Last week, Gary Chambers Jr., a Baton Rouge native, launched his political campaign to run for a U.S. Senate seat in Louisiana. He took the internet by storm with his first political advertisement, a 37-second-long video where he advocates for cannabis legalization, discussing the disproportionate effects that cannabis prohibition has on communities of color.
But that’s not why he made such a splash on social media; the campaign ad made headlines as possibly the first major party candidate to smoke a cannabis blunt in an advertisement.
The timing of the video is also very intentional, lasting 37 seconds. “Every 37 seconds, someone is arrested for possession of marijuana,” Chambers says in the video. “Since 2010, state and local police have arrested an estimated 7.3 million Americans for violating marijuana laws, over half of all drug arrests. Black people are 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana laws than white people.”
Chambers is running against Sen. John Kennedy, the Republican incumbent with support from Trump and very deep pockets.
“Most of the people police are arresting aren’t dealers, but rather people with small amounts of pot just like me,” says Chambers. “I’m Gary Chambers, and I’m running for the U.S. Senate.” Click here to see his campaign website and make a donation.
Earlier this week, the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) published its recommendations for improving environmental sustainability in the cannabis industry. The report, titled Environmental Sustainability in the Cannabis Industry: Impacts, Best Management Practices, and Policy Considerations, was developed by their Policy Council along with experts in the field of environmental sustainability.
The 58-page report is quite comprehensive and covers things like land use, soil health, water, energy, air quality, waste and the negative effects of an unregulated market. While the report goes into great detail on specific environmental policy considerations, like recycling, water usage, energy efficiency and more, it makes a handful of overarching policy recommendations that impact environmental sustainability on a much more macro level.
The report mentions developing a platform for sharing information in the national cannabis industry. The idea here is that information sharing on a national scale for things like energy use can be used as a communication tool for regulators as well as a tool for companies to collaborate and share ideas.
The second more overarching policy recommendation the NCIA makes in this report is “to incorporate environmental best practices and regulatory requirements into existing marijuana licensing and testing processes.” This would help streamline and unify regulations already in place and keeps sustainability in the discussion from the very start.
The last major policy recommendation they make is for incentive programs. They say that governments should incentivize cannabis businesses to operate more sustainably and “prioritize funds provided to businesses where barriers exist to entering the market, such as small- or minority-owned businesses.” The report adds that this could essentially kill two birds with one stone by promoting environmental sustainability and diversity at the same time.
Kaitlin Urso is the lead author of the report and executive project and engagement manager for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. She says that these policy recommendations were designed to benefit everyone. “A successful, socially responsible cannabis industry will require best practices for environmental sustainability. This paper is a vital first step in that effort,” says Urso. “This is important, ongoing work that will benefit everyone. The NCIA’s paper on environmental sustainability is going to inform how we approach important questions related to the future of the cannabis industry.”
The first article of this series discussed resource management for cannabis growers. In this second piece of the series on how indoor farming has a reduced impact on the environment, we’re going to look at land use & conservation. There are really two aspects and we have to be up front and acknowledge that while our focus is on legal cannabis farming, there’s a significant illegal industry which exists and is not subject to any environmental regulation.
“Streams in Mendocino run dry during the marijuana growing season impacting Coho salmon and steelhead trout who lay their eggs in the region’s waterways.” One biologist reported seeing “dead steelhead and Coho on a regular basis in late August and September, usually due to water reduction or elimination from extensive marijuana farming.” The quotes are from an extensive article on cannabis land use by Jessica Owley in the U.C. Davis Law Review.The concept that land will stay in its natural state is a mixture of idealism and reality.
This is going to continue until it’s more profitable to go legit. For this article, we’re going to focus on the legitimate cannabis grower. On the land use side, we usually hear four main reasons for indoor growing: remaining land can stay in its natural state, fewer space usually translates to fewer waste, you conserve land and natural resources when you don’t use fossil fuels, greenhouses can be placed anywhere.
The concept that land will stay in its natural state is a mixture of idealism and reality. Just because someone only has to farm five acres of land instead of one hundred acres doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to leave the rest in its pristine natural state. Granted the footprint for automated greenhouses is significantly less but the key is what happens to that extra space. Assuming that it will all be preserved in its natural state isn’t realistic. What is realistic is the fact that a developer may not want to build tract houses abutting a commercial greenhouse operation. If they do, likely there’s going to be more land set aside for green space than if a farm was sold outright and a series of new homes were plunked down as if it were a Monopoly board.
