Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pelosi: Use of Medicinal Marijuana Should Be Left to States
U.S. NewsWire ^

Posted on 06/15/2005 5:32:52 PM PDT by Sub-Driver

Pelosi: Use of Medicinal Marijuana Should Be Left to States

6/15/2005 4:25:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Brendan Daly or Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616, both of the Office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Web: http://democraticleader.house.gov

WASHINGTON, June 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke today on the House floor in favor of an amendment offered by Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) that would permit the use of medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. Below are her remarks:

"Mr. Speaker, this amendment is especially timely, coming on the heels of the Supreme Court decision last week in Gonzales v. Raich. The Court's decision makes clear that federal regulatory and statutory changes are needed, and I strongly support Mr. Frank's proposed legislation that would change federal law to permit medical marijuana, pursuant to state law.

"My colleagues, make sure you know that what we are talking about here is in regard to states passing their own laws or initiatives. What would happen with this initiative, which is needed because we don't have a federal law to respect states rights specifically in terms of medicinal marijuana, is necessary because it would prohibit the Justice Department from spending any funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. It would leave to the discretion of the states how they would alleviate suffering of their citizens. This is a states' rights issue.

(Excerpt) Read more at releases.usnewswire.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
i think she's smoking something.....

Anyway pls call Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616 and let Miss Pelosi know our thoughts......

1 posted on 06/15/2005 5:32:52 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Sure now the Dimwits want states rights, selectively of course.


2 posted on 06/15/2005 5:34:32 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Probably the only thing in the world I would agree with her on.

And no I'm not "Smoking Something".


3 posted on 06/15/2005 5:34:52 PM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

So now she's a state's righter...


4 posted on 06/15/2005 5:35:00 PM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Even a stopped clock...


5 posted on 06/15/2005 5:37:25 PM PDT by thoughtomator (The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
"Probably the only thing in the world I would agree with her on."

I felt the same fur ball in my throat; however, some of us arrive at the same conclusion for very different reasons and from widely divergent paths....

6 posted on 06/15/2005 5:37:52 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I agree. But I don't for a second really think she even cares. The rats are so desperate for an issue, they'll try anything... afterall it's not like supporting weed smoking is a bold move where she comes from.


7 posted on 06/15/2005 5:39:29 PM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

No, she's just a fan of drug culture.


8 posted on 06/15/2005 5:40:50 PM PDT by SteveMcKing (What happens in Vegas -- stays on your record.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Pelosi: Use of Medicinal Marijuana Should Be Left to States

So should abortion.

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Total Abortions since 1973

46,023,191

------------------------------------------------------------

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

9 posted on 06/15/2005 5:40:50 PM PDT by TigersEye (Are your parents pro-choice? I guess you got lucky! ... Is your spouse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

I know the feeling. After being in agreement with her I had the urge to go take a shower.


10 posted on 06/15/2005 5:41:04 PM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I can't bring myself to cheer for Nancy Lugosi, so how about rooting for the legislation's sponsor: Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)?


11 posted on 06/15/2005 5:41:43 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I care less about what Pelosi says than what she does. Her opinions are predictable, her politics are opposit and her credibility is crap. Disgusting is too complimentary for her.


12 posted on 06/15/2005 5:44:30 PM PDT by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
"After being in agreement with her I had the urge to go take a shower."

You had an urge to shower with Pelosi?

13 posted on 06/15/2005 5:45:05 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

For once, she's right.


14 posted on 06/15/2005 5:46:28 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

LOL! Damn.


15 posted on 06/15/2005 5:48:53 PM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
For conjuring such a disturbing image you shall be harshly rebuked by the Minister of Disturbing Images...(a Pelosi constituent himself, to be sure)


16 posted on 06/15/2005 5:53:57 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

LOL! I just got done eating dinner!!!!!!!

The Minister of Disturbing Images is a truly wicked man!!!!


17 posted on 06/15/2005 6:00:10 PM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Sounds fine to me, Mz. Pelosi. Why don't you and the CA Dems simply halt all funds incoming from the Feds and return all funds covering welfare, education, medical/medicare, traffic, foody subsidies, WIC, HHD to the Feds. THEN you can have legal pot in CA.


