A major congressional subcommittee will hold a hearing on marijuana policy next week, Marijuana Moment has learned.
Though few details about the meeting are currently available, the House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee are expected to discuss various legislative proposals to allow states to set their own cannabis policies without fear of federal intervention.
Several sources who did not wish to be identified shared with Marijuana Moment the names of witnesses expected to soon receive formal invitations to testify before the panel on Wednesday, July 10. Given the backgrounds of these individuals, it seems apparent that committee members will be discussing not whether the U.S. should end federal cannabis prohibition, but will focus primarily on how to do it.
Witnesses are anticipated to include Malik Burnett, a physician at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who previously served as the Washington, D.C. policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs, where he helped lead a successful ballot initiative campaign to legalize cannabis in the nation’s capital in 2014.
Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, who announced in January that her office would no longer prosecute cannabis possession cases and would work to clear the records of certain individuals with prior marijuana convictions, is also being invited to testify.
David Nathan, a physician and board president of the pro-legalization group Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), will also appear before the committee.
He told Marijuana Moment that he looks “forward to discussing the evidence-based health effects of cannabis, the failure of prohibition, the inadequacy of decriminalization, and the public health and social justice benefits of effective regulation.”
“DFCR physicians have successfully fought for legalization in states around the country,” Nathan said. “Now DFCR is proud to advocate for the broad majority of Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—who want our government to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and finally end the specter of federal interference with state cannabis laws.”
Finally, Neal Levine, CEO of Cannabis Trade Federation, will be the minority witness—which is noteworthy in and of itself, as Levine advocates for legalization, while one might expect the minority Republican party to invite someone who shares an opposing perspective on ending prohibition.
“I cannot comment on what has not been announced publicly by the committee, but I would welcome the opportunity to share the perspective of our members,” Levine, who previously served as a staffer for the Marijuana Policy Project, told Marijuana Moment. “We are especially well positioned to discuss the challenges arising from the inconsistency between state and federal cannabis laws.”
(Full disclosure: the Cannabis Trade Federation and its affiliate CTF Action have sponsored Marijuana Moment.)
After this story was initially published, the subcommittee posted an official notice for the hearing. It is titled “Marijuana Laws in America: Racial Justice and the Need for Reform” and will begin at 10:00 AM ET.
While lawmakers aren’t expected to vote on any particular bill at the hearing, it will nonetheless be one of the most significant congressional developments on marijuana reform to date.
The Judiciary Committee, under which this subcommittee falls, wields particular influence in advancing broad changes to federal drug laws, and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) designated it as the panel to bring about the end of cannabis prohibition in a blueprint to legalization in the 116th Congress.
“For the first time in recent memory, there will be a candid conversation in the Judiciary Committee about the failures of marijuana prohibition in the United States and how people have been impacted,” Justin Strekal, political director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment. “We look forward to working with the subcommittee to best inform the conversation and the public at large.”
Legislation that could be marked up by the panel in the future includes the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act, the Marijuana Justice Act, the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act and the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is also said to be working on his own bill to end federal marijuana prohibition, but no details have yet been announced.
Notably, every single Democratic member of the full Judiciary Committee, including the chairman, voted in favor of amendment protecting cannabis programs in all states, U.S. territories and Washington, D.C. from Justice Department intervention last month. Six Republican members of the panel joined them in support of the measure, which was attached to spending legislation that has since cleared the House. The bipartisan nature of that vote indicates that further reform legislation stands a strong chance of passing in the committee.
Besides Blumenauer’s House-passed amendment protecting cannabis programs, this Congress has also seen several other hearings on cannabis issues. The House Veterans’ Affairs Committee discussed four pieces of legislation concerning veterans and marijuana last month, and the House Small Businesses Committee also convened to address opportunities and barriers for small cannabis businesses under the federal framework of prohibition.
In March, a bipartisan bill that would provide protections for banks that service cannabis businesses cleared the House Financial Services Committee following a hearing on the issue, and a full floor vote on that legislation could be coming soon.
Unlike the new Judiciary hearing, the minority witnesses at the Financial Services and Small Business hearings—representatives of the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the Heritage Foundation, respectively—opposed legalization.
Source
Showing posts with label marijuana reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marijuana reform. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
FDA is seeking the public's input on marijuana rescheduling
In the last few days, nearly 700 people have submitted comments to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supporting the rescheduling of marijuana.
The FDA opened the public comment period on Friday to gather input ahead of a United Nations meeting on global drug policy, where the U.S. representative will have the opportunity to cast a vote on World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations to reschedule cannabis, THC and CBD under international drug treaties.
So far, the federal agency has been flooded with comments that overwhelmingly endorse a cannabis reclassification. Support for the policy change has been nearly unanimous, but the reasoning behind those sentiments varied.
Dozens of submissions came from patients, many of whom complained about pharmaceuticals they’d been prescribed and felt cannabis was a more effective treatment option. One person who said he or she is a registered nurse sided with those patients and wrote “in my professional opinion, it is both harmful and unethical to prohibit patients access to this medicinal plant.”
Others pointed out that marijuana is not as harmful as other legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. Several people argued that prohibition is an infringement on civil liberties.
Military veterans were also strongly represented in the comments, with some saying cannabis has helped treat conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic pain.
“I am a 59 y/o military veteran. I know first hand how effective a pain reliever cannabis can be,” one person wrote. “It is my strong opinion cannabis should be legal and regulated.”
Some brought a political angle to their comment. A self-described straight ticket Republican voter said he voted for Donald Trump in the last election, but that he will “endorse the next candidate who supports marijuana legalization.” Another person suggested that the president should legalize cannabis to troll liberals, delivering on an issue that is increasingly popular on a bipartisan basis.
“It’s draconian that you’re allowing states to arrest and charge people with felonies for a product that’s readily available in stores in other states,” someone wrote. “It also makes the federal government look completely inept because states have fully legalized starting in 2012. It’s been nearly a decade and there’s yet to be any sort of federal action.”
One of the only comments expressing opposition to loosening marijuana laws under international treaties relied on stoner stereotypes: “Cannabis makes you Dumb, Lazy, & Hungry !”