Combined with workforce development program funding, urban indoor farming is getting more attractive every day.That’s not the same kind of issue in urban areas where the situation is different. Despite the economic boom of the past ten years, not every neighborhood benefitted. The smart ones took creative approaches. Gotham Greens started in Greenpoint, Brooklyn and has expanded to Chicago as well. “In early 2014, Gotham Greens opened its second greenhouse, located on the rooftop of Whole Foods Market’s flagship Brooklyn store, which was the first ever commercial scale greenhouse integrated into a supermarket.”
Green City Growers in Cleveland’s Central neighborhood is another example. “Situated on a 10-acre inner-city site that was once urban blight, the greenhouse—with 3.25 acres under glass–now serves as a vibrant anchor for the surrounding neighborhood.”
The beauty of greenhouse systems even those without greenhouse software, is they can be built anywhere because the environmental concerns of potentially contaminated soil don’t exist. The federal government as well as state and local governments offer a myriad of financial assistance programs to encourage growers to develop operations in their areas. Combined with workforce development program funding, urban indoor farming is getting more attractive every day.
As for the argument that greenhouses save energy and fossil fuels, I think we can agree that it’s pretty difficult to operate a thousand-acre farm using solar power. To their credit, last year John Deere unveiled a tractor that will allow farmers to run it as a fully autonomous vehicle to groom their fields while laying out and retracting the 1 kilometer long onboard extension cord along the way. It’s a start although I’ll admit to my own problems operating an electric mower without cutting the power cord.
In a 2017 article, Kurt Benke and Bruce Tomkins stated, “Transportation costs can be eliminated due to proximity to the consumer, all-year-round production can be programmed on a demand basis, and plant-growing conditions can be optimized to maximize yield by fine-tuning temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions. Indoor farming in a controlled environment also requires much less water than outdoor farming because there is recycling of gray water and less evaporation.”
The overall trend on fossil fuel reduction was verified this week when the Department of Energy announced that renewables passed coal for the first time in U.S. history. And on the water issue, Ms. Owley had a salient point for cannabis growers. “The federal government will not allow federal irrigation water to be used to grow marijuana anywhere, even in states where cultivation is legal.” That’s not a minor detail and it’s why outdoor farming of cannabis is going to be limited in areas where water resources and water rights are hotly debated.
In a sign that cannabis reform is now on the march at the highest level of international discussion, the World Health Organization (WHO) will be meeting in November to formally review its policies on cannabis. This will be the second time in a year that the organization has met to review its policies on the plant, with a direct knock-on effect at the UN level.
According to documents obtained by Cannabis Industry Journal, including a personal cover letter over the committee’s findings submitted to the Secretary-General Antonio Guterres by Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, the November review will “undertake a critical review of the…cannabis plant and resin; extracts and tinctures of cannabis.”
What Exactly Will The WHO Review?
The November meeting will follow up on the work done this summer in June – namely to review CBD. According to these recommendations, the fortieth meeting of the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) in Geneva will include the following:
Pure CBD should not be scheduled within International Drug Control Conventions.
Cannabis plant and resin, extracts and tinctures of cannabis, Delta-9-THC and isomers of THC will all be reviewed in November.
Finally, and most cheeringly, the committee concluded that “there is sufficient information to progress Delta-9-THC to a critical review…to address the appropriateness of its placement within the Conventions.” In other words, rescheduling.
Industry and Patient Impact
Translation beyond the diplomatic niceties?
The drug war may, finally, and at a level not seen for more than a century, come to a close internationally, on cannabis.
Here is why: The WHO is effectively examining both the addictive impact and “harm” of the entire plant, by cannabinoid, while admitting, already that current scheduling is inappropriate. And further should not apply to CBD.
This also means that come November, the committee, which has vast sway on the actions of the UN when it comes to drug policy, is already in the CBD camp. And will finally, it is suspected, place other cannabinoids within a global rescheduling scheme. AKA removing any justification for sovereign laws, as in the U.S., claiming that any part of cannabis is a “Schedule I” drug.
