Loading

Congress: House Members Re-Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Prevent Federal Prosecutions Of State-Compliant Marijuana Consumers, Businesses

  • by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director April 27, 2015

    CongressCalifornia Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, along with five other Republicans and six Democrats, has reintroduced legislation to prevent the federal government from criminally prosecuting individuals and/or businesses who are engaging in state-sanctioned activities specific to marijuana.

    HR 1094 states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this subchapter related to marihuana shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws relating to the production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.”

    Representative Rohrabacher sponsored a budgetary amendment last year to limit federal interference in states with marijuana regulation schemes. (That provision expires this fall.) However, the Department of Justice has recently claimed that the law does not prevent the government sanctioning individuals or businesses in states where marijuana is legal.

    “The American people … have made it clear that federal enforcers should stay out of their personal lives,” Rohrabacher said in a statement upon the bill’s reintroduction late last week. “It’s time for restraint of the federal government’s over-aggressive weed warriors.”

    According to national survey data released today by Fox News, 51 percent of registered voters say that they favor “legalizing marijuana.” The figure is an increase of five percentage points since Fox pollsters asked the question in 2013. It is the first time that a majority of respondents have favored legalization in a Fox News sponsored poll. The poll is the latest in a series of national surveys showing majority support for legalizing and regulating marijuana

    To learn more about HR 1940, or to contact your elected officials in support of this or other pending legislation, please visit NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here.

    39 Responses to “Congress: House Members Re-Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Prevent Federal Prosecutions Of State-Compliant Marijuana Consumers, Businesses”

    1. regan mulvey says:

      FOR THE PEOPLE ; BY THE PEOPLE = LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE.THEY’RE SPEAKING VERY CLEARLY.WE DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT~THEY’VE DONE ENOUGH DAMAGE!!! THE TIME HAS COME FOR ” THE TOTAL LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA “…

    2. Ben says:

      The complexities of proper wording and appropriate interaction of multiplexed laws, (end results of complex layers of policy),
      require writing it in form such as this,
      but… does this not open the door for alternate laws to intrude upon this ~’freedom’?


      HR 1094 states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this subchapter related to marihuana shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws relating to the production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.”

    3. Julian says:

      Clearly, The recent Federal Court prosecution (and appeal) of 7 men in the North Eastern District of California after passing budgetary amendments has even Republicans all riled up
      “Weed warriors” ay? And so the tough get tougher.. But did Congress really believe that the DOJ, specifically the DEA, wouldnt come up with the funding when they’ve been writing the DOJ a blank check for 45 years, gave the DOJ the unconstitutional authority to write drug policy creating asset firfeitures world wide and allowed propaganda abominations like Fox news to exist?

      Seriously, though, I think that’s great that Fox news caught up to what the rest of us already know. That they painted themselves into a corner of self-serving prohibitionist corner-of-shame and had no other recourse but to tell the truth… As best as Fox news can do…
      Oh no! But where will we get our fix of racist diatribe of contrived news advertising, marijuana lies and propaganda? Aaaaah wait… There’s still Congress…
      Prove me wrong Congress… Please prove me wrong.

    4. Galileo Galilei says:

      I’d be interested in the names of the other 5 Republicans and 6 Democrats. I didn’t see that info anywhere when I quickly inspected the links.

      Presumably Jarid Polis of Colorado and that bow-tied guy from Washington state are among them. Persumably Diane Feinstein and Grassman are not.

    5. TheOracle says:

      This legislation really needs to become law. The spelling marihuana seems to me to be kowtowing to the international prohibitionist’s world organization, the UN. I just want cannabis out of the schedule completely. I don’t want medical cannabis in its naturally derived form to be in any kind of a Schedule, however synthetic drugs, pharmaceuticals Big Pharma will peddle in pills, capsules, sprays, whatever can be in a Schedule for all I care. Not cannabis, not the plant, not the buds or what you can make from the buds, concentrates not in a schedule either.

      Which US government official has to petition the UN Secretary General to remove cannabis from the UN/WHO and all international schedules so that signatories to the Convention on Narcotics 1961 treaty don’t have to withdraw or rework it. A small group of UN people simply remove cannabis from their schedule, least number of people get the job done rather than inconveniencing every nation on the planet.

      I want to see progress on the removal internationally. When is that date at the UN? Before they meet again and we have to wait for the next window, next scheduled meeting which may not be for years.

      What has to happen between now and then to make it happen at the very next meeting?

    6. TheOracle says:

      I just read about Vancouver on The Cannabist site, and without the US leading the way by passing this legislation, how will Canada deal with cannabis banking and cannabis taxes? Have they already solved that problem?

      What will Canada do if the US doesn’t pass this, and goes ahead with regulation? What will Canada do if the US passes this into law, something even more expansive and pro-legalization?

    7. a non e-moose says:

      Everyone is listed on the govtrack link:
      11 cosponsors (6D, 5R) (show)
      Amash, Justin [R-MI3]
      (joined Apr 22, 2015)
      Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR3]
      (joined Apr 22, 2015)
      Cohen, Steve [D-TN9]
      (joined Apr 22, 2015)
      Hunter, Duncan [R-CA50]
      (joined Apr 22, 2015)
      Massie, Thomas [R-KY4]
      (joined Apr 22, 2015)
      McClintock, Tom [R-CA4]
      (joined Apr 22, 2015)
      Pocan, Mark [D-WI2]
      (joined Apr 22, 2015)
      Polis, Jared [D-CO2]
      (joined Apr 22, 2015)
      Schakowsky, Janice “Jan” [D-IL9]
      (joined Apr 22, 2015)
      Titus, Dina [D-NV1]
      (joined Apr 22, 2015)
      Young, Don [R-AK0]
      (joined Apr 22, 2015)

    8. YearofAction says:

      From the article:

      HR 1094 states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this subchapter related to marihuana shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws relating to the production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.”

      vs.

      According to national survey data released today by Fox News, 51 percent of registered voters say that they favor “legalizing
      marijuana.”

      The disconnect is right there in these two statements. The government wants to entrench their definition of “marihuana”, but the people want to legalize “marijuana”.

      It would be better to reform the definition of “marihuana” to make it conform to our Constitution by eliminating its riddled form and racist spelling, then follow that by rescheduling marijuana.

      The current definition contemptuously flouts the Necessary and Proper clause, as well as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, all of which are satisfied by this commonsense definition:

      The term “marijuana” means all parts of the smoke produced by the combustion of the plant Cannabis sativa L.

      This year is a good time to fix the definition of marijuana.

    9. Bob Constantine says:

      So when the Feds get tossed aside (and they should), why is it any better that a state can determine what and how much a free person can choose to consume?

      Anybody?

      Free people don’t need permission to use their own bodies, but slaves do.

    10. Galileo Galilei says:

      @a non e-mouse
      Thanks for the info

      I can’t figure out which link is the ‘govtrack link’, I’d like to be able to follow this info.

    Leave a Reply