Taken as a whole, though, it’s clear that the public wants the U.S. to back marijuana reform when the issue comes up for a vote, which could happen later this month but might be delayed until a later UN meeting.
If adopted, the WHO recommendations wouldn’t change U.S. law—which classifies marijuana under the most restrictive category of Schedule I—or allow UN member states to legalize the sale of cannabis without violating international treaties. But approving WHO’s recommended changes would likely embolden more countries follow in the footsteps of Canada and Uruguay, which have legalized marijuana regardless of UN policy.
Expect more comments to flow in as the deadline, March 14, approaches. The last time the FDA solicited public input on cannabis rescheduling, more than 20,000 people made their voices heard.
Source
The FDA opened the public comment period on Friday to gather input ahead of a United Nations meeting on global drug policy, where the U.S. representative will have the opportunity to cast a vote on World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations to reschedule cannabis, THC and CBD under international drug treaties.
So far, the federal agency has been flooded with comments that overwhelmingly endorse a cannabis reclassification. Support for the policy change has been nearly unanimous, but the reasoning behind those sentiments varied.
Dozens of submissions came from patients, many of whom complained about pharmaceuticals they’d been prescribed and felt cannabis was a more effective treatment option. One person who said he or she is a registered nurse sided with those patients and wrote “in my professional opinion, it is both harmful and unethical to prohibit patients access to this medicinal plant.”
Others pointed out that marijuana is not as harmful as other legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. Several people argued that prohibition is an infringement on civil liberties.
Military veterans were also strongly represented in the comments, with some saying cannabis has helped treat conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic pain.
“I am a 59 y/o military veteran. I know first hand how effective a pain reliever cannabis can be,” one person wrote. “It is my strong opinion cannabis should be legal and regulated.”
Some brought a political angle to their comment. A self-described straight ticket Republican voter said he voted for Donald Trump in the last election, but that he will “endorse the next candidate who supports marijuana legalization.” Another person suggested that the president should legalize cannabis to troll liberals, delivering on an issue that is increasingly popular on a bipartisan basis.
“It’s draconian that you’re allowing states to arrest and charge people with felonies for a product that’s readily available in stores in other states,” someone wrote. “It also makes the federal government look completely inept because states have fully legalized starting in 2012. It’s been nearly a decade and there’s yet to be any sort of federal action.”
One of the only comments expressing opposition to loosening marijuana laws under international treaties relied on stoner stereotypes: “Cannabis makes you Dumb, Lazy, & Hungry !”
Taken as a whole, though, it’s clear that the public wants the U.S. to back marijuana reform when the issue comes up for a vote, which could happen later this month but might be delayed until a later UN meeting.
If adopted, the WHO recommendations wouldn’t change U.S. law—which classifies marijuana under the most restrictive category of Schedule I—or allow UN member states to legalize the sale of cannabis without violating international treaties. But approving WHO’s recommended changes would likely embolden more countries follow in the footsteps of Canada and Uruguay, which have legalized marijuana regardless of UN policy.
Expect more comments to flow in as the deadline, March 14, approaches. The last time the FDA solicited public input on cannabis rescheduling, more than 20,000 people made their voices heard.
Source
Sunday, February 10, 2019
The First Marijuana Hearing Of The New Congress Has Been Scheduled
Congressional Democrats are already moving ahead with plans to consider broad changes to federal marijuana laws in 2019.
Whereas the Republican-controlled House for the past several years had blocked votes on most cannabis-related measures, the chamber's new Democratic majority on Wednesday announced it has scheduled a hearing for next week to examine the difficulties that marijuana businesses face in opening and maintaining bank accounts.
Titled, “Challenges and Solutions: Access to Banking Services for Cannabis-Related Businesses,” the hearing will take place on February 13 before a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.
Although a growing number of states are moving to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use, cannabis remains federally prohibited. As a result, and despite a 2014 guidance memo released on the topic by the Obama administration aimed at clearing up the issue, many financial services providers remain reluctant to work with the industry out of fear of violating money laundering or drug laws.
"When we introduced this bill six years ago, we warned that forcing these businesses to deal in cash was threatening public safety. No hearing was given," Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA) said in an email, referring to marijuana banking legislation he and Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) have filed for the past several Congresses.
He lamented that Republican leadership didn't schedule a hearing on the proposal even after a security guard at a Colorado dispensary was killed during a robbery.
"Chairwoman Waters has made it one of her first priorities to address this urgent and overdue issue, demonstrating that she understands the threat to public safety and the need for Congress to act," Heck said of the committee's new leader. "We have a bipartisan proposal to allow well-regulated marijuana businesses to handle their money in a way that is safe and effective for law enforcement to track. I am eager to get to the work of refining it and passing it into law."
That a hearing on the issue was in the works was first noted earlier this week by Politico, and Marijuana Moment reported that the full committee is also actively planning to vote on a marijuana banking bill in the coming months.
The newly scheduled marijuana hearing is a signal that Democrats intend to move cannabis legislation this year, and is likely to be the first in a series of committee-level actions across the House on the issue.
"The upcoming hearing presents a real opportunity for the Democratic Party to assert their leadership by finally beginning the conversation on how we end the failed policy of marijuana criminalization," Justin Strekal, political director for NORML, said.
While two limited medical cannabis research bills were able to advance out of House committees last year, they never made it to the floor for votes. Meanwhile, Republican leaders consistently prevented members from offering marijuana-related amendments—including ones on banking issues—to larger legislation.
In contrast, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) suggested in a memo to party leaders late last year that they pursue a step-by-step approach to legalize marijuana in 2019. His plan recommends that Financial Services and other committees first begin holding hearings on incremental reforms like banking access, research expansion and medical cannabis for military veterans before passing bills on those issues as part of a lead up to ultimately approving broader legislation to formally end federal marijuana prohibition by the end of the year.
A House bill to protect banks from being punished for working with state-legal marijuana businesses that Heck and Perlmutter introduced garnered 95 cosponsors in the last Congress, and 20 senators signed onto a companion bill, but neither were given hearings or brought up for votes.
