Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call up the bill (H.R. 3617) to decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. 3617.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3617, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, or the MORE Act, is long-overdue legislation that would reverse decades of failed Federal policies based on the criminalization of marijuana. It would also take steps to address the heavy toll these policies have taken across the country, particularly among communities of color.
For far too long, we have treated marijuana as a criminal justice problem, instead of as a matter of personal choice and public health. Whatever one's views are on the use of marijuana for recreational or medicinal use, the policy of arrests, prosecution, and incarceration at the Federal level has proven both unwise and unjust.
That is why the MORE Act would set a new path forward and would begin to correct some of the injustices of the last 50 years. The bill decriminalizes marijuana at the Federal level by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act. This change applies retroactively to prior and pending convictions. It does not, however, undermine the ability of States to apply their criminal laws to marijuana or to legalize and regulate it as they see fit.
The bill also eliminates barriers to medical research, allows the VA to recommend medical marijuana to veterans living with PTSD, and it allows financial institutions to service the marijuana industry. It provides for expungement or resentencing of certain Federal marijuana arrests and convictions and supports expungement programs at the State and local levels.
In addition, the bill authorizes a sales tax on marijuana sales and directs those revenues to an Opportunity Trust Fund to support communities harmed by the war on drugs. It also establishes a wide range of grant programs to support equal access to the benefits of decriminalization.
When it comes to our immigration laws, the bill prospectively and retroactively ensures that marijuana will not be considered a controlled substance, directly mirroring the protection and relief under the criminal justice provisions of the bill. This protects individuals from the collateral consequences for marijuana activity and ensures that immigrants can participate in their State's legal cannabis industry.
In recent years, 36 States and the District of Columbia have legalized medical cannabis. Nineteen States and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for adult recreational use.
If States are the laboratories of democracy, it is long past time for the Federal Government to recognize that legalization has been a resounding success and that the conflict with Federal law has become untenable.
While I am proud to be the sponsor of this legislation, there are many people who are responsible for getting us to this point today. I want to thank them for their efforts.
This includes Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the mother of this movement, and Congressman Blumenauer, whose dogged persistence was critical to moving this legislation forward. Congressman Cohen has also been a long-time champion and an important voice in the movement for reform, as has Congresswoman Jackson Lee, who helped shepherd this legislation to the floor.
I also want to thank Chairman Neal, who has been a critical partner in drafting the revenue provisions in this bill and in helping move this legislation to the floor, as well as Chairman McGovern, who structured a good debate on this bill.
Finally, Speaker Pelosi, Whip Clyburn, and Chairman Jeffries have all been steadfast in their support of this legislation, and I want to particularly thank Majority Leader Hoyer for everything he has done to bring this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, criminal penalties for marijuana offenses, and the resulting collateral consequences, are unjust and harmful to our society. The MORE Act comprehensively addresses these injustices, and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would command the attention of the gentleman to the sections of the bill that deal with all the different problems he raised.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the lead sponsor, Chairman Nadler, for problem solving, along with Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Cohen, Congresswoman Lee, and all of those who galvanized all of us. I was pleased to be able to lead this through the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee.
The war on drugs simply failed, and I am glad that one interpretation that has just been evidenced by my good friend on the other side of the aisle will have little weight and little basis because what we are doing here is solving a problem.
Let me just indicate from the Health Affairs Culture of Health, a Black person is still nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than a White person.
To summarize this bill, it deals with Federal decriminalization, taxation, and expungement. It does not stop the DA, the Department of Justice, the FBI or anyone else from doing their job. The bill would remove cannabis from the list or schedule of federally controlled substances.
This means that, going forward, individuals can no longer be prosecuted federally for marijuana offenses. This does not mean that marijuana would now be legal throughout the United States. The bill would simply remove the Federal Government from the business of prosecuting marijuana cases, which would leave the question of legality to individual States. Forty-seven States already have some form of legal use of marijuana.