18 posted on 06/15/2005 6:00:57 PM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Marijuana= Should

Sodomy=should not


19 posted on 06/15/2005 6:24:57 PM PDT by Ramonan (Honor does not go out of style.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Hell must have froze over

I agree with her

20 posted on 06/15/2005 6:26:55 PM PDT by Popman (In politics, ideas are more important than individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popman

I sense a disturbance in the Force.


21 posted on 06/15/2005 6:30:33 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

1st, Last, and Only time I will agree with her. Yech...


22 posted on 06/15/2005 6:32:09 PM PDT by America_Right (I serve the cause of freedom. What do you do? -SECDEF Heller from "24")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For the rats who don't recognize these words, they are the tenth amendment, Ms. Pelosi. You obstructionist rats should use it to help overrule the Supreme Court ruling Willard v Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942). That case is what the USSC used to deny Cali's law and extend the gov't expand it's power unconstitutionally.

23 posted on 06/15/2005 6:32:14 PM PDT by ol' hoghead (never, ever go to "FREECREDITREPORT.COM. Trust me on this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alia
According to the current Governor of California, California is paying more into the Fed then it is receiving. I believe what he said was that if elected, he would not only be known as the "Terminator", but as the "Collectinator".

So, who's really on the receiving end here?
24 posted on 06/15/2005 6:33:32 PM PDT by planekT (Go DeLay, Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: planekT
No, no -- you are right about the funds. Last I saw for every dollar sent to DC (from CA), CA got, 11 cents back.

However, other rules do apply. For example, private schools. If they receive one penny of fed money? They have to enact the host of Federal rules. Like quotas, etc. So, a CA med-pot smoker, for example, shouldn't be receiving any type of fed subsidy; to be in compliance with both sets of law, state and fed, as they currently exist.

Or so I've read.

25 posted on 06/15/2005 6:38:43 PM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Pelosi? I knew that if I lived long enough I would agree with her on some issue and it finally happened. Right answer -- actual rational concepts ... but a states rights argument from that socialist?

I do side with Justices Thomas [bravo], Rehnquist and O'Connor and ... [yikes] Pelosi on this one.

Interstate commerce isn't every conceivable item that might somehow enter the stream of commerce or cause some other widget not to be enter the steam of interstate commerce. Either the Constitution has a meaning or it doesn't. Scalia and the liberal block voted to "preserve" Federal powers that by the Tenth Amendment do not exist.

26 posted on 06/15/2005 6:41:59 PM PDT by R W Reactionairy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Archon of the East
If our fine conservative SCOTUS and legislators would get their heads out for one minute, they would recognize that the only constitutional method of controlling mary jane is to class it as a legal medication THEN control the crap put of it under the interstate commerce clause via the FDA. Instead we get the liberal "legislation by fiat."
27 posted on 06/15/2005 6:47:53 PM PDT by shawnlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
This is a states' rights issue.
Simply amazing. I didn't know Democrats recognized such things. They have been so pro "centralized government" for so many years I'm actually dumbfounded. And from Pelosi of all people.
28 posted on 06/15/2005 6:48:20 PM PDT by philman_36 ("Itís a legal document, and legal documents do not change." Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
This is a staple of the far left, love of illegal drugs.

If you read the enemy over at DU now and then or the few junkies that post on FR, you'd see this is classic stuff and not unexpected. Maybe she is going after the libertarian vote again.
29 posted on 06/15/2005 6:53:18 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Thanks for that (sad) info and stats. Can I ask where they come from, so I can use these as well, with the source identified and validated.

Thanks in advance.

30 posted on 06/15/2005 6:54:09 PM PDT by NewLand (Faith in The Lord trumps all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NewLand

Each section of information is linked to the source I got it from. The table is from The National Center for Health Statistics (as noted at the bottom of it) but I took it from the linked website. Please spread it far and wide. ; )


31 posted on 06/15/2005 7:06:45 PM PDT by TigersEye (It's a Republic if you can keep it! - B. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Here's a link to the far left's love and defense of illegal drugs.
Autie Pinko! LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/auntie/02/68.html


32 posted on 06/15/2005 7:08:33 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shawnlaw
Instead we get the liberal "legislation by fiat."

