Anti-Pot Republicans Forsake Federalism in Medical Marijuana Vote

Today more Republicans
than ever
voted to stop federal harassment of medical marijuana
providers, but they still opposed the measure by a ratio of 3.5 to
1. In my latest Forbes column, I consider the
implications of the GOP’s failure to defend federalism in this
context. Here is how the column starts:

Early this morning, by a vote of 219
to 189, the House of Representatives approved an
amendment aimed at stopping federal interference with state laws
that “authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation
of medical marijuana.” If it is included in the appropriations bill
passed by the Senate and signed by the president, the amendment
would prohibit the Justice Department, which includes the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), from spending taxpayers’ money on
dispensary raids or other attempts to stop medical use of marijuana
in the 22 states that allow it.

Similar meaures have failed in the House six times since
2003. This year the amendment attracted record support from
Republicans, 49 of whom voted yes, compared to 28 last time around.
“This measure passed because it received more support from
Republicans than ever before,” says Dan Riffle of the
Marijuana Policy Project.
“It is refreshing to see conservatives in Congress sticking to
their conservative principles when it comes to marijuana policy.
Republicans increasingly recognize that marijuana prohibition is a
failed Big Government program that infringes on states’
rights.”

Yet Republicans still overwhelmingly opposed the amendment, by a
ratio of more than 3 to 1, while Democrats overwhelmingly supported
it, by a ratio of 10 to 1. Given the GOP’s frequent lip
service to federalism, the party’s lack of enthusiasm for letting
states set their own policies in this area requires some
explanation. So does the need for this amendment under a Democratic
administration that has repeatedly said it is not inclined to use
Justice Department resources against medical marijuana users and
providers who comply with state law. It is hard to say who is being
more inconsistent: a president who promised tolerance but delivered
a crackdown or members of Congress who portray themselves as
defenders of the 10th Amendment but forsake federalism because they
are offended by a plant.

Read the whole thing.