Let me share, my friends, the points that they are going to make. The bill was designed to help individuals who have been caught up in the criminal justice system for possessing more small amounts of marijuana for personal use. It was not designed to help drug traffickers.
By the way, the President has given over a billion dollars to Ukraine as one of the steadfast leaders and has galvanized NATO and our allies, and not one of us needs to challenge the President or any one of us in our fight to help Ukraine.
Let me make it very clear about crime. Read the President's budget. He has a massive piece in there to reduce crime. It is everywhere, including rural America, where Republicans say they are, but I don't look at it that way. It is Americans, we stand together. This bill is about America.
The expungement provisions are limited to nonviolent marijuana possession convictions that have loaded up our Federal prisons. If an individual has other criminal convictions in addition to a covered nonviolent offense, marijuana offense, the bill already includes a stated exemption for drug kingpins, meaning anyone who received an increased sentence for being a leader or organizer of drug trafficking will not qualify for expungement.
Once this bill is passed, it would enable individuals to possess and use marijuana for personal use. Marijuana will be regulated as a commodity, but let me tell you what else will happen. We will be able to research, the scientists will be able to study what is happening to our young people, our juveniles if that is the case. We have a definitive position in there about helping those who may become addicted. We do not overlook those who might as well be using it, so let us go forward with this bill. I ask support for the bill.
This bill was designed to help individuals who have been caught up in the criminal justice system for possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. It was not designed to help drug traffickers.
The expungement provisions are limited to nonviolent marijuana possession convictions only. If an individual has other criminal convictions in addition to a covered nonviolent marijuana offense, those other convictions will not be expunged. The bill already includes a stated exemption for ``drug kingpins,'' meaning anyone who received an increased sentence for being a leader or organizer of drug trafficking will not qualify for an expungement.
Once passed, this bill would enable individuals to possess and use marijuana for a personal use. Marijuana will be a regulated commodity like alcohol and the transportation, distribution, or selling of marijuana without complying with federal regulations will continue to be illegal. For example, an individual will not be able to transport marijuana across the border without complying with import regulations and appropriate tax requirements.
The bill already includes a requirement that a study be conducted to understand the societal impacts of decriminalizing marijuana, including the impact on juveniles, education, transportation, veterans, employment, and many others.
Because marijuana will now be considered a commodity or good to be sold and purchased, like alcohol and even cigarettes, the MORE Act preserves the FDA's ability to issue regulations to address the regulation, safety, manufacturing, product quality, marketing, labeling, and sale of products containing cannabis or cannabis derived compounds.
Cannabis will be regulated along the same lines as alcohol and cigarettes, which have age requirements for consumption, sale, and purchase.
Regulation of cannabis protects children and minors because the black market and street dealers are not required to ask for the age or ID of their customers, unlike permitted and regulated sellers.
Driving while impaired is illegal in the United States. The MORE Act does not change this fact.
Impaired driving occurs when someone operates a vehicle while impaired by a substance like marijuana, or any other drug, including prescribed and over-the-counter medicines, or alcohol. Law enforcement officers are trained to detect impairment of drivers by substances other than alcohol through field sobriety tests.
Many states have supported the establishment of Drug Recognition and Classification programs within their State and local police, and the training of special Drug Recognition Experts, which are law enforcement officers trained to identify drug-impaired driving using a 12-step, standardized evaluation that includes behavioral tests and physical assessments to determine impairment among seven categories of drug classification.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Velazquez).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill will greatly reduce crime by redefining as not crimes things that are now considered crimes. And by releasing people in jail who should not be in jail, it will produce justice and it will reduce the expenses to the public.
Lee), who has been such a great champion in the fight for this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the MORE Act and I applaud my colleagues, Chairman Nadler and Barbara Lee, for their leadership on this critical legislation.
For years, public support for marijuana legalization has surged. Thirty-seven States have voted to legalize marijuana. It is past time that Congress answers the call for marijuana justice.
