President Clinton has just surrendered in America's war against drugs. I'm deeply disturbed by this veto, and every parent, teacher and police officer should be, too. His veto throws away all the good things this bill does: help D.C. kids go to college, get foster kids into permanent homes, clean up the foul Anacostia River, crack down on drug offenders, and reduce the size of D.C.'s bloated government. And for what? I'm appalled that the President of the United States would throw away all these good things just to support legalizing marijuana. This is about legalizing drugs in the nation's capital, and using that as a stepping-stone for the rest of the country. Nobody should be fooled by the pretense that this is a medical issue. That's a smoke screen. Anyone who reads D.C.'s proposed new law knows: It wouldn't even require an actual doctor's prescription. People who claim they have approval to use marijuana are allowed to authorize their friends to grow and keep it for them. It even requires government to provide the marijuana in some cases, at taxpayers' expense. It's wide-open for abuse. It conflicts with our national law making marijuana illegal. It's also a smokescreen for the President to pretend this is about local control. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) puts Congress in charge of the laws in D.C. Furthermore, the items of which the President complains were all approved by him in last year's bill. They are not new.
Ernest Istook: “President Clinton has just surrendered in America's war against drugs. I'm deeply disturbed by this veto, and every…”
Editor's note · Context
Criticizing President Clinton's veto of a bill related to drug policy and local governance in D.C.
Share
More from Ernest Istook
although I have, frankly, a great amount of sympathy for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and I think there is a need for us to do something regarding the accounts of former Presidents, I do not believe…
I support the shifting of funds, and I appreciate the cooperation of Members toward this effort, knowing that it is all part of that interrelated Bay Area system as well.
Mr. Chairman, of course the effect of the point of order raised is to take the money that was in the bill, $900 million, the amount requested by the administration for Amtrak, and to remove it. I regret that the people who are staunch…
Despite my great sympathy for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), I cannot support it. This particular bill, were it subjected to across-the-board cuts, would find that we have significant cuts and reduction…





