I 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 4272 
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide an affirmative defense 
for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the 
various States, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
NOVEMBER 9, 2005 
Mr. FARR (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. FRANK of 
Massachusetts, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. 
MCDERMOTT, Mr. CASE, and Mr. KUCINICH) introduced the following 
bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addi-
tion to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be sub-
sequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 
A BILL 
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide an af-
firmative defense for the medical use of marijuana in 
accordance with the laws of the various States, and for 
other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Steve McWilliams 
Truth in Trials Act’’.
SEC. 2. PROVIDING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR THE 
MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA; SEIZURE OF 
PROPERTY. 
The Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et 
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 423 the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR CONDUCT REGARDING THE 
MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA 
‘‘SEC. 424. (a) Any person facing prosecution or a 
proceeding for any marijuana-related offense under this 
title shall have the right to introduce evidence dem-
onstrating that the marijuana-related activities for which 
the person stands accused were performed in compliance 
with State law regarding the medical use of marijuana, 
or that the property which is subject to a proceeding was 
possessed in compliance with State law regarding the med-
ical use of marijuana. 
‘‘(b)(1) It is an affirmative defense, to a prosecution 
or proceeding under this title for marijuana-related activi-
ties, if the proponent establishes by a preponderance of 
the evidence, that such activities comply with State law 
regarding the medical use of marijuana. 
‘‘(2) In a prosecution or a proceeding under this title, 
should a finder of fact determine, based on State law re-
garding the medical use of marijuana, that a defendant’s 
marijuana-related activity was performed primarily, but
not exclusively, for medical purposes, the defendant may 
be found guilty of a lesser offense under this title cor-
responding to the amount of marijuana determined to be 
for nonmedical purposes. 
‘‘(c) Any property seized in connection with a pros-
ecution or proceeding under this title, with respect to 
which a person successfully makes a defense under this 
section, shall be returned to the owner promptly, minus 
such material necessarily destroyed for testing purposes.’’. 
SEC. 3. SEIZURE AND CUSTODY OF MARIJUANA IN CASES 
INVOLVING POSSIBLE MEDICAL USE. 
(a) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY FOR SEIZURE.—Sec-
tion 511(g)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
U.S.C. 881(g)(2)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or either a 
recommendation by a physician or an order of a State or 
municipal agency in accordance with State law regarding 
the medical use of marijuana’’ after ‘‘appropriate registra-
tion,’’. 
(b) RETENTION OF CERTAIN SEIZED PLANTS.—Sec-
tion 511(g)(3) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
U.S.C. 881(g)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: ‘‘Any marijuana seized shall be retained and not 
destroyed pending resolution of the forfeiture claim, if not 
later than 30 days after seizure the owner of the property 
notifies the Attorney General, or his duly authorized
agent, that a person with an ownership interest in the 
property is asserting an affirmative defense for the med-
ical use of marijuana. If the possession of such marijuana 
is found to have been in compliance with State law pursu-
ant to section 424, it shall be returned not later than 10 
days after such finding.’’. 
Æ