This sweeping legislation would finally decriminalize cannabis at the Federal level by removing it from the Controlled Substance Act. The law would apply this retroactively to prior and pending convictions that have disproportionately harmed communities of color.
The MORE Act would also help those whose convictions are overturned through the Opportunity Trust Fund that would provide job training, reentry assistance, legal aid, and healthcare.
If we are serious about criminal justice, we need to get rid of the antiquated cannabis laws. The MORE Act would do just that. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting on this long overdue bill.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bentz refers to the cartels. Of course there are cartels. Of course they are making money because they have a monopoly of supply of a substance that has a great demand. If you pass this bill then those cartels will no longer have a monopoly and law enforcement expenses will go down because they will not have to enforce the marijuana laws and the marijuana prohibition laws. Nor will they have to fight the cartels, which won't be there anymore because their monopoly of supply will have been eliminated.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and I thank everyone that my colleague, Barbara Lee, acknowledged earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the MORE Act and on behalf of the countless families that have been disrupted and destroyed by our Nation's failed drug policies and the devastating war on drugs.
As a result of the war on drugs, the United States has a higher rate of incarceration than such human rights-abusing governments as Russia, Belarus, and Iran. It also wastes more money than any other country locking up its citizens for personal drug use.
Racial justice and cannabis decriminalization are inextricably intertwined, and the former cannot be achieved without the latter. By decriminalizing cannabis, we can reverse the trend of over- incarceration and get one step closer to dismantling the systemic racism so pervasive in our criminal justice system.
The MORE Act is an important step in rewriting our future, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Schakowsky).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Titus).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3617, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021, or the MORE Act of 2021.
I am pleased to support this long-overdue measure and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the MORE Act, which is an important step in our continuing efforts to reform the criminal justice system, and I commend our Chairman for introducing this bill once again.
To summarize, the provisions of the MORE Act fall into three main categories--federal decriminalization, taxation, and expungement.
First, the bill would remove marijuana, or cannabis, from the list-- or schedule--of Federally controlled substances. This means that, going forward, individuals could no longer be prosecuted, federally, for marijuana offenses. This does not mean that marijuana would now be legal throughout the United States--the bill would simply remove the Federal government from the business of prosecuting marijuana cases and would leave the question of legality to the individual States.
Those states choosing to decriminalize can do so, without ongoing interference from the Federal government, and those states that choose to continue to make marijuana illegal can continue to do so, as well.
Second, the bill would establish a taxation structure to collect a sales tax on marijuana, which, over the course of five years would increase from five to eight percent. The funds collected from this tax would be used to establish a trust fund to reinvest in communities ravaged by the War on Drugs, particularly communities of color.
The trust fund would be used for rehabilitation and reentry programs in the Department of Justice and for programs in the Small Business Administration to ensure that participants in the burgeoning marijuana market are diverse and provide opportunities for entrepreneurship in communities that have been adversely impacted by the War on Drugs.
Finally, the bill would expunge and seal Federal marijuana arrests and convictions and resentence offenders, as appropriate--a much-needed measure of this bill to attempt to undo some of the damage done to black and brown communities by decades of unjust enforcement.
Thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the federal criminalization of marijuana, particularly in communities of color, and have borne the burden of collateral consequences that have damaged our society across generations, such as the denial of affordable housing, educational opportunities, and employment.
The laws enacted for the purpose of perpetuating the ``War on Drugs'' have led America to imprison more people than any other country.
Expunging and sealing the arrest and conviction records of people affected by the cannabis laws would remove barriers that helped create a permanent second-class status for millions of Americans.
Our outdated federal laws and policies unwisely require scarce law enforcement resources to be expended on cannabis offenses while conflicting with many states' laws regarding cannabis.
Cannabis does not fit the definition of a Schedule One drug and federal law must be updated to reflect this reality--just as most states have already begun to do.