What this means, in other words, in effect, is that as of November, the UN will have evidence that its current drug scheduling of cannabis, at the international level, is not only outdated, but needs a 21stcentury reboot.
International Implications
From a calendar perspective, in what will be Canada’s first recreational month, Britain’s first medical one and presumably the one in that the German government will finally accept its second round of cultivation bids, the world’s top regulatory body will agree with them.
This also means that as of November, globally, the current American federal justifications and laws for keeping cannabis a Schedule I drug, and based on the same, will have no international legal or scientific legitimacy or grounding.
Not that this has stopped destructive U.S. policies before. See global climate change. However, and this is the good news, it is far easier to lobby on cannabis reform locally than CO2 emissions far from home. See the other potentially earth-shaking event in November – namely the U.S. midterm elections.
The global industry, in other words, is about to get a shot in the arm, and in a way that has never happened before in the history of the plant.
And that is only good news for not only the industry, but consumers and patients alike.
This article continues the bill-by-bill review begun in the August 1st article on cannabis reform legislation proposed in the 115th Congress. In the next article and final piece in this series, we will examine the banking and tax reform bills related to cannabis.
Medical Cannabis Reform Bills
S. 1008 – Therapeutic Hemp Medical Act of 2017
HR. 2273 – Charlotte’s Web Medical Access Act of 2017
Policy: These bills would amend the CSA to end federal prohibition over all CBD products and all hemp plants with THC content levels of below 0.3%. In other words, people and businesses would be free to grow hemp and/or manufacture CBD products without any fear of federal prosecution. These products would most likely then fall under the regulation of other federal and/or state agencies, but the bills do not specify what agencies they might be or what controls might be put in place.
Impact: The impacts from these bills nationwide have the potential to be massive. Hemp is a plant that can be put to highly effective use in many different industries, from textiles and construction to foodstuffs and seafaring. The efficiency of its growth and the breadth of its utility will make it a highly valuable commodity and a competitor with many other raw materials. For state-legal cannabis businesses, the legalization of CBD and hemp at the federal level could fundamentally change the market for those products. States that legalized cannabis already have provisions in place dealing with hemp and CBD—sometimes alongside their cannabis laws, sometimes handled by a separate state agency—and they could either leave those as they are or open up those markets to interstate activity. In states that have not legalized, CBD and hemp are typically included in the state’s definition of cannabis, and therefore they will remain illegal under state law unless further action is taken. Most likely, if federal prohibition ends on hemp and CBD, state prohibition will follow suit. Because legalization at the federal level will allow for interstate commerce in hemp and CBD, expect the emergence of a nationwide market, driven by online sales and interstate marketing, and developing independently from a cannabis industry still constrained to in-state activities.
Procedural Status:
Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) Photo: Gage Skidmore, Flickr
S. 1008
Introduced: May 2, 2017 by Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Cosponsors: 7 Republican, 4 Democrat
Referred to Senate Committee on:
Judiciary
HR. 2273
Introduced: May 1, 2017 by Representative Scott Perry (R-PA)
Cosponsors: 10 Republicans, 10 Democrats
Referred to House Committee on:
Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health
Financial Services
S. 1276 – Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act
Policy: This bill would accomplish two objectives: First, it would open channels for researchers to access and experiment with cannabis and cannabis extracts. Second, it would initiate the process at the end of which the Attorney General must make a determination as to which Schedule of the CSA is most appropriate for cannabidiol (CBD).