I've posted this statement before but it describes how I feel, Justice Scalia's decision was dagger through the heart of hope to a return of Limited Govt. You know I'm not for legalizing the stuff at some point I do honestly believe that Conservatives are going to have to take a "slightly" more Libertarian view of things if we want to actually reverse course. I may be wrong but I come to that conclusion and see it as necessary.

33 posted on 06/15/2005 7:11:11 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Archon of the East
Conservatives are going to have to take a "slightly" more Libertarian view of things ...

Anything to avoid taking a Constitutional view of things. /sarcasm

You don't have to be a Libertarian to take note that Federal drug laws are unConstitutional.

34 posted on 06/15/2005 7:18:41 PM PDT by TigersEye (It's a Republic if you can keep it! - B. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alia
So this would seem to beg the question, how much money was California receiving from the Feds to subsidize Medical Marijuana?

This wasn't about Federal Medical Marijuana Subsidies (which I'm guessing do not exist). This was about California (and a dozen other States) who went against Federal policy on the issue.

It really didn't concern them all that much as far as I can tell. Look, you've got a bunch of States who think that sick folk who benefit from MJ should not be punished for treating their own illness. Is it part of a bigger push to legalize MJ? Probably, yes. But the Fed isn't having anything of it, even though they endorse legal alcohol, which has killed a lot of people.

It's a sad joke really. If a few hippies stand up and say pot is great, well, that's one thing. But when a dozen states say it probably is beneficial to some patients, well, that is quite another.

You can't compare the consensus of a dozen States to the lone hippie who wants it legalized for recreational use. There was more to it then that.

IMO, I wouldn't doubt that it does help patients with nausea and vomiting, as well as increasing appetite. Your mileage may vary. It made my brother puke his guts out. I never experienced that with it though.

Shouldn't it be left to the individual though? Who are they harming? It's a far stretch to say that they are going to effect Federal Commerce by growing a plant and smoking it for their own private medicinal purposes, as the Supreme Court has surmised.

To me the dumbest thing is to even worry about it (a virtually unenforceable law). If you're sick, need pot to help, good grief, buy some and smoke it and keep quiet about it. Why would you insist on the stamp of approval from Government? They will just make it cost more in the long run.
35 posted on 06/15/2005 7:40:22 PM PDT by planekT (Go DeLay, Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; Archon of the East
Archon Wrote: "Conservatives are going to have to take a "slightly" more Libertarian view of things ..."

TigersEye responded "Anything to avoid taking a Constitutional view of things. /sarcasm

Libertarianism is compatible the Constitution. The currently practice form of conservatism is not. Read the Tenth Amendment. Recognize that in spite of such things as the earlier Harrison Act it was considered necessary to pass a constitutional amendment --- not just a friggin Federal Law -- to outlaw booze on a federal level.

36 posted on 06/15/2005 7:44:04 PM PDT by R W Reactionairy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Alia
Sounds fine to me, Mz. Pelosi. Why don't you and the CA Dems simply halt all funds incoming from the Feds and return all funds covering welfare, education, medical/medicare, traffic, foody subsidies, WIC, HHD to the Feds. THEN you can have legal pot in CA.

Nah. Let California have medical marijuana if they want. We get to keep the Maadi-Griffins.

37 posted on 06/15/2005 7:48:54 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Popman

"Hell must have froze over
I agree with her"


This is the second time hell froze over this year for me. First time was another winter in Interior Alaska, second time is I agree with )@%#$%*@)#$(%* Pelosi on this one. Yikes!


38 posted on 06/15/2005 7:48:58 PM PDT by Chena (I'm not young enough to know everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

If pelosi were serious she would simply remove the word medical and say "recreational".