Public support for legalization has surged.
Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam have adopted laws allowing legal access to cannabis. And eighteen states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have adopted laws for legalizing cannabis for adult recreational use.
A total of 47 States have reformed their laws in one form or another pertaining to cannabis, despite its continued Federal criminalization.
The State legal-cannabis industry already employs almost a quarter of a million people, and the federal government needs to get out of the way of state-level decision making.
We need to open the door to research, therapeutic treatment for veterans, better banking and tax laws, and we need to help fuel economic growth within the industry.
We need to do all of this without continuing to spend federal resources on criminalization and unjust incarceration for marijuana offenses. Congress needs to pass the MORE Act.
That is why I support passage of this bill today and ask my colleagues to do so, as well.
I thank our Chairman Jerry Nadler, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and Congressman Earl Blumenauer for their commitment to this potentially life-changing bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record Health Affairs' ``Culture of Health,'' which shows the importance of cannabis liberalization policy, and a letter from all of these individuals, religious groups, and the Center for American Progress. [From HealthAffairs, July 2021] Cannabis Liberalization in the US: The Policy Landscape
The cannabis--or marijuana--policy landscape has shifted rapidly in past decades, with increasing numbers of states decriminalizing cannabis possession and legalizing its medical and recreational uses. Yet under federal law, cannabis remains prohibited because of the potential for drug misuse and negative health consequences. This disconnect between federal and state law has allowed a for-profit commercial industry to flourish in many states, absent consistent regulation to ensure product safety. Increasing cannabis accessibility in the states thus raises important public health concerns while expanding certain therapeutic opportunities. A second Health Affairs Health Policy Brief accompanying this one explores the health effects of cannabis legalization. It is also important to understand the framework of policies governing legal cannabis markets, as each policy category likely has differential impacts on health benefits and harms associated with canna-bis use and inconsistencies across jurisdictions have important population health implications. Federal Cannabis Policy
The US federal government began taxing cannabis production and sales by enacting the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 only after most states had prohibited the substance. In 1970, this law was replaced by the Controlled Substances Act, which designates marijuana as a Schedule I substance considered to have high abuse potential and no accepted medical use. Under federal law, the production, sale. possession. and distribution of cannabis can carry fines and prison time.
During the Obama administration, the federal government relaxed its enforcement of cannabis-related crimes. In a series of executive actions, culminating in the 2013 Cole memorandum, the Department of Justice deprioritized prosecution of federal cannabis crimes in states where these activities were legal and robustly regulated. First passed in 2014, the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment prohibited the use of federal funds to prosecute medical cannabis-related activities permissible under state law.
Other recent federal actions have further facilitated access to cannabis plant derivatives. although these differ from the botanical products and simple extracts that tend to dominate state cannabis markets. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved several synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products in 1985 and 2016. each of which was placed on a higher controlled substance schedule than cannabis. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp, a substance extracted from the cannabis plant that contains only 0.3 percent THC. Also in 2018. the Drug Enforcement Administration designated FDA-approved cannabis-derived cannabidiol (CBD) products containing no more than 0.1 percent THC as Schedule V substances.