Impact: The impact on this legislation to state-legal cannabis businesses is rather remote—in both time and practice. The research access provisions will certainly create an uptick in medical and psychological research activity, the outcomes of which will add to our knowledge of how consuming cannabis in different forms and amounts effects the brain and body. This type of government-regulated research takes many years to process and complete, as both bureaucratic and scientific standards must be met. As for initiating the re/de-scheduling review process for CBD, this is a direct response to the 2016 denial by the DEA to re/de-schedule cannabis. That determination, published in the Federal Registrar on August 12, 2016, was made following a comprehensive study of the medical benefits and harms of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although such an in-depth study and its resulting negative determination pronounced so recently would normally rule out the chances of success for another re/de-scheduling attempt so soon after, the DEA did leave the door open with its statement that it “did not focus its evaluation on particular strains of marijuana or components or derivatives of marijuana.” It is just this door that S. 1276 seeks to exploit. By focusing the re/de-scheduling process on CBD specifically, the presumption is that the outcome of the scientific CBD studies would have a far better chance at satisfying the re/de-scheduling criteria set forth in the CSA. If such a determination was made, then the impact would come in two potential varieties. One, CBD would be rescheduled and become available for medical use according to FDA rules applicable to other prescription drugs. Two, CBD would be descheduled and would fall under the prerogative of the states, in which case the above analysis for S. 1008 and HR. 2273 would pertain.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Photo: Daniel Torok
Procedural Status:
S. 1276
Introduced: May 25, 2017 by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Cosponsors: 3 Republican, 2 Democrat
Referred to Senate Committee on:
Judiciary
S. 1374 – Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act of 2017
HR. 2920 – Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act of 2017
HR. 715 – Compassionate Access Act of 2017
HR. 714 – Legitimate Use of Medical Marijuana Act (LUMMA) of 2017
Policy: All four of these bills would make an exception to the CSA for state medical cannabis laws. Federal prohibition, in other words, would end for medical cannabis in those states that have legalized, and it would be left to those states to devise how it would be regulated. In states that have not legalized, both state and federal prohibition would remain. The companion CARERS Acts in the House and Senate, along with HR. 714, would also amend FDA rules to widen access to cannabis for research purposes.
Impact: The impact of these bills on the rules for state-legal medical cannabis businesses would be relatively minor in terms of functionality. This is so because they leave not only the determination to legalize up to the states, but they leave the design of the regulatory system up to the states as well. In other areas, however, big changes will be seen that benefit the industry: banking will open up for state medical businesses, and so will the opportunity to write-off ordinary business expenses. Investment risks over legality will end, making for easier access to capital. Questions about contract enforcement and risks of federal prosecution will become moot, and when state regulatory bodies make decisions on how to govern the industry, they will no longer have to concern themselves with U.S. DOJ enforcement and/or prosecutorial policies. Enactment of any of these bills would be a big win for medical cannabis.
Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) Photo: David Shinbone, Flickr
Procedural Status:
S. 1374
Introduced: June 15, 2017 by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Cosponsors: None
Referred to Senate Committee on:
Judiciary
HR. 2920
Introduced: June 15, 2017 by Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Cosponsors: 1 Republicans
Referred to House Committee on:
Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health
Veterans’ Affairs
Subcommittee on Health
HR. 715
Introduced: January 27, 2017 by Representative Morgan H. Griffith (R-VA)
Cosponsors: 2 Republicans, 1 Democrat
Referred to House Committee on:
Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health
Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
HR. 714
Introduced: January 27, 2017 by Representative Morgan H. Griffith
Cosponsors: 1 Democrat
Referred to House Committee on:
Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health
HR. 2020 – To Provide for the Rescheduling of Marijuana into Schedule III of the CSA
Policy: As its wordy title indicates, this bill would bypass the schedule review process and by legislative fiat move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA.
Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
Impact: Businesses handling drugs in Schedule III must register with the DEA and comply with DEA record keeping and security requirements. Doctors would be permitted to prescribe cannabis products. Importing/exporting will become available by permit, which would bring state businesses into competition with foreign cannabis firms. The biggest impact will be that cannabis sold pursuant to federal law will have to undergo the FDA’s New Drug Application process conducted by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the largest of the FDA’s five centers. This includes clinical testing and a comprehensive chemical/pharmacological review. The drug would then be subject to FDA regulation for marketing and labelling. For states that wanted to maintain their legal medical cannabis systems, a conflict would remain because cannabis cultivators and dispensaries could operate in compliance with state law while simultaneously failing to meet new FDA and DEA requirements. States will then have a choice: bring state laws into line with federal laws, creating all of the advantages of federal legality discussed above, yet causing major disruptions to the industry; or retain the status quo, allowing the industry to grow as is with all of the in-state advantages but without the advantages of federal legalization. This all would of course leave behind recreational cannabis which would remain in the legal gray zone.
Introduced: April 4, 2017 by Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
Cosponsors:
Referred to House Committee on:
Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health
Judiciary
HR. 331 – States’ Medical Marijuana Property Right Protection Act
Policy: Section 881(a)(7) of the CSA subjects to federal forfeiture all property involved with cannabis activities. This bill would make an exception to that provision for all property in compliance with state medical cannabis laws.