"Depriving state-legal cannabis businesses of basic banking services and forcing them to operate entirely in cash presents a significant safety risk, not just to those businesses and their employees, but to the public," Don Murphy, director of federal policies for the Marijuana Policy Project, said in an email. "Support for addressing the cannabis banking problem is strong and bipartisan, and it appears Congress may be ready to adopt a real, commonsense solution. Members concerned about public safety should be jumping at the chance to express their support for this legislation."
Congress has held only a handful of hearings on marijuana reform issues in recent years, and never before has any come at a time when broad cannabis reform legislation seemed to be conceivably on its way to passage.
"This hearing is historic for cannabis policy reform advocates, business owners and the banking sector, and could directly lead to the first in what is hopefully a series of positive changes in the 2019 legislative cycle," Morgan Fox, media relations director for the National Cannabis Industry Association, said in an email. "Allowing banks to work with cannabis businesses more easily will benefit public safety, increase transparency, provide more financing options for small businesses and communities that have been targeted by prohibition, and help companies thrive so they can further displace the illicit market."
Outside of the two committee markups of cannabis research legislation last year, which were not preceded by formal hearings on the relevant issues, Senate panels have on a few occasions held lengthy discussions on marijuana.
In 2013, for example, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing to dig into the fact that a growing number of states were legalizing marijuana in contrast with federal law.
The Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, which is not a formal standing committee of the body, hosted a discussion on federal marijuana enforcement in 2016. Its two cochairs, Sens. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), have long been among Congress's most vocal opponents of cannabis reform, though Feinstein began to shift her position last year.
Also in 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing on the risks and potential benefits of medical cannabis, but it did not lead to votes on any marijuana legislation.
Meanwhile, pressure to address cannabis banking has been growing. Several top Trump administration officials have indicated they support clarifying the issue.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, for example, suggested in testimony before a House committee early last year that he supports letting marijuana businesses store their profits in banks.
“I assure you that we don’t want bags of cash,” he said. “We do want to find a solution to make sure that businesses that have large access to cash have a way to get them into a depository institution for it to be safe.”
In a separate hearing Mnuchin revealed that addressing the issue is at the “top of the list” of his concerns.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that the growing gap between state and federal marijuana laws “puts federally chartered banks in a very difficult situation... It would great if that could be clarified."
And last month, Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting called on Congress to "act at the national level to legalize marijuana if they want those entities involved in that business to utilize the U.S. banking system."
Meanwhile, although many major financial institutions are staying away from the cannabis industry, federal data does show that an increasing number of banks are beginning to work with marijuana growers, sellers, processors and related businesses.
It hasn't yet been announced who will be testifying at next week's cannabis banking hearing before the Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions Subcommittee.
Source
Whereas the Republican-controlled House for the past several years had blocked votes on most cannabis-related measures, the chamber's new Democratic majority on Wednesday announced it has scheduled a hearing for next week to examine the difficulties that marijuana businesses face in opening and maintaining bank accounts.
Titled, “Challenges and Solutions: Access to Banking Services for Cannabis-Related Businesses,” the hearing will take place on February 13 before a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.
Although a growing number of states are moving to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use, cannabis remains federally prohibited. As a result, and despite a 2014 guidance memo released on the topic by the Obama administration aimed at clearing up the issue, many financial services providers remain reluctant to work with the industry out of fear of violating money laundering or drug laws.
"When we introduced this bill six years ago, we warned that forcing these businesses to deal in cash was threatening public safety. No hearing was given," Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA) said in an email, referring to marijuana banking legislation he and Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) have filed for the past several Congresses.
He lamented that Republican leadership didn't schedule a hearing on the proposal even after a security guard at a Colorado dispensary was killed during a robbery.
"Chairwoman Waters has made it one of her first priorities to address this urgent and overdue issue, demonstrating that she understands the threat to public safety and the need for Congress to act," Heck said of the committee's new leader. "We have a bipartisan proposal to allow well-regulated marijuana businesses to handle their money in a way that is safe and effective for law enforcement to track. I am eager to get to the work of refining it and passing it into law."
That a hearing on the issue was in the works was first noted earlier this week by Politico, and Marijuana Moment reported that the full committee is also actively planning to vote on a marijuana banking bill in the coming months.
The newly scheduled marijuana hearing is a signal that Democrats intend to move cannabis legislation this year, and is likely to be the first in a series of committee-level actions across the House on the issue.
"The upcoming hearing presents a real opportunity for the Democratic Party to assert their leadership by finally beginning the conversation on how we end the failed policy of marijuana criminalization," Justin Strekal, political director for NORML, said.
While two limited medical cannabis research bills were able to advance out of House committees last year, they never made it to the floor for votes. Meanwhile, Republican leaders consistently prevented members from offering marijuana-related amendments—including ones on banking issues—to larger legislation.
In contrast, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) suggested in a memo to party leaders late last year that they pursue a step-by-step approach to legalize marijuana in 2019. His plan recommends that Financial Services and other committees first begin holding hearings on incremental reforms like banking access, research expansion and medical cannabis for military veterans before passing bills on those issues as part of a lead up to ultimately approving broader legislation to formally end federal marijuana prohibition by the end of the year.
A House bill to protect banks from being punished for working with state-legal marijuana businesses that Heck and Perlmutter introduced garnered 95 cosponsors in the last Congress, and 20 senators signed onto a companion bill, but neither were given hearings or brought up for votes.
"Depriving state-legal cannabis businesses of basic banking services and forcing them to operate entirely in cash presents a significant safety risk, not just to those businesses and their employees, but to the public," Don Murphy, director of federal policies for the Marijuana Policy Project, said in an email. "Support for addressing the cannabis banking problem is strong and bipartisan, and it appears Congress may be ready to adopt a real, commonsense solution. Members concerned about public safety should be jumping at the chance to express their support for this legislation."
Congress has held only a handful of hearings on marijuana reform issues in recent years, and never before has any come at a time when broad cannabis reform legislation seemed to be conceivably on its way to passage.
"This hearing is historic for cannabis policy reform advocates, business owners and the banking sector, and could directly lead to the first in what is hopefully a series of positive changes in the 2019 legislative cycle," Morgan Fox, media relations director for the National Cannabis Industry Association, said in an email. "Allowing banks to work with cannabis businesses more easily will benefit public safety, increase transparency, provide more financing options for small businesses and communities that have been targeted by prohibition, and help companies thrive so they can further displace the illicit market."
