PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 14, 2013
States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act - Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), within six months of enactment of this Act, to submit to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) a recommendation on the listing of marijuana within the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and to recommend listing it as other than a Schedule I or Schedule II substance.
Requires the Administrator of DEA, within one year of enactment of this Act, based upon such recommendation, to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for the rescheduling of marijuana within the CSA, which shall include a recommendation to list marijuana as other than a Schedule I or Schedule II substance.
Declares that no provision of the CSA or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act shall, in a state in which the medical use of marijuana is legal under state law, prohibit or otherwise restrict: (1) the prescription or recommendation of marijuana for medical use by a medical professional or the certification by a medical professional that a patient has a condition for which marijuana may have therapeutic benefit; (2) an individual from obtaining, manufacturing, possessing, or transporting within his or her state marijuana for medical purposes, provided the activities are authorized under state law; (3) a pharmacy or other entity authorized to distribute medical marijuana from obtaining, possessing, or distributing marijuana to authorized individuals; or (4) an entity authorized by a state or local government from producing, processing, or distributing marijuana for such purposes.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Attorney General to delegate responsibility for control over access to marijuana for research into its potential therapeutic and medicinal uses to an entity of executive branch that is not focused on researching the addictive properties of substances. Requires such entity to take appropriate actions to ensure that an adequate supply of marijuana is available for therapeutic and medicinal research.
People & committees
Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E150)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.689 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.689 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.689 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.689 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.