, are still considering laws allowing marijuana use by certain patients. It remains unclear whether the Supreme Court's decision will hinder the passage of those bills.

The Rhode Island Senate passed a medical marijuana bill on June 7, though New York Senate leaders pulled their support for a bill following last week's ruling, Hinchey said.

SOURCES: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). Rep. Mark E. Souder (R-Ind.). Rep. Steven King (R-Iowa.). Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.).

Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD

Note: Amendment Would Have Barred Feds in 10 states.

Source: WebMD (US)
Author: Todd Zwillich, WebMD Medical News
Published: Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Copyright: 2005 WebMD Inc.
Contact: news@webmd.net
Website: http://www.webmd.com/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20864.shtml