Under this authority, the FDA approved the first CBD product, Epidiolex, to treat childhood seizures. Evolution of the State Policy Landscape
Public support for the legalization of cannabis use in the US rose from 12 percent to 66 percent between 1969 and 2019. Concurrently, states liberalized their approaches to cannabis markets. Four central policy categories have evolved: prohibition, decriminalization, medical legalization, and recreational (also known as adult use) legalization. Decriminalization regimes were generally adopted first (in the 1970s-1980s, with a resurgence in the 2010s). Decriminalization laws were later complemented by medical legalization or replaced by recreational legalization. Exhibit 1 shows the current status of these four policies, and exhibit 2 depicts state adoption of legalization policies for medical and recreational cannabis since 1996. Prohibition
States began prohibiting cannabis cultivation, distribution, and possession in the early twentieth century. By 1937, every state had some form of cannabis legislation, often motivated by concerns (largely unsubstantiated by scientific evidence at the time) that cannabis products were psychologically addictive, produced insanity, and motivated crime. Although liberalization policies have largely replaced prohibitions, two states--Idaho and Kansas--still ban cannabis in all forms and assign criminal penalties for the possession of even small amounts. Another ten states permit the use of ``low-THC, high-CBD'' products but maintain prohibitions and criminal penalties for all other cannabis activities (included in the ``prohibition'' category in exhibit 1). Decriminalization
Decriminalization is the repeal of criminal penalties associated with cannabis possession for personal use and casual exchange (that is, not sales). ``Depenalization'' policies that lower these penalties without removing them do not qualify as decriminalization regimes. Decriminalization also differs from the nonenforcement policies adopted in several US cities, where enforcement of low-level cannabis- involved offenses is deprioritized. Decriminalization falls short of legalization because it still prohibits and criminally penalizes cannabis cultivation, production, and sales and maintains civil penalties for possessing cannabis. Since the 1970s, states have increasingly adopted decriminalization policies. By 2020, sixteen states had such a policy (exhibit 1). The laws vary along several dimensions, including the levels of civil fines, penalties for repeat offenses, and threshold amounts of cannabis that are exempt from criminal penalties. Medical Cannabis Legalization
Medical cannabis laws typically permit patients with ``qualifying conditions'' certified by a medical professional to purchase cannabis at dispensaries operating within the state. Medical cannabis laws differ from low-THC and high-CBD laws, which only legalize the supply and use of cannabis products with low THC content. The most common qualifying condition for which medical users can be certified is chronic pain, although states regularly add conditions to their lists. Since California passed the first medical cannabis law in 1996, the number of jurisdictions adopting such programs has grown steadily (exhibit 2). Today, more than two-thirds of Americans live in one of the thirty-six states and four territories that have approved medical cannabis use (exhibit 1).
The first medical cannabis laws passed (1996-2000) were vague and defined medical use broadly. Although laws passed between 2000 and 2009 offered more regulatory guidance over the legal supply chain, laws passed or modified in more recent years (2009-17) feature more comprehensive regulatory programs that prioritize product safety. Still, the vast majority of participants in medical cannabis programs are in what are considered ``nonmedicalized programs,'' which lack components consistent with evidence-based medicine and pharmaceutical regulation (for example, testing and labeling) and are largely divorced from medical practice. Ways in which current laws differ from each other include the qualifying conditions approved, channels of access {dispensaries, collective versus home cultivation, and so on), registration card renewal requirements, and use by patients from other states. Recreational Cannabis Legalization
Recreational cannabis laws remove the criminal and civil penalties associated with supply or possession of the substance by adults ages twenty-one and older. These laws typically allow individuals to grow four to six cannabis plants and limit possession and purchase to one to two ounces; most also impose at least a 10 percent retail excise tax on sales. Most states with recreational laws prohibit the use of cannabis while operating a motor vehicle, although four states have specific per se THC limits while driving.
Legalization of recreational use is a relatively new phenomenon. In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first jurisdictions globally to allow adult cultivation and possession of cannabis. In 2020, fifteen states and Washington, DC, had laws that legalize adult cannabis supply and possession in some form (exhibit 1), resulting in more than one-third of the US population having legal access to the substance. With the exception of Illinois and Vermont, all laws passed through 2020 have advanced via ballot measures rather than through the legislature.
States have choices in their recreational cannabis regulatory regimes. Most states have opted for a commercial model, wherein private industry is allowed to produce, supply, and sell cannabis subject to regulation at the state and sometimes local levels. Washington, D.C., uniquely does not allow for commercial production or retail sale but, rather, permits only small amounts of cannabis for personal possession, use, and cultivation. Although Vermont originally prohibited commercial sale, the state authorized the establishment of a commercial retail market in October 2020. Factors that can vary within commercial regimes include how producers and suppliers are regulated, the types of products that may be distributed, taxes, prices, marketing restrictions, and ways in which products can be used or personally cultivated.