Outside of the two committee markups of cannabis research legislation last year, which were not preceded by formal hearings on the relevant issues, Senate panels have on a few occasions held lengthy discussions on marijuana.
In 2013, for example, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing to dig into the fact that a growing number of states were legalizing marijuana in contrast with federal law.
The Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, which is not a formal standing committee of the body, hosted a discussion on federal marijuana enforcement in 2016. Its two cochairs, Sens. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), have long been among Congress's most vocal opponents of cannabis reform, though Feinstein began to shift her position last year.
Also in 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing on the risks and potential benefits of medical cannabis, but it did not lead to votes on any marijuana legislation.
Meanwhile, pressure to address cannabis banking has been growing. Several top Trump administration officials have indicated they support clarifying the issue.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, for example, suggested in testimony before a House committee early last year that he supports letting marijuana businesses store their profits in banks.
“I assure you that we don’t want bags of cash,” he said. “We do want to find a solution to make sure that businesses that have large access to cash have a way to get them into a depository institution for it to be safe.”
In a separate hearing Mnuchin revealed that addressing the issue is at the “top of the list” of his concerns.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that the growing gap between state and federal marijuana laws “puts federally chartered banks in a very difficult situation... It would great if that could be clarified."
And last month, Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting called on Congress to "act at the national level to legalize marijuana if they want those entities involved in that business to utilize the U.S. banking system."
Meanwhile, although many major financial institutions are staying away from the cannabis industry, federal data does show that an increasing number of banks are beginning to work with marijuana growers, sellers, processors and related businesses.
It hasn't yet been announced who will be testifying at next week's cannabis banking hearing before the Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions Subcommittee.
Source
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Senator Al Franken sees the light
For the second time in as many days, U.S. Sen. Al Franken just added his name to a marijuana bill.
On Tuesday, the Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota became the fifth cosponsor of legislation to allow cannabis cultivators and sellers operating in accordance with state laws to be taxed just like any other business.
The day before, he signed onto a bill that would allow those businesses to access financial services from banks.
Earlier this month, the former Saturday Night Live star was one of six senators to introduce a broad bipartisan bill that would amend federal laws so states can enact and implement their own medical cannabis laws without federal interference.
The leadership on marijuana issues is a far cry from when Franken said on a BuzzFeed podcast last year (in response to a question I submitted) that he was "not the guy to ask" about cannabis policy.
In his answer then, he did acknowledge that he should probably study up on the issue because the state he represents is one of more than two dozen that allows medical marijuana. "I should know more," the senator said, jokingly adding, "or it's not important or somewhere in between."
A month later, Franken added his name to an earlier, now-expired version of the comprehensive medical marijuana bill that he is an original cosponsor of in the new 115th Congress. But he never did add his name to the 114th Congress's versions of the cannabis taxation and banking legislation.
Now, the senator is on a bit of a marijuana bill cosponsorship spree, and some observers think it's good politics -- in addition to good policy -- at a time when Franken's name is being floated as a possible 2020 presidential candidate.
"With clear public support in favor of outright legalization, presidential aspirants now recognize that marijuana reform is something that can no longer be ignored," Justin Strekal of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) said in an interview.
A Quinnipiac University poll released in April found that 60% of U.S. voters -- and 72% of Democrats -- support legalizing marijuana.
When it comes to medical cannabis, 94% of all voters and 96% of Democrats are on board. Just 13% of Democrats and 21% of voters overall want the federal government to interfere with state marijuana laws.
Other potential Democratic presidential candidates such as fellow Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have increasingly taken on leadership roles in the fight for marijuana law reform.
Franken, who discussed his past marijuana, cocaine and LSD use in a book he published earlier this year, also joined four other senators in writing a July letter asking U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to go after state-legal industrial hemp growers.
But Strekal, of NORML, wants Franken to do even more, saying, until he "puts his name on a bill that outright deschedules cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, I remain uninspired."
In July, Booker filed legislation to do just that, and more. And in the last Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a 2016 presidential candidate, filed cannabis descheduling legislation.
Source
On Tuesday, the Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota became the fifth cosponsor of legislation to allow cannabis cultivators and sellers operating in accordance with state laws to be taxed just like any other business.
The day before, he signed onto a bill that would allow those businesses to access financial services from banks.
Earlier this month, the former Saturday Night Live star was one of six senators to introduce a broad bipartisan bill that would amend federal laws so states can enact and implement their own medical cannabis laws without federal interference.
The leadership on marijuana issues is a far cry from when Franken said on a BuzzFeed podcast last year (in response to a question I submitted) that he was "not the guy to ask" about cannabis policy.
In his answer then, he did acknowledge that he should probably study up on the issue because the state he represents is one of more than two dozen that allows medical marijuana. "I should know more," the senator said, jokingly adding, "or it's not important or somewhere in between."
A month later, Franken added his name to an earlier, now-expired version of the comprehensive medical marijuana bill that he is an original cosponsor of in the new 115th Congress. But he never did add his name to the 114th Congress's versions of the cannabis taxation and banking legislation.
Now, the senator is on a bit of a marijuana bill cosponsorship spree, and some observers think it's good politics -- in addition to good policy -- at a time when Franken's name is being floated as a possible 2020 presidential candidate.
"With clear public support in favor of outright legalization, presidential aspirants now recognize that marijuana reform is something that can no longer be ignored," Justin Strekal of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) said in an interview.
A Quinnipiac University poll released in April found that 60% of U.S. voters -- and 72% of Democrats -- support legalizing marijuana.
When it comes to medical cannabis, 94% of all voters and 96% of Democrats are on board. Just 13% of Democrats and 21% of voters overall want the federal government to interfere with state marijuana laws.
Other potential Democratic presidential candidates such as fellow Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have increasingly taken on leadership roles in the fight for marijuana law reform.
Franken, who discussed his past marijuana, cocaine and LSD use in a book he published earlier this year, also joined four other senators in writing a July letter asking U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to go after state-legal industrial hemp growers.