Impact: Although not legalizing medical cannabis, this bill would be a strong step in the direction of legitimizing state-legal medical cannabis businesses. As a result of the property forfeiture clause of the CSA, two impediments faced by the medical cannabis industry is that investors are hesitant to invest and land lords are hesitant to lease or otherwise engage the medical cannabis market. By eliminating the risk of such property loss due to the federal-state conflict, this bill would have the very welcomed impact of easing access to capital and expanding opportunities for land use.
Introduced: January31, 2017 by Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Cosponsors:
Referred to the House Committee on:
Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Since the first session of the 115th Congress convened on January 3, 2017, twenty-four cannabis reform bills have been introduced, fifteen in the House and nine in the Senate. All of them address in varying ways the puzzles that have emerged as more and more states legalize cannabis in the face of federal prohibition. Some are narrow, some are broad, some are for medical cannabis only, some for recreational too, some have more bipartisan support than others, but all indicate in some manner the direction federal reform will eventually take.
H.R.1227 – Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017
Understanding the content and status of these bills and what they would mean for the industry if/when they are enacted, will help stakeholders anticipate changes that we know are bound to drop, and therefore be better prepared to adapt to them when they do.
Generally lacking in the journalism on cannabis is coverage and analysis of federal proposals deep enough to provide a useable understanding of the policies they stand to codify. As CIJ is dedicated to providing just such useable information to industry-insiders, this bill-by-bill review fills the gap.
All twenty-four bills fit rather neatly into one of three categories: De-scheduling/State Control Reform, Medical Cannabis Reform and Banking/Tax Reform. This second article in the series will look at the first category, and the next article will wrap up the last two.
De-Scheduling/State Control Reform
HR 1227 – Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017
Policy:The bill proposes two major changes to the CSA. The first is to strike cannabis from the statute, essentially leaving the regulation or prohibition of it up to each state. The second is to insert into the CSA a provision that makes it a federal offense to transport cannabis from one state to another in any way that violates state law. In other words, if a state wished to continue prohibiting cannabis, it would be both a federal and state crime for anyone to transport cannabis into that state. Likewise, if a state wished to legalize and regulate cannabis, but wanted to prevent out-of-state cannabis from entering, the transportation provision would permit that state to do so.
Impact: Industries in states that have already legalized cannabis will structurally remain the same. Banking will open up for these state businesses, and so will the opportunity to write-off ordinary business expenses. Questions about contract enforcement and risks of federal prosecution will become moot, and when state regulatory bodies make decisions on how to govern the industry, they will no longer have to concern themselves with U.S. DOJ enforcement and/or prosecutorial policies. The big potential change will be seen if two or more contiguous states that have legalized cannabis decide to permit transport of the drug between their states. Markets will expand, opening access to new customers and challenges from new competitors. Licensees may also have the option to venue shop, and we could see states themselves competing with one another to attract cannabis business with the carrot of favorable regulations.
Representative Thomas Garett (R-VA) Photo: C-SPAN
One possible pitfall to keep in mind is that this legislation could violate something in constitutional law known as the Dormant Commerce Clause—a topic CIJ will cover should it surface.
Procedural Status:
Introduced on February 27, 2017 by Representative Thomas Garett (R-VA)
Cosponsors: 4 Republican, 11 Democrat, 1 At-Large
Referred to House Committees on:
Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health
HR 2528 – Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act of 2017
Policy: This bill would add to the CSA a provision specifically declaring no congressional intent to preempt state cannabis laws.
Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) Photo: Center for American Progress Action Fund, Flickr
Impact: HR 2528 would rule out the potential for a judicial resolution to the federalism controversy. Most legal challenges to state legalization regimes have relied on a theory of Supremacy Clause preemption. Most notably was the 2014 case initiated by Oklahoma and Nebraska against Colorado, which you can find broken down here. Although the Supreme Court denied to hear that case, the issue is outstanding and remains an important factor, if not the central factor, in cannabis cases currently pending in federal court. Under this reform, state cannabis laws would be safe from invalidation, but it is less clear whether a mere anti-preemption clause would strip the federal government of its other powers under the CSA, or alter in any way the current status of cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance. Questions arising under such uncertainty would likely have to go through long and hotly contested litigation before we have concrete answers. So although this proposal would resolve the ticklish issue of preemption, it leaves unaddressed the many other conundrums posed by federal-state divergence.