States that enacted recreational legalization laws saw declines in adult cannabis-related arrests, although racial disparities in those arrests persist. Some cannabis policies, including the 2021 New Mexico, New York, and Virginia legalization initiatives, incorporate reforms to address harms experienced by communities disproportionately affected by cannabis criminalization. Some laws include provisions to expunge or pardon cannabis-related minor offenses Other states have initiated programs to increase minority participation in the legal market. Some jurisdictions have earmarked tax revenue generated from cannabis sales to support socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. Policy Challenges And Opportunities
Limited national regulation of cannabis, the persistent divide between national and state policy, and the growth of state cannabis markets present numerous challenges for population health, in part because the safety of many cannabis products is uncertain and varies from state to state. A dearth of federal regulation around cannabis products has resulted in an unevenly regulated for-profit industry that generates high profits and maintains substantial control over marketing, promotion, and products supplied.
Cannabis's Schedule I designation under federal law poses additional challenges. It hinders the research into the safety and adverse effects of cannabis-based products that would be required for FDA approval. It also restricts cannabis supplied for clinical trials to that which comes from federal sources, which fails to reflect the potency and type of products actually marketed in the states, although the Drug Enforcement Administration is poised to approve several manufacturers' applications to cultivate marijuana for research needs. Institutions for higher education may be reluctant to allow cannabis to be used in research on their campuses for fear of losing federal funding. Cannabis consumers remain uncertain over the stability of their supply chain and risks that they may be prosecuted under federal law or become ineligible for federal benefits. Finally, cannabis cultivators and distributors face barriers accessing financial services, given that the banking industry is subject to federal laws, resulting in an inability to design investment and growth strategies that could enhance the legitimacy of the industry and safety of the products.
The lack of comprehensive, consistent oversight of cannabis products and the disconnect between federal and state policy suggest a number of important considerations for policy makers. Enhanced Federal Oversight of Product Safety and Development
Several options exist to improve federal oversight of cannabis markets and products and to better align national and state policies. Modifying cannabis's classification in the Controlled Substances Act would facilitate enhanced product safety research at the federal and state levels, relax consumer and industry fears of criminal prosecution, and facilitate legitimate financial transactions for cannabis companies. It also would provide federal policy makers with additional regulatory controls, such as premarketing approval, which is currently unavailable for substances designated as Schedule I, and would acknowledge cannabis's medical benefits This modification could be accomplished by amending the Controlled Substances Act to remove cannabis from Schedule I and moving it to a higher schedule; descheduling cannabis altogether, but having it meet the threshold for FDA oversight, similar to nicotine and tobacco products; or creating a new schedule for cannabis that distinguishes it from other Schedule I substances. The Medical Marijuana Research Act recently approved by the US House of Representatives promotes cannabis research by allowing scientists to access cannabis from state-level dispensaries. Federal policy makers could also further facilitate state regulation of cannabis supply by passing legislation that restricts federal prosecutorial interference with state cannabis markets.
Notwithstanding the above changes, the FDA already possesses some regulatory powers to enhance the safety of cannabis products. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 and Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act as affirmed in the 2018 Farm Bill, the FDA can regulate cannabis-containing and cannabis-derived compounds. Under this authority, the FDA has taken particular interest in overseeing the science and safety of CBD products. Of concern are health claims made by some cannabis product manufacturers and the introduction of foods containing THC or CBD into interstate commerce--both of which are areas under FDA jurisdiction. The agency could take more aggressive action than issuing warning letters to questionable (CBD-related commercial practices and could extend the rigor of its investigations into THC products. For example, it could limit the allowable THC content, which is concerningly high in many cannabis products and is capable of inducing dependence or cannabis use disorder. State Strategies for Overseeing Cannabis Product Safety
Without changes in the federal regulatory architecture or enhanced FDA oversight, states that move forward with legalization must carefully consider how to safely oversee cannabis markets.