But Strekal, of NORML, wants Franken to do even more, saying, until he "puts his name on a bill that outright deschedules cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, I remain uninspired."
In July, Booker filed legislation to do just that, and more. And in the last Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a 2016 presidential candidate, filed cannabis descheduling legislation.
Source
Don't Blunt the Marijuana Revolution
America is undergoing a somewhat silent revolution concerning the prohibition of marijuana usage.
A 2017 poll of 1,122 adults conducted by Marist found that only 14 percent of those surveyed still oppose medicinal marijuana, a number so overwhelming as to allow the suggestion a clear consensus exists among the American people.
On the issue of what is now called "recreational use," things are not as clear. The same poll found the nation divided "on whether they support or oppose the legalization of marijuana for recreational use, 49 percent to 47 percent."
A majority of parents, the survey said, oppose recreational use but, among those who have tried it at one time or another or who currently use it today, at 70 and 89 percent support respectively, the pro-legalization movement is gaining ground fast. Attitudes in the hinterlands are clearly changing.
The same can be said of Washington. During the 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump expressed more than once his belief the nation's marijuana laws needed to be reformed. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon have, on a bipartisan basis, fought for and won – at least for the moment – a prohibition on the use of taxpayer dollars by federal authorities to prosecute medical marijuana patients or providers who are in compliance with state-based medical marijuana laws.
Another effort by GOP Rep. Tom McClintock of California, which would bar federal prosecutions in states that have legalized recreational use, is for the moment stalled but, say those who follow the issue, is likely at some point to pass for no other reason than the ability of politicians to read polls – including the April 2017 Quinnipiac Poll showing 71 percent of those surveyed believed state law should take precedence over federal law where cannabis policy within the states is concerned.
The stumbling block in all this is United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who not only wants to enforce the laws already on the books but has advised the federal prosecutors under his jurisdiction he expects it to be done ruthlessly and with little regard for their discretion concerning what cases are to be brought into court.
Sessions is, clearly enough, behind the times. Nonetheless, he's still in the position to have things his way – or at least he was until Congress passed and the president signed legislation increasing the federal debt ceiling and for other purposes – because the U.S. Department of Justice has access to funds not appropriated for them by the Congress.
Under a program originally designed to bring large criminal enterprises dealing mostly in cash to heel, the Justice Department has expanded to the point of abuse civil asset forfeiture which, as the American Civil Liberties Union describes it, "allows police to seize – and then keep or sell – any property they allege is involved in a crime" without the person in possession of the property at the time it is seized being convicted of a crime or even arrested.
For the DOJ and for other federal agencies, this has become a revenue generator above and beyond funds appropriated to them by Congress. Cash, cars, even real estate has been taken permanently by the government on the basis of suspicion alone.
The courts may eventually rule civil asset forfeiture as it is currently practiced violates due process but, until they do, it creates a pile of money Sessions can use to have the DOJ pursue medical marijuana users despite what the Rohrabacher/Blumenauer or any other amendment to a piece of legislation may say.
That's the practical side, which on its own would be enough. There's also a basic Constitutional principle at stake – as a number of organizations set out in a Sept. 1 letter to the House Rules Committee requesting the Rohrabacher/Blumenauer amendment "be made in order as it has in past years."
"Under our Constitution states are granted broad police powers because the founders understood that states, not the federal government, would be on the front lines of protecting health, safety, and the general welfare," the groups, headed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote. "As a nation of diverse populations and opinions, state legislatures and local law enforcement must be free to decide how best to use their limited resources to protect public safety, raise funds, and fight crime within their borders."
The heart of the matter, for them and for us, is the preservation of a system of government where federal powers are defined, narrowly, by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the powers not given to it explicitly are left to the states. The Congress may have authorized and the executive branch may have approved of the war on drugs, broadly speaking, but this does not mean by fiat that the states much accept its decision in such matters. They have the power to make their own rules, applicable inside their individual borders only, that the federal government should respect – even when a conflict may exist.
This principle may seem esoteric, but is in fact vitally important, especially for advocates of limited government. It carries over into other areas running the gamut from Second Amendment rights to spending and tax policy. Sessions, even if his mind cannot be changed on the matter, owes it to us all to exercise more sensitivity to what the public wants, as expressed by the way they vote on the issue as well as the sentiments expressed in the Marist survey and other polls. The future of our democratic republic may rest on such things.
Source
A 2017 poll of 1,122 adults conducted by Marist found that only 14 percent of those surveyed still oppose medicinal marijuana, a number so overwhelming as to allow the suggestion a clear consensus exists among the American people.
On the issue of what is now called "recreational use," things are not as clear. The same poll found the nation divided "on whether they support or oppose the legalization of marijuana for recreational use, 49 percent to 47 percent."
A majority of parents, the survey said, oppose recreational use but, among those who have tried it at one time or another or who currently use it today, at 70 and 89 percent support respectively, the pro-legalization movement is gaining ground fast. Attitudes in the hinterlands are clearly changing.
The same can be said of Washington. During the 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump expressed more than once his belief the nation's marijuana laws needed to be reformed. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon have, on a bipartisan basis, fought for and won – at least for the moment – a prohibition on the use of taxpayer dollars by federal authorities to prosecute medical marijuana patients or providers who are in compliance with state-based medical marijuana laws.
Another effort by GOP Rep. Tom McClintock of California, which would bar federal prosecutions in states that have legalized recreational use, is for the moment stalled but, say those who follow the issue, is likely at some point to pass for no other reason than the ability of politicians to read polls – including the April 2017 Quinnipiac Poll showing 71 percent of those surveyed believed state law should take precedence over federal law where cannabis policy within the states is concerned.
The stumbling block in all this is United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who not only wants to enforce the laws already on the books but has advised the federal prosecutors under his jurisdiction he expects it to be done ruthlessly and with little regard for their discretion concerning what cases are to be brought into court.
Sessions is, clearly enough, behind the times. Nonetheless, he's still in the position to have things his way – or at least he was until Congress passed and the president signed legislation increasing the federal debt ceiling and for other purposes – because the U.S. Department of Justice has access to funds not appropriated for them by the Congress.
