The Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment In a Nutshell

This is a simple description of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment, which proposes to cut off funding for the federal government's prosecution of medical marijuana cases in states that allow medical marijuana. It would be great if people understood what this amendment is and why it matters, and if they encouraged their legislators to support it when it comes around this summer. 

The Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment is named for Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D - NY) and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R - CA). The basic point of the amendment, as Rep. Hinchey describes in this transcript, is to prevent the Justice Department from using federal funds for interfering with the implementation of state laws that allow for the use of medical marijuana under a doctor's supervision. This matters because 12 states have now legalized the use of medical marijuana, but the federal government still treats such use as a crime. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment wouldn't change that. It wouldn't legalize marijuana use at the federal level. It wouldn't prevent the feds from prosecuting the use of marijuana in states that do not approve of medical marijuana. It would simply prevent such prosecutions in states where the voters have approved the medical use of marijuana, essentially letting each state sort this issue out on its own. In a lot of ways, it's a classic example of the American federal system at work: it lets local governments control a local issue, rather than forcing everybody in the entire country to live exactly the same way.

Reps. Hinchey and Rohrabacher have introduced this amendment (which is an amendment to an annual appropriations bill for the DOJ, I believe) for several years, and it has slowly been gaining support. The numbers are:

2003: lost 152 to 273.
2004: lost 148 to 268.
2005: lost 161 to 264.
2006: lost 163 to 259.
2007: lost 165 to 262.

Groups from a wide range of political backgrounds have expressed support for the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment. The group Citizens Against Government Waste, for example, released a report in 2006 calling for the measure's passage as a way for Congress to "start sending a signal that its priorities are in order." The ACLU has called for its passage. Moreover, Americans as a whole support the availability of medical marijuana by at least a 3-to-1 margin.

When the United States Supreme Court ruled against medical marijuana patient Angel Raich in the 2005 cases of Gonzales v. Raich, Justice Stevens wrote for the majority that the issue of medical marijuana was one that might best be addressed in "the halls of Congress." Simply put, the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment is the legislative vehicle that responds to that challenge.   

(If anybody has any suggestions or corrections to this post, please drop a line. I'd like to make sure it's as accurate as possible.)

Comments

[thehim]

Looks good. Do you know when this bill is going to be introduced this year? It was right around this time last year that it came up.

[Alex]

No I don't. I gotta email the offices of H&R to see what the deal is, which I'll do this week since I finally have some free time.

[Yakov Spektor]

Alex, thanks for the description. Honestly, I don't think the amendment will pass - but it's funny how their approach totally avoids all the hot-rod issues - no real change in policy is even contemplated (i just wrote about it actually: http://www.drugpolicycases.com/blog/
)

I just started my blog on drug policy! Check it out - it looks like out interests intercept on a number of issues.

Congratulations on finishing law school. I was done with mine a year ago :)

Sincerely,

-yakov

[Concerned]

Effectively legalizing it would devastate the supply: www.philalawyer.net/archives/the_law_of_diminishing_sacks.phtml That would create the same result the drug war wrongly seeks.

[johnnyweedseed]

The amendment is being voted on now see for yourself: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html
It is an amendment to H.R. 3093 as of 4:20 PM (he he) this amendment has not been voted on.

[johnnyweedseed]

Damn i meant to say the house resolution to which the hinchey amendment is being amended is being voted on now (H.R. 3093)

[brinna]

Since the US. Govt (while claiming cannabis has no medical value) holds a patent on medical pot (#6,630,507) under the auspices of the Dept. of Health and Human Services, (yes you read that right). Don't you think it would be a good idea to forward the information about this patent to each our representatives, so they would feel "OK" about voting yes on the Hinchley/Rohrabacher amendment to protect medical cannabis users from Federal prosecution? I know I am going to do just that.