The Honorable Thomas M. Davis III
Chairman, House Government Reform Committee
2348 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Member, House Government Reform Committee
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0529
Re: H.R. 2086, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003
Dear Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Waxman:
The ""Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003,"" H.R. 2086, is scheduled for hearing in your committee on May 22, 2003, and marked up immediately thereafter. We write to urge you to oppose Section 10 (d) to the extent it allows the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (Director) to use federal dollars to oppose state legislative and ballot initiatives to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Additionally, we urge you to oppose Section 6(m), allowing the Director to divert up to 5% of available funds to target medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.
Section 10(d)(1)(C) disallows the use of any funds for ""partisan political purposes."" That provision is subsequently modified to allow the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to ""take such actions as necessary"" to oppose legalization of any Schedule I substance not approved for medical use by the FDA. Thus, the Director may use these funds to engage in ""partisan political activity"" when he ""takes such actions as necessary"" to oppose medical marijuana initiatives.
Section 6 (m) allows the Director to reallocate up to 5% of available funds to assist law enforcement in enforcing Federal drug laws in states where ""state law permits the use of marijuana in a manner inconsistent with the Controlled Substances Act."" Essentially, this allows the Director to target medical marijuana patients and their caregivers for acts that are legal under state law.
The public is strongly in favor of allowing the use of medical marijuana. In a 1999 Gallup poll, 73% of Americans are in favor of "making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe in order to reduce pain and suffering." Since 1996, voters in eight states plus the District of Columbia have passed favorable medical marijuana ballot initiatives.[1]
Medical studies have concluded that marijuana has medical value in treating patients with serious illnesses such as AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and chronic pain. The Institute of Medicine in 1999, in the most comprehensive study of medical marijuana's efficacy, concluded ""Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety . . . all can be mitigated by marijuana."" Marijuana is one of the safest medical substances known. No one has ever died from an overdose.
Doctors have an obligation to see that their patients receive the best medical care possible and to alleviate suffering. It is the doctor, not Congress, that should, in consultation with their patients, choose the appropriate medical treatment.
These two provisions allow the Director to use part of his budget to engage in partisan political activity and weigh in on one side of a state ballot initiative. If, despite the federal maneuvering and influx of dollars, the people nonetheless vote to allow the use of medicinal marijuana, the Director can then redirect some of his funds to prosecute the patients and doctors who are breaking no state law. Surely, these federal dollars could be better spent targeting major drug syndicates instead of those who are suffering, and those who are trying to ease suffering.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director
Marvin J. Johnson
Legislative Counsel
Cc: Members of the Committee
ENDNOTES
[1] Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.