Under a program originally designed to bring large criminal enterprises dealing mostly in cash to heel, the Justice Department has expanded to the point of abuse civil asset forfeiture which, as the American Civil Liberties Union describes it, "allows police to seize – and then keep or sell – any property they allege is involved in a crime" without the person in possession of the property at the time it is seized being convicted of a crime or even arrested.
For the DOJ and for other federal agencies, this has become a revenue generator above and beyond funds appropriated to them by Congress. Cash, cars, even real estate has been taken permanently by the government on the basis of suspicion alone.
The courts may eventually rule civil asset forfeiture as it is currently practiced violates due process but, until they do, it creates a pile of money Sessions can use to have the DOJ pursue medical marijuana users despite what the Rohrabacher/Blumenauer or any other amendment to a piece of legislation may say.
That's the practical side, which on its own would be enough. There's also a basic Constitutional principle at stake – as a number of organizations set out in a Sept. 1 letter to the House Rules Committee requesting the Rohrabacher/Blumenauer amendment "be made in order as it has in past years."
"Under our Constitution states are granted broad police powers because the founders understood that states, not the federal government, would be on the front lines of protecting health, safety, and the general welfare," the groups, headed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote. "As a nation of diverse populations and opinions, state legislatures and local law enforcement must be free to decide how best to use their limited resources to protect public safety, raise funds, and fight crime within their borders."
The heart of the matter, for them and for us, is the preservation of a system of government where federal powers are defined, narrowly, by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the powers not given to it explicitly are left to the states. The Congress may have authorized and the executive branch may have approved of the war on drugs, broadly speaking, but this does not mean by fiat that the states much accept its decision in such matters. They have the power to make their own rules, applicable inside their individual borders only, that the federal government should respect – even when a conflict may exist.
This principle may seem esoteric, but is in fact vitally important, especially for advocates of limited government. It carries over into other areas running the gamut from Second Amendment rights to spending and tax policy. Sessions, even if his mind cannot be changed on the matter, owes it to us all to exercise more sensitivity to what the public wants, as expressed by the way they vote on the issue as well as the sentiments expressed in the Marist survey and other polls. The future of our democratic republic may rest on such things.
Source
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Republicans Block Congressional Marijuana Votes
House Republican leadership is blocking floor consideration of several marijuana amendments on issues ranging from military veterans’ access to medical cannabis to water rights for cultivators.
Despite passionate pleas and support from members of both parties, particularly on the veterans issue, the House Rules Committee on Tuesday night ruled that the marijuana amendments were not in order and would not receive votes by the full chamber this week.
Earlier in the day, Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), the veterans amendment’s lead sponsor, testified before the committee that it was “a critical area of literally life and death.”
Many military veterans use cannabis to treat physical pain caused by war wounds or to manage the symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
But under a current internal U .S. Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.) administrative directive, government doctors are not allowed to fill out recommendation forms that would let veterans legally receive medical cannabis under state law.
Blumenauer’s measure, which he sought to attach to legislation funding the V.A. and other departments for fiscal year 2018, would simply prevent the government from spending money to enforce the current ban in states where medical cannabis is legal.
Citing statistics showing that an average of 22 military veterans a day commit suicide and that death rate from opioid overdoses among V.A. patients is nearly double the national average, he said, “It’s essential that veterans be allowed to access this as a treatment if it’s legal in their state.”
Republican Congressman Dan Newhouse of Washington State, a Rules Committee member, also voiced his support.
“I’m one of those people that have seen firsthand the benefit that people can derive from medical marijuana. We’re not just talking smoking joints here,” he told his fellow committee members. “There’s a lot of different derivatives that can be used that help people alleviate pain. It seems to me that if that’s available and it works we should make it available to our veterans as well, as long as it’s in accordance with state law.”
But those pleas, and the fact that the amendment was adopted by the House last year by a vote of 233 to 189, or that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a similar measure this month with a bipartisan margin of 24 to 7, were not enough to convince Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX), to allow a floor vote.
Eighteen lawmakers — nine Democrats and nine Republicans — cosponsored the veterans cannabis proposal, more than any of the other 333 amendments filed before the committee. A total of 72 of those were approved for floor consideration.
After the news about the amendment being blocked broke late Tuesday night, Blumenauer’s office sent a press release pointing out that the measure had “stronger support in the House and Senate than ever before.”
“All we want is equal treatment for our wounded warriors,” the congressman said in the statement. “This provision overwhelmingly passed on the House floor last year – and bipartisan support has only grown. It’s outrageous that the Rules Committee won’t even allow a vote for our veterans. They deserve better. They deserve compassion.”
Congresswoman Dina Titus (D-NV), one of the cosponsors of the veterans amendment, pledged to “keep fighting.”
Amnd. to remove barriers for #veterans to access med. #marijuana won't get vote after @RulesReps blocks. It would pass. I'll keep fighting.
— Dina Titus (@repdinatitus) July 26, 2017
Blumenauer also took to Twitter to restate his commitment to keep pushing the issue.
Our vets are dying from opiate overdoses at alarming rates. You better believe we're going to keep fighting to get them safer alternatives.
— Earl Blumenauer (@repblumenauer) July 26, 2017
The Rules Committee also did not allow three amendments addressing water rights for marijuana and hemp cultivators to advance to the floor.
Whereas spending bills have in years past been brought to the floor under open rules that allow votes on almost any germane amendment, House Republicans last year began locking down the process after controversy surrounding riders concerning gun policy and the right of transgender people to access public bathrooms threatened the passage of some bills.
As a result, amendments on cannabis businesses’ access to banks and Washington, D.C.’s ability to spend its own money legally regulating marijuana sales were blocked from floor consideration last summer.
The veterans access issue isn’t necessarily dead for the year. Advocates hope that because the provision was inserted into the Senate’s version of V.A. funding legislation with such a strong bipartisan vote that the conference committee that later merges the two chambers’ bills together into a single proposal will adopt the language.
However, a conference committee stripped the veterans cannabis provision out of last year’s bill even though it had been approved by strong bipartisan majorities in both chambers. This time, there won’t even be a House vote on the measure.
