Medical Marijuana: Contact Your Legislator Today

The Hinchey-Rohrabaher Amendment will probably hit the house floor later today or tomorrow. Now is the time to contact your legislator. Additional information and contact information is available here.

Update: The amendment failed, but it picked up new votes.

Stephen Gordon

I like tasteful cigars, private property, American whiskey, fast cars, hot women, pre-bailout Jeeps, fine dining, worthwhile literature, low taxes, original music, personal privacy and self-defense rights -- but not necessarily in this order.

  1. “If passed, the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment to the Science-State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill will bar federal funds from being used to the medical marijuana laws now in effect in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.”

    I have to be honest, I have no idea what that means. Do they mean it will bar federal funds from being used to enforce medical marijuana laws? This is just worded extremely weird and I can’t seem to tell what it does, and whether they are for or against it. I would appreciate it if anyone could clarify that for me.

  2. Paul — it states that federal funds would no longer be allocutable by the states towards funding medical marijuana for patients. In essence, if I understand correctly, this means another nail in the coffin of the legitimacy of medical marijuana.

  3. Not even close Ian. Here is blurb from the MPP:

    The bipartisan Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment would prohibit the U.S. Department of Justice — which includes the DEA — from spending taxpayer money to arrest or prosecute medical marijuana patients in the 11 states where medical marijuana is legal.

    Methinks that is a good thing.

  4. IanC, Stephen’s wording is terribly confusing, but the amendment would forbid the U.S. Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from spending any federal tax dollars to target and prosecute patients who possess or use medicinal cannabis in compliance with their state laws.

  5. I wrote my areas senator and representative. Seems like a good plan, with absolutely no chance in hell of passing.

  6. I stand chastised and corrected. That’s what I get for making assumptions at work with limited time to read things!

    Well, at least I’m glad I spread this ’round to my co-workers whom probably *WILL* read it… heheh.

  7. I’m even gladder that when I sent them the link I just told them to make their own conclusions! Makes me look a heckuvalot smarter. >:)

  8. I sent one yesterday. It’s quite unfortunate my representation is none other than Cynthia McKinney, but at east she’ll be a solid pro-medicinal vote.

  9. To my mind, “medical marijuana” legalization is like “concealed carry” – hypocritical incrementalism that implicitly recognizes the morality and legality of regulation by the State. The ultimate effect is to further undermine Liberty and those who would enjoy it.


  10. BMD,

    Medical marijuana laws allow for a large segment of the population to be safe from state prosecution for the use of marijuana. The ultimate effect is to bring us closer to complete legalization. Look at California. There are over 200 “compassion clubs” that sell marijuana legally under state law. Similar to the sitation in Holland in the ’70s, cannabis retailers are gaining respectability and are getting more mainstream. I see medical marijuana laws as very pro-Liberty and are helping to bring about the end of marijuana prohibition.