Here's another quickie tossed off before I hit the sack tonight. When I wake up, I want to read some serious snark and partisanship in the comments . . .
If memory serves me right, the House of Representatives is slated to take up the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment, a bill that would stop John Ashcroft's Justice Department from spending any money to arrest, harrass, or prosecute people who use medical marijuana in states where voters have passed referenda to make it legal, such as California or Colorado.
According to the Drug Policy Alliance
, the bill is bi-partisan, and 152 House members voted for a similar amendment last time around.
Should states' rights prevail here, or do the Feds have an interest in stopping all marijuana trafficking, voter-approved or not? Should Justice be spending millions on enforcement in medical marijuana situations, or do they have better things to do with taxpayer money? This is a very narrow amendment, and we should probably try to stick to the merits of just this one bill. But if you want to go further afield, I suppose you may . . .
Jay Bullock, Iron Blogger Democrat