www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org: The plain language of the Rohrabacher-Farr provision to the CRomnibus appropriations bill states that “None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of…[list of 32 states]…, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” The key word in the provision is “implement” which is not explicitly defined in the U.S. Code, federal case law, or Black’s Law Dictionary. However, Webster’s define the verb of implementation as to “carry out, accomplish; especially : to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures.”
Because the act of carrying out a medical marijuana law requires ongoing regulation and administration of the program established by the law, implementation is an ongoing process, it is not possible to accomplish the purpose of the state medical marijuana laws if the parties utilizing the state program (patients, caregivers, physicians, cultivators, providers, landlords, etc.) are being thwarted from engaging in this conduct due to the federal interference. The legislative intent of the Rohrabacher-Farr provision supports this position. Below are excerpts from the floor debate that took place in the U.S House of Representatives on May 29, 2014, in which the cosponsors state the extent and reach of the provision’s language. A review of the opponents statements in the Congressional Record also reveals an acknowledgement of the extent to which the Department of Justice will be limited from interfering with those engaging in medical marijuana conduct within the enumerated states. www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org
Rep. Sam Farr
“This is essentially saying, look, if you are following State law, you are a legal resident doing your business under State law, the Feds just can’t come in and bust you and bust the doctors and bust the patient. It is more than half the States. So you don’t have to have any opinion about the value of marijuana. This doesn’t change any laws. This doesn’t affect one law, just lists the States that have already legalized it only for medical purposes, only medical purposes, and says, Federal Government, in those States, in those places, you can’t bust people. It seems to me a practical, reasonable amendment in this time and age.”
Rep. Dina Titus
“Mr. Chair, for the District of Columbia and 22 States, including Nevada, with laws in place allowing the legal use of some form of marijuana for medical purposes, this commonsense amendment simply ensures that patients do not have to live in fear when following the laws of their States and the recommendations of their doctors. Physicians in those States will not be prosecuted for prescribing the substance, and local businesses will not be shut down for dispensing the same.”
Rep. Barbara Lee
“We should allow for the implementation of the will of the voters to comply with State laws rather than undermining our democracy.
In States with medical marijuana laws, patients face uncertainty regarding their treatment, and small business owners who have invested millions creating jobs and revenue have no assurances for the future. It is past time for the Justice Department to stop its unwarranted persecution of medical marijuana and put its resources where they are needed.”
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
“Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of my amendment, which would prohibit the Department of Justice from using any of the funds appropriated in this bill to prevent States from implementing their own medical marijuana laws…
…The State governments have recognized that a doctor has a right to treat his patient any way he sees fit, and so did our Founding Fathers.”
Rep. Thomas Massie
“We need to remove the roadblocks to these potential medical breakthroughs. This amendment would do that. The Federal Government should not countermand State law.”
Rep. Paul Broun
“Also, this is a states’ rights, states’ power issue, because many States across the country–in fact, my own State of Georgia is considering allowing the medical use under the direction of a physician. This is a states’ rights, Tenth Amendment issue. We need to reserve the states’ powers under the Constitution.”
Rep. Earl Blumenauer
“The problem is that the Federal Government is getting in the way. The Federal Government makes it harder for doctors and researchers to be able to do what I think my friend from Louisiana wants than it is for parents to self-medicate with buying marijuana for a child with violent epilepsy.”
This amendment is important to get the Federal Government out of the way. Let this process work going forward where we can have respect for states’ rights and something that makes a huge difference to hundreds of thousands of people around the country now and more in the future.”
It is abundantly clear from the legislative intent of the cosponsors and supporters of the Rohrabacher-Farr provision that the law is not limited to merely allowing states to put medical marijuana laws on their books without federal interference, but that full implementation of state medical marijuana laws necessitates that the Department of Justice cannot interfere with state-law abiding patients, caregivers, physicians, providers, and other parties necessary to accomplish the purpose of the state medical marijuana program.
