[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 132 (Monday, October 4, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11881-S11882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. VOINOVICH:
  S.J. Res. 35. A joint resolution disapproving the Legalization of 
Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, pursuant to the order of section 602 of the 
District of Columbia Home Rule Act.


   disapproving the legalization of marijuana for medical treatment 
                           initiative of 1998

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint 
resolution that will prevent the implementation of an initiative in the 
District of Columbia that would allow the use of marijuana for medical 
treatment.
  As many of my colleagues know, the voters of the District of Columbia 
passed a ballot initiative--Initiative 59--last November that would 
legalize marijuana use for ``medicinal'' purposes.
  Supported by the Mayor and many elected officials in the District, 
Initiative 59 would permit marijuana use as a treatment for serious 
illness including ``HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasms, and cancer.''
  Because physicians are not allowed to prescribe marijuana under 
federal law, Initiative 59 would allow individuals to use marijuana 
based on a doctor's ``written or oral recommendation.'' The initiative 
would also allow the designation of up to four ``caregivers'' who would 
be able to cultivate, distribute and possess marijuana for the purpose 
of supplying an individual with marijuana for medicinal purposes.
  Proponents of the D.C. initiative, and similar initiatives elsewhere 
in the country, have argued that marijuana is the only way that 
individuals can cope with the effects of chemotherapy and AIDS 
treatments.
  However, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 
individuals who are using marijuana for AIDS, cancer or glaucoma may 
actually be doing damage to themselves:

       AIDS: Scientific studies indicate marijuana damages the 
     immune system, causing further peril to already weakened 
     immune systems. HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to 
     full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers and have an 
     increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia.
       Cancer: Marijuana contains many cancer-causing substances, 
     many of which are present in higher concentrations in 
     marijuana than in tobacco.
       Glaucoma: Marijuana does not prevent blindness due to 
     glaucoma.

  In addition, Dr. Donald R. Vereen, Jr., Deputy Director of the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy (commonly referred to as the office of 
the ``Drug Czar''), in an article titled, ``Is Medical Marijuana an 
Oxymoron?'' and printed in Physicians Weekly on February 1, 1999, 
stated:

       No medical research has shown smoked marijuana to be safe, 
     effective, or therapeutically superior to other substances. 
     Synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary 
     psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, has been available for 
     fifteen years in pill form (Marinol) to treat HIV Wasting 
     Syndrome and chemotherapy-induced nausea. A legal drug, 
     Marinol is the real ``medical marijuana.'' It is available in 
     measured doses and guaranteed purity without the adverse 
     side-effects of smoking tars, hydrocarbons, and other 
     combustibles. Furthermore, newer drugs like ondansetron and 
     grenisetron work better than Marinol, as clinical practice 
     has demonstrated.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article by Dr. 
Vereen be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  In an attempt to prevent this initiative from going into effect, last 
October, Congress passed and the President signed into law the fiscal 
year 1999 D.C. Appropriations bill which included a provision that 
blocked the District government from releasing the vote results of 
Initiative 59.
  The provision was challenged in court, and last month, the 
prohibition was overruled by a federal judge and the results were made 
public.
  Meanwhile, as the battle over releasing the ballot figures was being 
fought, Congress re-emphasized its opposition to Initiative 59 in the 
fiscal year 2000 D.C. Appropriations bill by prohibiting the use of 
funds to ``enact or carry out any law, rule or regulation to legalize 
or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession use or 
distribution of any Schedule I substance under the Controlled 
Substances Act.''
  Mr. President, under federal law, marijuana is a controlled 
substance, and as such, possession, use, sale or distribution is 
illegal and is subject to federal criminal sentences and/or fines. 
Possession of marijuana is a crime in the District as well, with the 
possibility of 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
  Congress merely sought to uphold current law by saying no to the 
implementation of Initiative 59, and no to the use of marijuana.
  Nevertheless, the President vetoed the D.C. Appropriations bill last 
Tuesday, issuing a statement that stressed that Congress was 
``prevent(ing) local residents from making their own decisions about 
local matters.''
  However, there appears to be some confusion over the Administration's 
direction on such legalization initiatives.
  Last Wednesday, before the House D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, 
Dr. Donald R. Vereen, Jr. of the Drug Czar's office stated that:

       The Administration has actively and consistently opposed 
     marijuana legalization initiatives in all jurisdictions 
     throughout the nation. Our steadfast opposition is based on 
     the fact that: such electoral procedures undermine the 
     medical-scientific process for establishing what is a safe 
     and effective medicine; contradict federal regulations and 
     laws; and in the Office of National Drug Control Policy's 
     view, may be vehicles for the legalization of marijuana for 
     recreational use.''

  I refuse to believe that the President wants the American people to 
think that he is more concerned about not violating Home Rule than he 
is about upholding federal law, particularly when experts within the 
administration are opposed to legalization.
  In a June 29th article in the Washington Post, Director of the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy, Barry McCaffrey stated that:

       The term ``drug legalization'' has rightfully acquired 
     pejorative connotations. Many supporters of this position 
     have adopted the label ``harm reduction'' to soften the 
     impact of an unpopular proposal that, if passed, would 
     encourage greater availability and use of drugs--especially 
     among children.

