THE ANTIQUE CANNABIS BOOK Chapter 3 - (2nd Edition) CENSORED MEDICAL STUDIES

HOUSE DEBATE on BARR AMENDMENT to the DC APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
AUGUST 6, 1998
From: Peace through Reason
Subject: More on U.S. Congressional Action on D.C. MMJ Initiative

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
U.S. House of Representatives
August 06, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10:48 P.M. -
Amendment offered by Mr. Barr.
An amendment to prohibit any funds to be used to conduct a ballot initiative which seeks to legalize or reduce the penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act or any tetrahydrocannabinois derivative.

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield two minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who has been a leader in the war against mind-altering drug usage.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, this piece of legislation says that basically the District of Columbia should not and shall not make marijuana a legal substance. Of course, marijuana federally is an illegal substance. This is a Federal district. I think that is just logical.

Let us talk a little bit about what marijuana is and what it does. If we think that kids should not smoke tobacco, then I think it is a logical step that probably we should not make this available for kids or anybody to be smoking marijuana.

A lot of people say marijuana produces no ill-effects to the people that use it. That is a fallacy. We find that marijuana affects motor coordination, reasoning and memory, and marijuana has a much higher level of carcinogens than tobacco.

Some people say marijuana is not a dangerous drug. Let me tell you, a study of patients in shock trauma who have been in automobile accidents found that 15 percent of those who have been in a car or motorcycle accident have been smoking marijuana. Seventeen percent have been smoking both marijuana and drinking. When the City of Memphis, Tennessee, tested all reckless drivers for drugs, it was discovered that 33 percent showed signs of marijuana use.

Now, I think this is just a logical step. If we want a drug-free America, if we want a drug-free workplace, if we want drug-free prisons and drug-free schools and drug-free highways, we probably ought to have a drug-free capital, to say to prohibit the legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia, where millions of our constituents come, year in and year out, day in and day out, week in and week out. They ought to be safe.

We ought to do our best, not just for the safety of the citizens of the District of Columbia, but for the safety of our constituents who come here to visit, to come here to learn, school kids that come through this Capitol, and certainly people who come here to do business, the country's, the Nation's business, day in and day out.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman that offered this amendment what I know the gentleman knows, and that is that this amendment is moot. There are an insufficient number of signatures gathered. The petition was rejected with a statistical level of 95 percent confidence that there were insufficient valid signatures of registered voters for the District as a whole.

I do not need to go into all of this. The conclusion is that the recommendation of the Board of Elections and Ethics is that the initiative measure be rejected, which would have allowed the medical use of marijuana.

So we are not talking about anything of consequence. The District of Columbia voters have voted. This has been rejected. This is the process that should have been pursued, instead of us trying to impose our will on the District of Columbia voters. They have acted as apparently you would like them to act, and, from your perspective, I am sure, have done the right thing.

This is moot, it is extraneous, it is late, and we have no reason to have taken this up. I wish the gentleman had withdrawn the amendment, as we requested.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely amazed by the capacity of this body to debate settled issues. This is the second time that these folks have tried to gather enough signatures for medical marijuana in the District, and this is the second time it has failed.

My staff, in order to keep this from wasting the time of this body, went so far as to wake up the Board of Elections and have verified that there are not enough signatures. The fact that there are not enough signatures for the second time says pretty definitively that the residents of the District of Columbia have decided this issue.

The medical marijuana debate goes on. Anybody trying to do an innovative approach, unproven, I believe undergoing tests, but as yet unproven, and trying to do that in the District of Columbia, must surely know that this Congress is going to strike it down. That is exactly what happened, except the people struck it down first.

I am going to ask Members at 5 minutes to 11 to voice vote this, to consider it moot, so that we can go on with our business.

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it always strikes me as rather odd that people take hours and hours and hours debating amendments, and then, when one comes along that they disagree with, oh, they are so concerned about the Members having to be here.

Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, this is not a moot point. The fact of the matter is that, yes, it appears at this point in time that the signatures on the ballot are wrong and are invalid.

There is time to appeal that, plus the fact, Mr. Chairman, history dictates to us that these drug legalization people do not give up. What they will try and do is they will try and come back again and again and again. Even if the appeal of the invalidity of this ballot referendum is sustained, they will immediately, I am sure, begin the process once again.

All this amendment does is it prevents funds, appropriated funds, from being used in any way to fund a ballot initiative. It strikes not only at the ballot itself, but at using any funds for the development of that ballot, for publicity surrounding that ballot, the whole range of things that these drug legalization people do, over and over and over again.

If the folks on the other side are against legalization of marijuana, I do not understand why they would be opposed to this amendment. This amendment simply says that no monies appropriated under this bill shall be used for ballot initiatives for drug legalization. That includes marijuana. That includes all other Schedule I controlled substances, such as heroin, such as cocaine, such as crack cocaine, and the list goes on and on. That is what we are trying to get at. Oh, but a portion of the passion that they reserve for the tobacco issue would be dedicated to the issue of antidrug efforts, Mr. Chairman.

I would urge my colleagues that this is not a moot point. It is very much alive. This amendment is necessary.

I urge a yes vote on the amendment which will prohibit the use of funds for pro-drug legalization ballot initiatives in any way, shape or form.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

The amendment was agreed to.

BACK TO ADDENDUM B

BACK TO MAIN PAGE