Medical and recreational legalization have encouraged a proliferation of product forms. Data from early recreationally legalized states suggest that although the flower of the plant still accounts for the largest proportion of the market, heterogeneous extracts for inhalation are the fastest-growing market segment. Cannabis products vary not only in form but also in the potency of THC, CBD, and other cannabinoids, as well as in the types and amounts of pesticides and other impurities. Cannabis food and drink products pose unique regulatory challenges. The health risks associated with edibles, including for minors, likely result from minimal consistency across products relating to potency, inaccurate labeling, and the fact that many edibles contain multiple servings of the advised THC dose. Further, users may fail to appreciate the delayed effects of ingestion compared with inhalation.
State legalization provides an opportunity for enhanced regulatory oversight that can improve the safety of legal cannabis products and limit the health risks and other risks associated with the illegal marketplace. Policy makers can consider ways to align legal cannabis markets with public health strategies gleaned from tobacco and alcohol, such as minimizing youth advertising exposure, restricting sale and marketing locations, and requiring childproof packaging. Frameworks could also consider medical and recreational legalization regimes that adopt safety standards, for instance, by limiting the concentration of THC in products to levels not associated with dependence. Standards for Medical Training
Despite the increasing prevalence of cannabis use in states with and without legalization, many physicians do not receive training on the potential health benefits and harms of medical and recreational cannabis. To address this gap, states could mandate that state-licensed physicians complete continuing medical education credits on medical cannabis use before certifying patients for medical cannabis registration. Medical schools and residency programs could also design coursework on the biochemical effects, clinical relevance, and legal evolution of cannabis policy. These education activities could be regularly updated with emerging evidence on the health effects of cannabis. Outreach could extend to patients and the public to inform them of the evidence-based therapeutic uses of cannabis. All such training would be better informed by enhanced research, as discussed above. Considerations for Criminal Justice and Racial Equity
As cannabis liberalization progresses throughout the country, states must address the collateral consequences of cannabis-related criminal justice contact. Although states with legalization and, to a lesser degree, decriminalization regimes have experienced overall declines in arrests for cannabis across racial groups, disparities in arrests across races remain notable. Although cannabis-related arrests decreased by 18 percent during the past decade, a Black person is still nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than a White person.
Cannabis policy reforms that aim to address criminal justice and social disparities warrant consideration. Cumbersome and expensive expungement processes, significant entry obstacles associated with the legal market, and declines in price that in turn reduce funds earmarked for community programs threaten initiatives that address harms produced by cannabis criminalization. As states begin to implement social equity measures, they should carefully assess which communities have been disproportionately harmed by cannabis prohibition; how to encourage equitable, sustainable participation in the cannabis industry--including training and business support; and how earmarked cannabis revenue will be disseminated to equity-enhancing initiatives. Conclusion
Cannabis policy liberalization provides opportunities for therapeutic benefit but also presents the potential for health harms, the full consequences of which remain unknown, given the nascency of the research and inconsistency in findings (see the accompanying Health Affairs Health Policy Brief) For policy makers considering reforms, policy choices extend beyond blunt categories of prohibition, decriminalization, medical legalization, and recreational legalization and involve decisions related to the panoply of regulatory provisions that govern legal and illegal cannabis. The specifics of how to implement and enforce cannabis policy and regulation are important to health, and researchers should endeavor to evaluate these nuances as well as the broader policy categories. Some states have included within their legalization initiatives provisions requiring policy evaluation. For example, Washington State earmarked cannabis tax revenue to fund a continuous cannabis research program. Other states, including Vermont and New York, reviewed the potential impacts of regulating a recreational cannabis supply chain before policy reform. More efforts such as these will help to unpack the independent and comparative health harms and benefits of various cannabis policy regimes and regulatory approaches. ____ March 1, 2022. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Washington, DC. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Washington, DC. Re Bring the MORE Act to the House Floor for a Vote
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer: We, the undersigned criminal justice, civil rights, drug policy, labor and advocacy organizations who make up the Marijuana Justice Coalition, write today to urge you to swiftly bring to the House floor the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act of 2021 (H.R. 3617). This legislation would end federal marijuana prohibition, address the collateral consequences of federal marijuana criminalization, and take steps to ensure the legal marketplace is diverse and inclusive.
