Connect with us

Politics

Groups Push Congress To Let D.C. Legalize Marijuana Sales

Published

on

More than a dozen advocacy organizations sent a letter to House and Senate leadership on Wednesday, urging them to allow Washington, D.C. to implement a regulated marijuana market.

While D.C. voters approved an initiative legalizing low-level possession and home cultivation of cannabis in 2014, congressional lawmakers have attached riders to spending legislation each year since that have blocked officials in the nation’s capital from using local tax dollars to enact a retail sales component.

“It is critical that Congress support D.C.’s right to home rule and the ability to spend local tax dollars as they deem fit, especially in regard to the regulation and taxation of marijuana,” the groups—including Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), ACLU of D.C., NORML and Competitive Enterprise Institute—wrote.

In its latest spending bill for Fiscal Year 2020, the House Appropriations Committee stripped the rider from the chamber’s version of the legislation, and Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), who has sponsored the measure in years past, didn’t attempt to reinsert it. That bill passed the House in June.

But in the Senate version, the rider remained intact, meaning that it will come down to negotiators on a bicameral conference committee to decide which version is sent to President Trump’s desk.

“Current law has interfered with the District’s efforts to regulate marijuana, which has impacted public safety,” the reform groups’ letter states. “Without the ability to regulate marijuana sales, the grey market for marijuana flourishes despite the need and want of the District leadership and residents alike to establish a regulatory model.”

“Such a model would free up law enforcement resources to focus on reducing violent crime,” it continues. “It would also allow legitimate entrepreneurs to start businesses, create jobs and spur economic development.”

The National Cannabis Industry Association, Sentencing Project, Northwestern University School of Law, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, R Street Institute and Law Enforcement Action Partnership, among other organizations, also signed the letter.

“Under these conditions—where marijuana is essentially decriminalized, but there is no legal access for adult use—D.C. has been left with a complicated grey market that is both unsafe and a far cry from the racial and economic justice promises of the Initiative 71 campaign,” Queen Adesuyi, DPA’s policy manager for national affairs, said in a press release.

“It’s time that Congress get its hands off of D.C. and allow D.C. Council, Mayor Muriel Bowser, and other relevant D.C. stakeholders to deliver on the promises of equity and justice for those disproportionately impacted by racially-biased enforcement of marijuana laws,” she said.

Bowser, who is a champion of D.C. statehood and cannabis reform, announced in May that she was sending a bill to the District Council that would provide for the retail sale of marijuana in the city. She’s repeatedly implored lawmakers to remove the rider preventing the local government from fully following through on the will of voters.

“Keep your #HandsOffDC and #RemoveTheRider preventing us from establishing a safe & equitable cannabis regime for adult use,” she wrote in October, linking to a petition. “Together, with Congresswoman [Eleanor Holmes Norton], we fight for the rights of 702,000 disenfranchised DC residents.”

Another area of interest for cannabis reform advocates as it concerns the appropriations process centers on the possible expansion of a rider shielding state marijuana laws from federal interference. Since 2014, Congress has enacted such a policy that only covers medical cannabis policies, but this year the House approved a version that would cover adult-use marijuana programs as well. However, the Senate bill contains only the current medical-focused language, meaning that it will be up to conference committee negotiators to decide.

While the current continuing resolution providing funds for federal agencies is set to expire on November 21, lawmakers are discussing another stopgap funding measure that would push the deadline to December 20.

Read the full letter on the D.C. marijuana rider below:

National DC Rider Letter Final by Marijuana Moment on Scribd

More Than 500 People Have Commented On USDA Hemp Rules So Far

Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Kyle Jaeger is Marijuana Moment's Los Angeles-based associate editor. His work has also appeared in High Times, VICE and attn.

Politics

Marijuana Research Bill Scheduled For Key Congressional Vote Next Week, Committee Announces

Published

on

A bipartisan bill to promote and streamline marijuana research has been scheduled for a House committee vote next week.

The Energy and Commerce Committee announced late on Friday that it will mark up the Medical Marijuana Research Act, which would accomplish two goals: First, it would establish a simplified registration process for researchers interested in studying cannabis, in part by reducing approval wait times, minimizing costly security requirements and eliminating additional layers of protocol review.

Second, it would allow certified scientists to obtain research-grade cannabis from private manufacturers. That could resolve an issue identified by researchers and lawmakers, who complain that marijuana produced at the only existing federally authorized facility at the University of Mississippi is difficult to access and is chemically closer to hemp than cannabis available on the commercial market.

Under the bill, which will get a committee vote on Wednesday, there would be no limit on the number of entities that can be registered to cultivate marijuana for research purposes. It would also require the Department of Health and Human Services to submit a report to Congress within five years after enactment to overview the results of federal cannabis studies and recommend whether they warrant marijuana’s rescheduling under federal law.

