Keep in mind that this is a different proposal from the States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act that Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul, along with 45 other co-sponsors, have been advocating for the last several years, and which will shortly be reintroducing in the current Congress.

Rather, this proposal would simply create an affirmative defense of medical necessity under federal law. It’s a good, small step, but if passed (and there is absolutely no chance that it will advance in the current Congress), a patient would still have to hire an attorney and go to trial, where he would have the burden of convincing the judge that the marijuana use was a medical necessity. The proposed bill, were it to pass, would surely be helpful to the 40 or so people who have been charged in federal court for conduct that would (arguably) be legal under state law, but it would do nothing for the tens of thousands of patients who would benefit from the Frank/Paul bill.

This new proposal would not reschedule marijuana from Schedule 1 to a lower schedule, and therefore does nothing to legalize the medical use of marijuana under federal law, or to loosen federal law so that those states that wish to legalize medical use under state law can do so without interference from the federal government.

Since neither of these bills has any serious chance of advancing in the current Congress, I am terribly concerned that this latest proposal is an example of our side of the issue making major legislative concessions, without receiving anything in return. This provides members of Congress with an easy way to claim they support the medical use of marijuana for serious ill patients, without actually supporting a bill that would provide any meaningful help to the tens of thousands of patients who currently use marijuana as a medicine.

The legislative process always involves compromise, but that compromise should be made in exchange for something of value. If we cannot move either piece of legislation in the current Congress, and we cannot, then we should stand strong on principle, and insist on the rescheduling of marijuana under federal law, to recognize marijuana’s medical usefulness.

I fear this latest proposal is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It may sound good at first blush, but I believe it is a set-back for the medical marijuana movement in this country, and I regret that it is being introduced as a stand-alone piece of legislation. At most, it should have been incorporated as a provision in the Frank/Paul bill.

I also recognize that not everyone will share my perspective. But I wanted you to be aware of these concerns.

Regards, Keith Stroup, NORML