The Senate version of the bill that covers the U.S. Department of Energy and water regulations contains an amendment protecting hemp growers’ water rights, a result of a voice vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee last week.
Meanwhile, that panel is expected to consider an amendment to continue blocking the U.S. Department of Justice from interfering with state medical cannabis laws on Thursday.
Source
If you are a constituent of Congressman Pete Sessions and you are less than thrilled with his blocking this amendment perhaps you should let him know. You call him at
Washington, DC Office
2233 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4332
Phone: 202.225.2231
Fax: 202.225.5878
Or you can email and let him know your displeasure.
Despite passionate pleas and support from members of both parties, particularly on the veterans issue, the House Rules Committee on Tuesday night ruled that the marijuana amendments were not in order and would not receive votes by the full chamber this week.
Earlier in the day, Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), the veterans amendment’s lead sponsor, testified before the committee that it was “a critical area of literally life and death.”
Many military veterans use cannabis to treat physical pain caused by war wounds or to manage the symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
But under a current internal U .S. Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.) administrative directive, government doctors are not allowed to fill out recommendation forms that would let veterans legally receive medical cannabis under state law.
Blumenauer’s measure, which he sought to attach to legislation funding the V.A. and other departments for fiscal year 2018, would simply prevent the government from spending money to enforce the current ban in states where medical cannabis is legal.
Citing statistics showing that an average of 22 military veterans a day commit suicide and that death rate from opioid overdoses among V.A. patients is nearly double the national average, he said, “It’s essential that veterans be allowed to access this as a treatment if it’s legal in their state.”
Republican Congressman Dan Newhouse of Washington State, a Rules Committee member, also voiced his support.
“I’m one of those people that have seen firsthand the benefit that people can derive from medical marijuana. We’re not just talking smoking joints here,” he told his fellow committee members. “There’s a lot of different derivatives that can be used that help people alleviate pain. It seems to me that if that’s available and it works we should make it available to our veterans as well, as long as it’s in accordance with state law.”
But those pleas, and the fact that the amendment was adopted by the House last year by a vote of 233 to 189, or that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a similar measure this month with a bipartisan margin of 24 to 7, were not enough to convince Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX), to allow a floor vote.
Eighteen lawmakers — nine Democrats and nine Republicans — cosponsored the veterans cannabis proposal, more than any of the other 333 amendments filed before the committee. A total of 72 of those were approved for floor consideration.
After the news about the amendment being blocked broke late Tuesday night, Blumenauer’s office sent a press release pointing out that the measure had “stronger support in the House and Senate than ever before.”
“All we want is equal treatment for our wounded warriors,” the congressman said in the statement. “This provision overwhelmingly passed on the House floor last year – and bipartisan support has only grown. It’s outrageous that the Rules Committee won’t even allow a vote for our veterans. They deserve better. They deserve compassion.”
Congresswoman Dina Titus (D-NV), one of the cosponsors of the veterans amendment, pledged to “keep fighting.”
Amnd. to remove barriers for #veterans to access med. #marijuana won't get vote after @RulesReps blocks. It would pass. I'll keep fighting.
— Dina Titus (@repdinatitus) July 26, 2017
Blumenauer also took to Twitter to restate his commitment to keep pushing the issue.
Our vets are dying from opiate overdoses at alarming rates. You better believe we're going to keep fighting to get them safer alternatives.
— Earl Blumenauer (@repblumenauer) July 26, 2017
The Rules Committee also did not allow three amendments addressing water rights for marijuana and hemp cultivators to advance to the floor.
Whereas spending bills have in years past been brought to the floor under open rules that allow votes on almost any germane amendment, House Republicans last year began locking down the process after controversy surrounding riders concerning gun policy and the right of transgender people to access public bathrooms threatened the passage of some bills.
As a result, amendments on cannabis businesses’ access to banks and Washington, D.C.’s ability to spend its own money legally regulating marijuana sales were blocked from floor consideration last summer.
The veterans access issue isn’t necessarily dead for the year. Advocates hope that because the provision was inserted into the Senate’s version of V.A. funding legislation with such a strong bipartisan vote that the conference committee that later merges the two chambers’ bills together into a single proposal will adopt the language.
However, a conference committee stripped the veterans cannabis provision out of last year’s bill even though it had been approved by strong bipartisan majorities in both chambers. This time, there won’t even be a House vote on the measure.
The Senate version of the bill that covers the U.S. Department of Energy and water regulations contains an amendment protecting hemp growers’ water rights, a result of a voice vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee last week.
Meanwhile, that panel is expected to consider an amendment to continue blocking the U.S. Department of Justice from interfering with state medical cannabis laws on Thursday.
Source
If you are a constituent of Congressman Pete Sessions and you are less than thrilled with his blocking this amendment perhaps you should let him know. You call him at
2233 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4332
Phone: 202.225.2231
Fax: 202.225.5878
Or you can email and let him know your displeasure.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Senate Committee Overwhelmingly Passes Veterans Equal Access Amendment
Today, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 24-7 to include the Veterans Equal Access amendment as part of the 2018 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, which would expand much needed medical marijuana access to our nation’s veterans.
Presently, V.A. doctors in states where cannabis therapy is permitted are forbidden from providing the paperwork necessary to complete a medical cannabis recommendation, thus forcing military veterans to seek the advice of a private, out-of-network physician.
Veterans are increasingly turning to medical cannabis as an effective alternative to opioids and other conventional medications to treat conditions like chronic pain and post-traumatic stress. A retrospective review of patients’ symptoms published in 2014 in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs reported a greater than 75 percent reduction on a scale of post-traumatic symptom scores following cannabis therapy. This is why, in recent months, two of the largest veterans’ rights groups — AMVETS and the American Legion — have resolved in favor of patients’ access to cannabis therapy.
The amendment was introduced by Senator Daines, R-Montana for the second year in a row. Last year, majorities in both the US House and Senate voted to include similar language as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. However, Republicans sitting on the House Appropriations Committee elected to remove the language from the bill during a concurrence vote.
The 24-7 roll call was an increase over last years 20-10 appropriations passage. The changes came from Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) all voting “aye” after having voted against the effort last year and both new members of the committee, Senators John Kennedy (R-LA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) voting in favor.