This historic legislation first passed the House in December of 2020 with a bipartisan vote of 228-164 but was not considered by the Senate prior to the close of the 116th Congress. Given that nearly every minute one person in this country is arrested for a minor marijuana crime, the public deserves to know if members of the 117th Congress stand on the side of justice and against the outdated and cruel policy of prohibition and criminalization of marijuana.
Mass criminalization and over-enforcement of drug law violations have devastated the social and economic fabrics of entire communities, while also tearing apart the lives of millions of individuals and families. And while Black, Latino, and Indigenous people have carried the brunt of marijuana criminalization, they have been shut out of the regulated marijuana marketplace due to these very same criminal records in addition to financial barriers to entry.
The MORE Act seeks to solve these problems through a comprehensive approach. The bill would declassify marijuana as a controlled substance under federal law, expunge marijuana convictions, and reduce marijuana sentences. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the MORE Act would have reduced time served by 73,000 person-years, over the 2021-2030 period, among existing and future incarcerated individuals. The bill, after solving the industry's 280E tax issue, would also place a minor initial five percent federal excise tax on marijuana sales at the manufacturer level in order to fund services in communities adversely impacted by drug prohibition and to build up Small Business Administration programming to support a more diverse and inclusive marketplace with local ownership.
The previous House vote on the MORE Act came on the heels of an election where five states--Montana, Arizona, South Dakota, Mississippi, and New Jersey--had marijuana reform on the ballot and each voted to loosen their marijuana laws. Since then, even more states have chosen to reform their marijuana laws. More recently, Connecticut, New York, New Mexico, and Virginia passed marijuana legalization bills rooted in social justice bringing the total number of states that have legalized adult-use of marijuana to 18, in addition to the District of Columbia, while 37 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, most recently Mississippi earlier this year.
A recent Pew Research poll shows that a record number of U.S. adults--91 percent--now support marijuana legalization for medical or adult use, a policy that is only achievable by removing the substance from the Controlled Substances Act as the MORE Act does. In short, the resounding shift in favor of marijuana reform demonstrates what we have been saying: marijuana justice is a winning issue and it is long past time for the federal government to catch up.
The time to end federal prohibition is long overdue. We urge you bring the MORE Act to the House floor in March. For more information or to address any questions you may have, please contact Maritza Perez, Director of the Office of National Affairs of the Drug Policy Alliance and convener of the Marijuana Justice Coalition. Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union; The BOWL PAC; Center for American Progress; The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Clergy for a New Drug Policy; Doctors for Cannabis Regulation; Drug Policy Alliance; Human Rights Watch; Immigrant Defense Project; Immigrant Legal Resource Center JustLeadershipUSA; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights; Minorities for Medical Marijuana, Inc.; MoveOn; National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild; National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws; National Urban League; Students for Sensible Drug Policy; United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; Veterans Cannabis Coalition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, last Congress, the House voted, on a bipartisan basis, to address this issue. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act, so I am pleased that we are moving forward again today.
Over the past two decades, public support for legalizing marijuana has surged. States have led the way and continue to lead the way on marijuana reform, but our Federal laws have not kept pace with the obvious need for change. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up, to do what is right.
The MORE Act would treat marijuana as a public health issue rather than a criminal matter and would begin to rectify the heavy toll that criminalization has taken, particularly on communities of color and low-income communities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source