The upcoming markup isn’t the only congressional marijuana vote that advocates are following. House leadership recently announced that there will be a floor vote on a comprehensive cannabis legalization bill later this month.

The more limited marijuana research bill is being led by the unlikely duo of pro-legalization Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and prohibitionist Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD. It will be subject to amendments during the committee markup, so its provisions could change.

During an Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health hearing in January—which was requested by four GOP lawmakers last year—federal health and drug officials, including from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), acknowledged that the current supply of cannabis for research purposes is inadequate and that scientists should be able to access a wider range of marijuana products.

In addition to the Blumenauer-Harris research legislation, the panel also looked at several other marijuana reform bills during that meeting, including two to federally legalize the plant.

DEA said four years ago that it would be taking steps to expand the number of federally authorized cannabis manufacturers, but it has not yet acted on applications.

“Legislative action is necessary in this arena because the DEA has proven time and time again that it is not an honest broker in this process,” Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment. “Despite pledging over four years ago to expand the pool of federal licensees permitted to provide cannabis for clinical research, the agency has steadfastly refused to do so—leaving scientists with woefully inadequate supplies and varieties of cannabis and cannabis products available for human studies.”

“The reality that most high-schoolers have easier access to cannabis than do our nation’s top scientists is the height of absurdity and an indictment of the current system,” he said.

Last year, scientists sued the agency, alleging that it had deliberately delayed approving additional marijuana manufacturers for research purposes despite its earlier pledge.

A court mandated that DEA take steps to make good on its promise, and that case was dropped after DEA provided a status update.

In March, DEA finally unveiled a revised rule change proposal that it said was necessary due to the high volume of applicants and to address potential complications related to international treaties to which the U.S. is a party.

The scientists behind the original case filed another suit against DEA, claiming that the agency used a “secret” document to justify its delay of approving manufacturer applications.

That was born out when the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel document was released in April as part of a settlement in the case, revealing, among other things, that the agency feels that its current licensing structure for cannabis cultivation has been in violation of international treaties for decades.

But the bill scheduled for committee action next week stipulates that international treaty obligations “shall not be construed to prohibit, or impose additional restrictions upon, research involving marijuana, or the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of marijuana, that is conducted in accordance with the Controlled Substances Act, this Act, and the amendments made by this Act.”

The legislation has drawn support from a broad array of organizations on both sides of the legalization debate, including Smart Approaches to Marijuana, American Psychological Association, Marijuana Policy Project and American Academy of Neurology.

USDA Reopens Public Comment Period On Hemp Rules Following Intense Industry Pushback

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
Continue Reading

Politics

Vermont Lawmakers Make Key Compromises On Marijuana Sales Legalization Bill As Deal Nears

Published

on

A bill to legalize marijuana sales in Vermont in nearing the finish line, with a bicameral conference committee meeting again on Friday to hash out the remaining differences between each chamber’s respective versions of the legislation. And on the same day, a separate Senate-passed bill providing for cannabis expungements advanced in the House.

Importantly, House members of the bicameral legal sales negotiation panel unveiled their counteroffer to a proposed compromise that the Senate side offered last month.

The last few conference meetings have largely focused on the economics of the cannabis commerce bill and how many tax dollars are projected to be allocated to various state programs and funds. Members have also debated policies such as which regulatory body should be responsible for overseeing the state’s existing medical marijuana program as well as reporting requirements for regulators charged with overseeing the industry.

One of the most notable compromises the House made was accepting the Senate’s proposal to shift regulatory control for the medical cannabis to the Cannabis Control Board established under the bill instead of keeping it under the Department of Public Safety.

Watch the committee conference discuss the marijuana commerce bill below: 

But there were a series of significant areas of disagreement that persisted. For example, the House maintained its position that individual jurisdictions should have to opt-in to allow marijuana businesses to operate in their area, while the Senate wanted an opt-out provision. The House also stuck with its proposed ban on advertising and restrictions on what types of products will be available to consumers.

The conference has yet to reach a consensus on the tax rate for cannabis sales. And a House-passed provision allowing police to pull people over for failure to wear seatbelts that became an early sticking point remained a point of contention until near the end of Friday’s meeting.

“Is the House unwilling to move on seatbelts? And if that’s the case, then what’s the point in keeping going?” Sen. Dick Sears (D), the chief sponsor of the reform legislation, S. 54, said at the hearing. He also said that he “understands seatbelts are important to” the House speaker and asked what the chamber would want in exchange for taking it out.

Curiously, the House recommended in their counteroffer an amendment that would prohibit people from transporting marijuana products—or alcohol—in any part of a car (even if they were in closed containers) unless they’re stored in a locked glove box or trunk. The Senate side sharply criticized that measure.

The Senate also initially rejected a House provision to add saliva to the “definition of evidentiary test for impaired driving,” and the House kept with that component as well.