  This past June, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Donnie Marshall, 
Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) stated ``I 
suspect that medical marijuana is merely the first tactical maneuver in 
an overall strategy that will lead to the eventual legalization of all 
drugs.'' He went on to say ``whether all drugs are eventually legalized 
or not, the practical outcome of legalizing even one, like marijuana, 
is to increase the amount of usage of all drugs.''
  Indeed, according to the DEA, 12-17 year olds who smoke marijuana are 
85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not. Sixty 
percent of adolescents who use marijuana before age 15 will later use 
cocaine. If these usage figures are occurring now, I shudder to think 
what they will be if we expand marijuana's usage.
  Assistant Chief Brian Jordan of the D.C. Metropolitan Police 
Department testified last Wednesday before the House D.C. 
Appropriations Subcommittee that ``the Metropolitan Police Department 
opposes the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana remains the illegal 
drug of choice in the Nation's Capital, and crime and violence related 
to the illegal marijuana trafficking and abuse are widespread in many 
of our communities.''
  According to D.C. government estimates, Washington currently has 
65,000 drug addicts. There are 1,000 individuals on a drug treatment 
waiting list who are likely continuing to abuse drugs right now.
  I believe the loose wording of the initiative--which again, would 
legalize an individual's right to possess, use, distribute or cultivate 
marijuana if ``recommended'' by a physician--would present an 
enforcement nightmare to police in the District of Columbia, and would 
serve as a de facto legalization of marijuana in D.C., increasing its 
prevalence and the number of addicts citywide.
  In the simplest of terms, illegal drug use is wrong. The District 
government and the United States Government

[[Page S11882]]

should never condone it, regardless of the professed purpose.
  That is why I am introducing this joint resolution. It's quite 
simple. It says that the Congress disapproves of the legalization of 
marijuana for medicinal purposes and prevents Initiative 59 from going 
into effect. Period.
  It is identical to legislation that the House will likely take-up 
next week.
  I agree with DEA Deputy Administrator Donnie Marshall that once 
society accepts that it's alright for individuals to smoke marijuana 
for, quote ``medical purposes'' unquote, we will start on the path 
towards greater social acceptance and usage of marijuana, which experts 
agree will lead to the use of harder drugs.
  Mr. President, marijuana is an illegal drug according to federal, 
state and local laws. It would be unconscionable for the United States 
Congress not to exercise its Constitutional duty and prevent the 
District from going forward with this initiative no matter how well-
intentioned the motive.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this resolution, and 
I urge its speedy adoption.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the joint resolution 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 35

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress hereby disapproves of the action of the District of 
     Columbia Council described as follows: The Legalization of 
     Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998, approved 
     by the electors of the District of Columbia on November 3, 
     1998, and transmitted to Congress by the Council pursuant to 
     section 602(c) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 1

                   [Physicians Weekly, Feb. 1, 1999]

                   Is Medical Marijuana an Oxymoron?

 (By Dr. Donald Vereen Deputy Director, White House Office of National 
                          Drug Control Policy)

       No medical research has shown smoked marijuana to be safe, 
     effective, or therapeutically superior to other substances. 
     Synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary 
     psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, has been available for 
     fifteen years in pill form (Marinol) to treat HIV Wasting 
     Syndrome and chemotherapy-induced nausea. A legal drug, 
     Marinol is the real ``medical marijuana.'' It is available in 
     measured doses and guaranteed purity without the adverse 
     side-effects of smoking tars, hydrocarbons, and other 
     combustibles. Furthermore, newer drugs like ondansetron and 
     grenisetron work better than Marinol, as clinical practice 
     has demonstrated.
       Objections about pills being difficult to swallow by 
     nauseated patients are true for any antiemetic. If sufficient 
     demand existed for an alternate delivery system, Marinol 
     inhalants, suppositories, injections, or patches could be 
     developed. Why isn't anyone clambering to make anti-nausea 
     medications smokable? Why choose a substance and delivery 
     system (smoking) that is more carcinogenic than tobacco when 
     safer forms of the same drug are available? Patients deserve 
     answers to these germane questions instead of being blind-
     sided by the ``medical marijuana'' drive.
       The American Medical Association (AMA), American Cancer 
     Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Association, American 
     Academy of Ophthalmology, and National Eye Institute, among 
     others, came out against ``medical marijuana'' initiatives as 
     did former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. Anecdotal support 
     for smoked marijuana reminds me of the laetrile incident 
     where a drug derived from apricot pits was believed to cure 
     cancer. Scientific testing disproved such testaments. How do 
     we know that testimonials touting marijuana as a wonder 
     drug--on the part of patients under the influence of an 
     intoxicant, no less!--may not simply demonstrate the placebo 
     effect?
       We shouldn't allow drugs to become publicly available 
     without approval and regulation by the Food and Drug 
     Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH). 
     Such consumer protections has made our country one of the 
     safest for medications. A political attempt to exploit human 
     suffering to legalize an illicit drug is shameful and 
     irresponsible. Voters should not be expected to decide which 
     medicines are safe and effective. What other cancer 
     treatments have been brought to the ballot box? Marijuana 
     initiatives set a dangerous precedent. Decisions of this sort 
     should be based on scientific proof, not popularity.

                          ____________________