9:01 PM EDT

John Calvin Fleming Jr., R-LA 4th

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Wolf.

Look, first of all, let's be clear, marijuana is an addicting substance. It is [Page: H4985]

schedule I, it is against Federal law, it was passed that way into the CSA in 1970.

What this amendment would do is, it wouldn't change the law, it would just make it difficult, if not impossible, for the DEA and the Department of Justice to enforce the law.

Members on my side have been criticizing President Obama for selective enforcement of ObamaCare and for immigration and other laws like that. So now we are going to start going down the road of selective enforcement for our drug policy.

Medicinal marijuana, what is it exactly? Folks, I can tell you it is nothing more than the end run around the laws against the legalization of marijuana. There is nothing medical or medicinal about it. It is not accepted by physicians. Oh, somebody claims it may do something for glaucoma, perhaps. Well, maybe it will, maybe it won't. But there are a lot more drugs that do a much better job than that and they are much safer.

But the most important thing I want everybody to know, Mr. Chairman, today is the fact that marijuana is highly addicting. It is the most common diagnosis for addiction in admissions to rehab centers for young people. Why in the world do we want to take away drug enforcement and leave our young people out there vulnerable? Yes, you say it can only be used by adults. Well, if it is sitting around on shelves at home the kids are going to get into it. We are already hearing about Colorado fourth-graders

dealing with it. We hear about more poisonings in the emergency room.

If you look at other places that have gone down this road like Alaska, they retracted from their legalization. So I don't think we should accept at all that this is history in the making and that we are never going to go back. You look at Amsterdam, they put a lot more restrictions back in the control even in that very, very liberal nation.

So for that and many reasons I would just say tonight from a legal standpoint this amendment would not be constitutional. Our laws are currently constitutional, as found so in 2005 by the Supreme Court. And this is an extremely dangerous drug for our children and future adults and future generations.

9:01 PM EDT

John Calvin Fleming Jr., R-LA 4th

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Wolf.

Look, first of all, let's be clear, marijuana is an addicting substance. It is [Page: H4985]

schedule I, it is against Federal law, it was passed that way into the CSA in 1970.

What this amendment would do is, it wouldn't change the law, it would just make it difficult, if not impossible, for the DEA and the Department of Justice to enforce the law.

Members on my side have been criticizing President Obama for selective enforcement of ObamaCare and for immigration and other laws like that. So now we are going to start going down the road of selective enforcement for our drug policy.

Medicinal marijuana, what is it exactly? Folks, I can tell you it is nothing more than the end run around the laws against the legalization of marijuana. There is nothing medical or medicinal about it. It is not accepted by physicians. Oh, somebody claims it may do something for glaucoma, perhaps. Well, maybe it will, maybe it won't. But there are a lot more drugs that do a much better job than that and they are much safer.

But the most important thing I want everybody to know, Mr. Chairman, today is the fact that marijuana is highly addicting. It is the most common diagnosis for addiction in admissions to rehab centers for young people. Why in the world do we want to take away drug enforcement and leave our young people out there vulnerable? Yes, you say it can only be used by adults. Well, if it is sitting around on shelves at home the kids are going to get into it. We are already hearing about Colorado fourth-graders

dealing with it. We hear about more poisonings in the emergency room.

If you look at other places that have gone down this road like Alaska, they retracted from their legalization. So I don't think we should accept at all that this is history in the making and that we are never going to go back. You look at Amsterdam, they put a lot more restrictions back in the control even in that very, very liberal nation.

So for that and many reasons I would just say tonight from a legal standpoint this amendment would not be constitutional. Our laws are currently constitutional, as found so in 2005 by the Supreme Court. And this is an extremely dangerous drug for our children and future adults and future generations.

9:01 PM EDT

John Calvin Fleming Jr., R-LA 4th

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Wolf.

Look, first of all, let's be clear, marijuana is an addicting substance. It is [Page: H4985]

schedule I, it is against Federal law, it was passed that way into the CSA in 1970.

What this amendment would do is, it wouldn't change the law, it would just make it difficult, if not impossible, for the DEA and the Department of Justice to enforce the law.

Members on my side have been criticizing President Obama for selective enforcement of ObamaCare and for immigration and other laws like that. So now we are going to start going down the road of selective enforcement for our drug policy.

Medicinal marijuana, what is it exactly? Folks, I can tell you it is nothing more than the end run around the laws against the legalization of marijuana. There is nothing medical or medicinal about it. It is not accepted by physicians. Oh, somebody claims it may do something for glaucoma, perhaps. Well, maybe it will, maybe it won't. But there are a lot more drugs that do a much better job than that and they are much safer.

But the most important thing I want everybody to know, Mr. Chairman, today is the fact that marijuana is highly addicting. It is the most common diagnosis for addiction in admissions to rehab centers for young people. Why in the world do we want to take away drug enforcement and leave our young people out there vulnerable? Yes, you say it can only be used by adults. Well, if it is sitting around on shelves at home the kids are going to get into it. We are already hearing about Colorado fourth-graders

dealing with it. We hear about more poisonings in the emergency room.

If you look at other places that have gone down this road like Alaska, they retracted from their legalization. So I don't think we should accept at all that this is history in the making and that we are never going to go back. You look at Amsterdam, they put a lot more restrictions back in the control even in that very, very liberal nation.

So for that and many reasons I would just say tonight from a legal standpoint this amendment would not be constitutional. Our laws are currently constitutional, as found so in 2005 by the Supreme Court. And this is an extremely dangerous drug for our children and future adults and future generations.

9:04 PM EDT

Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA 48th

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is the most incredible debate we have had. Over half the States have already gone through every argument that was presented and decided against what you just heard. There are doctors at every one of those States that participated in a long debate over this and found exactly the opposite of what we have heard today.

Some people are suffering and if a doctor feels that he needs to prescribe something to alleviate that suffering, it is immoral for this government to get in the way, and that is what is happening. The State governments have recognized that a doctor has a right to treat his patient any way he sees fit, and so did our Founding Fathers.

I ask for support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

9:04 PM EDT

Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA 48th

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is the most incredible debate we have had. Over half the States have already gone through every argument that was presented and decided against what you just heard. There are doctors at every one of those States that participated in a long debate over this and found exactly the opposite of what we have heard today.

Some people are suffering and if a doctor feels that he needs to prescribe something to alleviate that suffering, it is immoral for this government to get in the way, and that is what is happening. The State governments have recognized that a doctor has a right to treat his patient any way he sees fit, and so did our Founding Fathers.

I ask for support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

9:04 PM EDT

Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA 48th

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is the most incredible debate we have had. Over half the States have already gone through every argument that was presented and decided against what you just heard. There are doctors at every one of those States that participated in a long debate over this and found exactly the opposite of what we have heard today.

Some people are suffering and if a doctor feels that he needs to prescribe something to alleviate that suffering, it is immoral for this government to get in the way, and that is what is happening. The State governments have recognized that a doctor has a right to treat his patient any way he sees fit, and so did our Founding Fathers.

I ask for support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.