Procedural Status:
Introduced on May 18, 2017 by Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Cosponsors: 1 Republican
Referred to House Committees on:
Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health
HR 1841 – Regulate Marihuana Like Alcohol Act
Policy:This bill sets to accomplish a number of different reforms: remove cannabis from CSA; allow for import and export except into states that wish to prohibit cannabis altogether and/or prohibit its importation into the state; decriminalize cannabis use on national forest land; require a permit from the Secretary of the Treasury to import cannabis and to engage in any cannabis business activity; mandate businesses that obtain a Treasury permit to also comply with all State laws (so if state wants to continue to prohibit, they may); share jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of the new federal laws between the DEA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabaco, Firearms and Explosives which is to be renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives.
Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) Photo: Joshua Lawton, Flickr
Impact: If enacted, this bill will have many of the same impacts as the abovementioned HR 1227- Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017. The IMPACT section for that bill will also pertain to this bill, with the following exception: by requiring a permit to operate a cannabis business from the Department of Treasury, the bill would add a layer of regulation on top of state law. Treasury Permits would be conditioned on permitees complying “with all other Federal laws relating to production, sale and consumption of marijuana.” Although §302 of the bill limits Treasury’s discretion in denying applications to only certain, enumerated disqualifying factors, the “other Federal laws” the bill refers to could embody any number of policy and jurisdictional preferences either enacted by the Congress or promulgated by the executive agencies charged with administration. At the current stage of speculation the best we can say is that descheduling cannabis under this bill would be a benefit to the industry, but out of all of the present proposals the provisions authorizing federal regulation present the greatest uncertainty for the shape the future of the industry might take.
Procedural Status:
Introduced on March 30, 2017 by Representative Jared Polis (D-CO)
Cosponsors: 1 Republican, 14 Democrat
Referred to House Committees on:
Judiciary
Energy and Commerce
Ways and Means
Agriculture
Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry
Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
HR 975
Statute: Adds one sentence to the CSA that excludes its application to any person acting in compliance with State cannabis laws.
Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Photo: Gage Skidmore, Flickr
Impact:The bill would have the same impact as the above HR 1227 – Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017, with the only exception that the transportation provision in HR 1227 makes it clear that states will be permitted to prohibit the importation of cannabis from other states if they want to. This bill, without speaking directly to the matter of interstate importation, could leave the question open-ended until resolved through judicial interpretation.
Procedural Status:
Introduced on February 7, 2017 by Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Cosponsors: 8 Republican, 12 Democrat, 2 At-Large
Referred to House Committees on:
Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health
Legislative Update
On Tuesday, August 1st, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the twenty-fourth cannabis reform bill. The bill has yet to be assigned a number or referred to committee, but it is called the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017, and makes some interesting contributions to the lineup of reform proposals.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) Photo: Nick Fisher, Flickr
For legalization purposes, the bill both removes cannabis from the CSA and removes prohibitions on importing and exporting. The above analysis for descheduling and import/export would apply to Booker’s bill in the same way. The interesting twist thrown in is how criminal and racial justice objectives are linked to incentives for states to legalize. The ultimate decision to legalize or not in a given state will continue to be the prerogative of each state, but the catch is that if a state does not legalize cannabis and the number of arrests for cannabis offenses in that state disproportionately impacts minority or low-income citizens, then the federal government will pull funding it provides to that state for criminal justice-related programs. This could push more states who would otherwise not legalize onto the reform bandwagon. Such states will have to pit how much they value federal funds against how much they value criminalizing cannabis. If the former outweighs the latter, policy logic will dictate that they legalize. Updates on this bill, and movement on any others, will be tracked by CIJ.
For the next piece in this series, we will review the bills currently pending in Congress that cover medical cannabis reform and banking/tax reform. Stay tuned for the latest on what’s happening around Capitol Hill and in federal cannabis policy circles.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
But that’s not why he made such a splash on social media; the campaign ad made headlines as possibly the first major party candidate to smoke a cannabis blunt in an advertisement.