39 posted on 06/15/2005 7:50:22 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alia
I missed your whole point maybe in my post. Sorry. I see where you're coming from. Either the States abide by all the Fed rules or they don't.

But that would kind of make a moot point of powers reserved for the States wouldn't it?

Constitutionally, I think that the Fed's rights are actually quite limited. The States can do what they want, but it does have to be within the realm of the Constitution.

Maybe we need to stop and think about that. The Fed and the States are both bound by the Constitution. Outside of the Constitution however, I don't believe that the States are limited to law passed by the Feds, if indeed, it is not a power given to them under the Constitution. So, does the Federal Government have the Constitutional authority to impose whatever it wants to? Obviously not, or else no powers would have been accorded to the States in the Constitution.
40 posted on 06/15/2005 7:51:11 PM PDT by planekT (Go DeLay, Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: planekT; Alia
"I missed your whole point maybe in my post. Sorry. I see where you're coming from. Either the States abide by all the Fed rules or they don't.

But that would kind of make a moot point of powers reserved for the States wouldn't it?

... and what do Federal subsidies have to do with a Federal Government that adheres to the Constitution? Government giveaways and other miscellaneous wealth transfer schemes have nothing to do "promoting the general welfare."

41 posted on 06/15/2005 8:00:49 PM PDT by R W Reactionairy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: R W Reactionairy

Could you expand a bit on that please? I'm listening.


42 posted on 06/15/2005 8:03:06 PM PDT by planekT (Go DeLay, Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: planekT

Let me guess. There are no Federal Subsidies allowed in the Constitution.


43 posted on 06/15/2005 8:08:27 PM PDT by planekT (Go DeLay, Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ol' hoghead
Willard v Filburn

That's Wickard.

44 posted on 06/15/2005 8:13:48 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: planekT
The term "general welfare" as used in the Preamble does not equate to enhancing the economic condition of a any one individual. To transfer wealth makes one man richer, but the country as a whole is no better off -- the wealth has merely been reshuffled -- actually the overall economic situation is somewhat worse as otherwise productive resources must be devoted to coercing and administering the transfer. Not really profound, but that is where I was coming from.
45 posted on 06/15/2005 8:17:40 PM PDT by R W Reactionairy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I'm willing to give her that one. If states rights apply to marijuana, then states rights apply to abortion, labor unions, marriage, and everything else save the enumerated powers of the Congress and Administration. I'm in on that; what say you Leader Pelosi?


46 posted on 06/15/2005 8:20:01 PM PDT by jimfree (Freep and ye shall find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R W Reactionairy
Actually I think that that is very profound. It is a law of economics. Aside from the drain incurred in the transfer, resources are allocated to where some men think they shoud be, rather then where the market would place them.

There was a terrific post here a while back recounting Davy Crockett's' encounter with one Farmer Munz, (did I get that right? I'd be lucky if I did, but generally this was the story) who explained to Davy that his allocation of funds to a town stricken by a fire were unconstitutional.

Davy agreed, and gained the support of this farmer and his constituents and was re-elected. Unfortunately today, this farmers well grounded argument would probably seem absurd to every elected official in office. Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to tax and redistribute wealth? I believe that it was started with the need to recruit troops and fund our own defense against the British. But it has grown way, way, outside of that original purpose to include practically anything.
47 posted on 06/15/2005 8:48:26 PM PDT by planekT (Go DeLay, Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: R W Reactionairy
... and what do Federal subsidies have to do with a Federal Government that adheres to the Constitution? Government giveaways and other miscellaneous wealth transfer schemes have nothing to do "promoting the general welfare."

...and the states don't ask for subsidies?

48 posted on 06/16/2005 2:26:23 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: R W Reactionairy; planekT
R.W. Reactionairy is right. (And please ignore post 48: It was in response to planeKT; not asking Mod to delete my error in posting.)

Back to it: If the states continues to ask for pork (for their states) and the feds supply said monies, well, in sum -- There's no such thing as a free lunch: There are strings attached.

49 posted on 06/16/2005 2:33:45 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

She's right. But then, even a broken clock....


50 posted on 06/16/2005 2:35:45 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopeckne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson