Impact of the 2015 federal budget's medical marijuana spending restriction remains unclear

The 2015 federal budget contained a noteworthy medical marijuana spending provision.  The amendment blocks the Department of Justice from using funds “to prevent . . . States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”

The brief House floor debate of the proposal left little doubt that Congress meant for the provision to (at the very least) shield state-legal medical marijuana patients and providers from federal prosecution.  But the DOJ has taken a different view of the amendment's language, arguing that it only prohibits the prosecution of state and local officials, not private parties.  

The dispute is starting to work its way up through the courts, perhaps most notably in the recent prosecution of the so-called "Kettle Falls Five".

Today, the authors of the spending restriction spoke out today, arguing that the DOJ's interpretation is far too restrictive (from the Huffington Post):

The DOJ believes the law only stops it from "impeding the ability of states to carry out their medical marijuana laws," department spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement, portions of which were previously published in the Los Angeles Times. “Consistent with the Department’s stated enforcement priorities, we don’t expect that the amendment will impact our ability to prosecute private individuals or private entities who are violating the Controlled Substances Act.”

 

But Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Sam Farr (D-Calif.), the co-sponsors of the historic amendment that prohibits the DOJ from using funds to go after state-legal medical marijuana programs, told The Huffington Post that the department is incorrect in its understanding of the law.

 

"The congressman believes the amendment's language is perfectly clear and that the DOJ's self-referential interpretation is emphatically wrong," said Rohrabacher spokesman Ken Grubs.