Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, let me say that in this discussion you may have heard reference to the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause. Let me address that. I want to get that out of the way, because I have talked tremendously over the past few days and weeks about the dangers of marijuana.

This controversy came before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich. The Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Government's authority to enforce the Controlled Substances Act. In a 6-3 decision, Justice Scalia, a strong states' rights advocate, concurred with the majority ruling that the CSA does not violate the Commerce Clause or the principles of State sovereignty.

Just to read what he said:

Not only is it impossible to distinguish controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate, but it hardly makes sense to speak in such terms.

Drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities, as the Court explains marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market, and this is so whether or not the possession is for medicinal use or lawful use under the laws of a particular State.

Again, if we want to make a statement principle on the Tenth Amendment, fine, but don't do it on the backs of our kids and our grandkids. This is dangerous for them. How do we know this? The health risks: brain development, schizophrenia, increased risk of stroke. A study at Northwestern University recently showed profound changes in the brain just in casual marijuana users. Heart complications, three times normal in such use. Recent studies shows, as I said, not only damage in certain structures in the brain, but the same structures that attend to motivation, which again underlines the amotivational syndrome that we have all heard about.

So again, it is settled law. The Supreme Court has already spoken on the constitutionality of this. It is settled when it comes to medicine. We hear anecdotal stories, but there is no widespread accepted use of marijuana, medicinal marijuana and so forth. There is no acceptance of this by the medical community. It is not evidence-based. Fine, if you want to do research on it, but this will take away the ability of the Department of Justice to protect our young people.

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

r. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Wolf.

Look, first of all, let's be clear, marijuana is an addicting substance. It is schedule I, it is against Federal law, it was passed that way into the CSA in 1970.

What this amendment would do is, it wouldn't change the law, it would just make it difficult, if not impossible, for the DEA and the Department of Justice to enforce the law.

Members on my side have been criticizing President Obama for selective enforcement of ObamaCare and for immigration and other laws like that. So now we are going to start going down the road of selective enforcement for our drug policy.

Medicinal marijuana, what is it exactly? Folks, I can tell you it is nothing more than the end run around the laws against the legalization of marijuana. There is nothing medical or medicinal about it. It is not accepted by physicians. Oh, somebody claims it may do something for glaucoma, perhaps. Well, maybe it will, maybe it won't. But there are a lot more drugs that do a much better job than that and they are much safer.

But the most important thing I want everybody to know, Mr. Chairman, today is the fact that marijuana is highly addicting. It is the most common diagnosis for addiction in admissions to rehab centers for young people. Why in the world do we want to take away drug enforcement and leave our young people out there vulnerable? Yes, you say it can only be used by adults. Well, if it is sitting around on shelves at home the kids are going to get into it. We are already hearing about Colorado fourth-graders dealing with it. We hear about more poisonings in the emergency room.

If you look at other places that have gone down this road like Alaska, they retracted from their legalization. So I don't think we should accept at all that this is history in the making and that we are never going to go back. You look at Amsterdam, they put a lot more restrictions back in the control even in that very, very liberal nation.

So for that and many reasons I would just say tonight from a legal standpoint this amendment would not be constitutional. Our laws are currently constitutional, as found so in 2005 by the Supreme Court. And this is an extremely dangerous drug for our children and future adults and future generations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source