Identical language is expected to receive a vote in the House later this year. Keep an eye on NORML’s Act page for that and other changes.
Source
This is what activism accomplishes. We made 3 prohibitionists vote in our favor. That is the power of the people. That is what we can accomplish. There are petitions at the NORML Action Center website. Please fill these petitions out on a daily basis. This is how we get through to them and to make sure Washington DC doesn't forget about us.
Presently, V.A. doctors in states where cannabis therapy is permitted are forbidden from providing the paperwork necessary to complete a medical cannabis recommendation, thus forcing military veterans to seek the advice of a private, out-of-network physician.
Veterans are increasingly turning to medical cannabis as an effective alternative to opioids and other conventional medications to treat conditions like chronic pain and post-traumatic stress. A retrospective review of patients’ symptoms published in 2014 in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs reported a greater than 75 percent reduction on a scale of post-traumatic symptom scores following cannabis therapy. This is why, in recent months, two of the largest veterans’ rights groups — AMVETS and the American Legion — have resolved in favor of patients’ access to cannabis therapy.
The amendment was introduced by Senator Daines, R-Montana for the second year in a row. Last year, majorities in both the US House and Senate voted to include similar language as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. However, Republicans sitting on the House Appropriations Committee elected to remove the language from the bill during a concurrence vote.
The 24-7 roll call was an increase over last years 20-10 appropriations passage. The changes came from Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) all voting “aye” after having voted against the effort last year and both new members of the committee, Senators John Kennedy (R-LA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) voting in favor.
Identical language is expected to receive a vote in the House later this year. Keep an eye on NORML’s Act page for that and other changes.
Source
This is what activism accomplishes. We made 3 prohibitionists vote in our favor. That is the power of the people. That is what we can accomplish. There are petitions at the NORML Action Center website. Please fill these petitions out on a daily basis. This is how we get through to them and to make sure Washington DC doesn't forget about us.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Congress should keep Department of Justice out of states’ marijuana rules
Donald Trump was not elected president to renew crackdowns on marijuana in states that have legalized it for medicinal or recreational purposes.
Last week, it was revealed that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a private letter to congressional leaders dated May 1 asking them to lift the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment, which prevents the Justice Department from meddling with state medical marijuana laws.
“I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime,” Sessions wrote, citing no evidence linking medical marijuana to the “historic drug epidemic” or violent crime increases.
The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, first enacted in 2014, is an important barrier to unnecessary federal intrusion in states which have considered and enacted laws permitting, by varying degrees, the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
While marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Congress should retain the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment to protect the right of states to make their own choices.
The majority of states, and the District of Columbia, now have laws on the books permitting marijuana for medicinal purposes. As an April Quinnipiac poll found, 73 percent of Americans oppose federal intervention in states which have legalized marijuana for either medicinal or recreational purposes. For the Trump administration to intervene now would not only contradict campaign statements by Trump himself favoring states’ rights on marijuana policy, but also needlessly flout the wishes of most Americans.
But clearly a legislative solution is needed beyond simply restricting the ability of the Justice Department to enforce laws against medical marijuana.
One such proposal was reintroduced last week by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, including Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Called the CARERS Act, the bill would protect the possession, production and distribution of medical marijuana so long as individuals and businesses are in compliance with state laws permitting such activity. It would also allow Veterans Affairs physicians to prescribe medical marijuana, and remove federal restrictions on cannabidiol, a non-intoxicating chemical in marijuana which can treat problems like epilepsy.
The idea of depriving individuals suffering from ailments like cancer of safe access to medical marijuana is a cruel one that does nothing to make anyone safer.
Another proposal to consider is the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, introduced by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, and Rep. Tom Garrett, R-Va., which would remove marijuana from the confines of the federal Controlled Substances Act, leaving to the states the autonomy to make their own choices, as with alcohol and tobacco. This would permanently resolve the conflict between state and federal law on medical and recreational marijuana.
For now, Congress should retain the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment and work toward shifting greater power over marijuana policy to the states.
Source
Congress should be aware of this so let's tell them. Contact your Congressional Representative and your Senators and tell them all about this.
Last week, it was revealed that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a private letter to congressional leaders dated May 1 asking them to lift the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment, which prevents the Justice Department from meddling with state medical marijuana laws.
“I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime,” Sessions wrote, citing no evidence linking medical marijuana to the “historic drug epidemic” or violent crime increases.
The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, first enacted in 2014, is an important barrier to unnecessary federal intrusion in states which have considered and enacted laws permitting, by varying degrees, the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
While marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Congress should retain the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment to protect the right of states to make their own choices.
The majority of states, and the District of Columbia, now have laws on the books permitting marijuana for medicinal purposes. As an April Quinnipiac poll found, 73 percent of Americans oppose federal intervention in states which have legalized marijuana for either medicinal or recreational purposes. For the Trump administration to intervene now would not only contradict campaign statements by Trump himself favoring states’ rights on marijuana policy, but also needlessly flout the wishes of most Americans.
But clearly a legislative solution is needed beyond simply restricting the ability of the Justice Department to enforce laws against medical marijuana.
One such proposal was reintroduced last week by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, including Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Called the CARERS Act, the bill would protect the possession, production and distribution of medical marijuana so long as individuals and businesses are in compliance with state laws permitting such activity. It would also allow Veterans Affairs physicians to prescribe medical marijuana, and remove federal restrictions on cannabidiol, a non-intoxicating chemical in marijuana which can treat problems like epilepsy.
The idea of depriving individuals suffering from ailments like cancer of safe access to medical marijuana is a cruel one that does nothing to make anyone safer.
Another proposal to consider is the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, introduced by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, and Rep. Tom Garrett, R-Va., which would remove marijuana from the confines of the federal Controlled Substances Act, leaving to the states the autonomy to make their own choices, as with alcohol and tobacco. This would permanently resolve the conflict between state and federal law on medical and recreational marijuana.
For now, Congress should retain the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment and work toward shifting greater power over marijuana policy to the states.
Source
Congress should be aware of this so let's tell them. Contact your Congressional Representative and your Senators and tell them all about this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
