The House of Representatives narrowly rejected a spending amendment Thursday evening that would have eased veterans’ access to medical marijuana.

The Veterans Health Administration currently does not allow its physicians to discuss marijuana as a treatment option in the two dozen states with medical pot laws, forcing veterans to turn elsewhere for guidance and the paperwork necessary to acquire the drug.

The amendment would have blocked the VHA from punishing doctors who participate in state programs. Most Democrats and 35 Republicans supported it, but the reform measure failed by three votes.

The defeat, however, was by a more narrow margin than last year, when it failed by 26 votes, and one member casting a “no” vote this year, Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., tells U.S. News he did so because the amendment didn’t go far enough.

Another “no” vote, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., says he mistakenly voted against it. “I support medical marijuana,” he says. “I misread the amendment.” A “yes” vote from Garamendi would have brought the amendment within one vote of passing.

American doctors cannot legally prescribe marijuana because it’s classified a Schedule I drug in the Controlled Substances Act, meaning the federal government considers it to have no medical value. In the two dozen states with medical pot laws doctors instead “recommend” it.

Griffith, who is sponsoring legislation to move marijuana to Schedule II and envisions insurance-covered pot at ordinary pharmacies, says the amendment “tells folks to go around the law,” which is why he opposed it.

“I think the law ought to be changed,” he says. “Let’s do the heavy lifting.”

Griffith doesn’t regret contributing to the narrow defeat and says “the overall underlying policy is gravely flawed and we shouldn’t be papering over it. If you make yourself feel better by passing an amendment you’re less likely to change the law.”

The razor-thin margin “means the votes are there to pass” a bill rescheduling marijuana, flinging open the door to legal medical pot nationwide, he says. “I know there are a couple of people who agree with me.”

Last year the House, which then had a narrower Republican majority, voted 219-189 to ban federal prosecutors and anti-drug agents from using funds to go after state-legal medical marijuana, a major win for reformers that became law and was followed this year by a push to reschedule the drug.

Marijuana now is used without Food and Drug Administration approval to treat a variety of medical conditions, including epilepsy, PTSD, depression and the effects of debilitating illnesses and cancer treatments.

Fired-up supporters of allowing veterans access through their VHA doctors said during debate Wednesday the issue boiled down to whether the approximately 10 million veterans enrolled in the VA for health care - about 6 million of whom are treated annually - should be treated differently than non-veterans who use civilian doctors.

“As Republicans we supposedly believe in the doctor-patient relationship,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. “You either do or you don’t, and if you vote against this you don’t believe in the doctor-patient relationship for veterans of all people.”

Later that evening Rohrabacher told a packed ballroom at the Marijuana Policy Project’s 20th anniversary celebration that pot reform opponents “really just believe in the nanny state” and emotionally told of a constituent’s wounded veteran son suffering seizures before turning to marijuana as an effective treatment.

The measure picked up the unexpected support of Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who has aggressively pushed against the District of Columbia’s right to implement a voter-approved law legalizing the drug for recreational use.

Editorial Cartoons on Marijuana View All 15 Images

"Brave men and women who have sacrificed so much for this country deserve the right to have an open dialogue with the doctors who care for them,” he says in an emailed statement. “This amendment would have allow doctors in Utah to discuss the best treatment options available to veterans - especially those suffering from debilitating seizures."

Some opponents of the amendment, such as Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., however, questioned its utility. “The amendment won’t change the situation for veterans unless the doctors are willing to risk prosecution,” Dent said during debate, even though federal enforcement actions are rare against providers or the estimated one million state-legal marijuana patients.

Other opponents, such as the vocally anti-marijuana Reps. John Fleming, R-La., and Andy Harris, R-Md., both medical doctors, said the drug is not acceptable for treatment, particularly without greater research - something made difficult because of the Schedule I classification.