On the recordMay 9, 2012
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rohrabacher-Hinchey- Farr and now McClintock amendment. It is obvious from the votes that we've been casting here, yesterday and tonight, this afternoon, that this body insists on protecting the rights of States to define marriage. This body insists on protecting the rights of States to set abortion policies. This body insists on protecting rights of the States to determine education curricula and standards. Just yesterday this body decided that certain States get to enforce Federal immigration laws however they see fit. But when it comes to protecting the rights of States to set medical scope of practice laws, this body balks. All of a sudden States no longer have the right to determine what is best for their citizens and when those rights include medical marijuana. The Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Farr-McClintock amendment doesn't change Federal law. It doesn't change drug policy. However, it does protect States' rights. {time} 1940 For those of you who come from States that do not have medical marijuana laws, nothing in this amendment will impact your States. Everything in your States remains exactly status quo. For those of you who come from States that do have medical marijuana laws, which means the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, which is my own State--it's interesting what we have done in California. We've decriminalized the possession of medical marijuana. It's an infraction, not a felony.…