Following an initial breakout at which each chamber’s negotiators met separately, the Senate made a series of significant concessions. Senators said they would accept the House’s provisions on jurisdictional opt-in, product restrictions, saliva testing and the advertising ban. But they were only willing to accept those changes if the House agreed to get rid of the seatbelt enforcement component, accept their proposed two percent local option tax and remove the amendment on cannabis transportation in cars.

The House members then broke away to discuss the Senate concessions and, when they came back, said they would be inclined to accept most of the proposal if they were able to keep their version of the tax structure. The Senate side said they would consult with colleagues and consider it over the weekend. Sears said he wanted to put the revisions past the Senate Agriculture Committee and would report back by the middle of next week.

“I’m pleased that the House and Senate were able to reach agreement on almost all of the outstanding issues,” Dave Silberman, an attorney and pro bono drug policy reform advocate, told Marijuana Moment. “I’m particularly grateful that the House conferees were able to find a way to back off their demands for primary seatbelt enforcement as well as the absurd proposal to require Vermonters to strap the 6-pack from the grocery store onto their roof racks.”

Matt Simon, New England political director of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), told Marijuana Moment that it “was very encouraging to see the conference committee reach agreement on nearly all of the outstanding issues.

“Compromise is often difficult, but legislators deserve credit for setting aside their differences and working together to help establish a regulated market for cannabis,” he said. “I’m hopeful that they will finalize the details of the bill at their next meeting.”

Gov. Phil Scott (R), who reluctantly signed a bill legalizing low-level cannabis possession and cultivation in 2018, has expressed some concerns about adding commercial sales but he may be more inclined to allow the tax-and-regulate legislation to take effect with the latest agreement given his interest in allowing saliva-based drug testing.

That said, if the conference committee does reach an agreement next week, the unified proposal would still have to go back to both chambers for final floor votes on sending it to the governor’s desk.

Updated estimates on each chamber’s tax proposals were also published on Friday. The total tax revenue projections are the same, but the Senate’s version shows higher local revenue estimates, while the House proposal would generate more dollars for the general fund.

Sears said near the end of the meeting that he was encouraged to see that the conference is “extremely close” to reaching a deal.

The conference has been meeting on Mondays since the beginning of August, but they opted to convene for a shorter conversation on Friday because of the upcoming Labor Day holiday and their collective desire to finalize the bill sooner rather than later.

Advocates likely appreciate the renewed sense of urgency, as they’ve been waiting months during the coronavirus pandemic for action on the bill since it cleared both the House and Senate earlier this session.

While Vermont legalized possession of up to one ounce of cannabis and cultivation of two plants in 2018, there are currently no regulations in place that allow for retail sales.

Also on Friday, the House Judiciary Committee approved cannabis expungements legislation, and a full chamber vote is expected next week. Simon of MPP said the issue “is a moral imperative for Vermont” and that legislators “should be applauded for taking bold action on this issue.”

Prohibitionist group Smart Approaches To Marijuana is working to get constituents to contact House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D) to raise concerns about cannabis as the legislature finalizes the legal sales bill—and they recently made the controversial decision to include her personal cell phone number in a mailer sent out to residents in her district.

Separately, the Senate approved a bill in June that would double the amount of marijuana that can be possessed and grown without the threat of jail time.

Meanwhile, Vermont Democratic Party insiders included planks to decriminalize drug possession and legalize marijuana sales in a draft platform for 2020. The document is still subject to change based on comments from county committees and delegates at the party’s September 12 convention.

Marijuana Decriminalization And Expungements Will Be Biden-Harris Priorities, Top Aide Says

Photo courtesy of WeedPornDaily.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
Continue Reading

Politics

USDA Reopens Public Comment Period On Hemp Rules Following Intense Industry Pushback

Published

on

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on Friday that it is reopening a public comment period on hemp regulations following months of intense pushback from stakeholders on its original proposal.

While the federal agency already received more than 4,600 comments during the initial comment period that closed in January, it is now encouraging “additional input on several topics identified by commenters.” This seems to a sign that USDA is willing to provide more flexible regulations, as many interested parties—from industry operators to members of Congress—have requested.

USDA listed 12 areas where they’re especially seeking additional feedback, including several that industry representatives have identified as very consequential. Here are the titles, as listed in the department’s new Federal Register notice:

1. Measurement of Uncertainty for Sampling

2. Liquid Chromatography Factor, 0.877

3. Disposal and Remediation of Non-Compliant Plants

4. Negligence

5. Interstate Commerce

6. 15-day Harvest Window

7. Hemp seedlings, microgreens, and clones

8. Hemp breeding and research

9. Sampling Methodology – Flower vs. Whole Plant

10. Sampling Methodology – Homogenous Composition, Frequency, and Volume

11. Sampling Agents

12. DEA Laboratory Registration

This is a welcome development as far as stakeholders are concerned, giving hope that USDA could ultimately revise some of the more onerous restrictions that they’ve indicated could hamper the industry’s potential.

For example, producers have argued that the proposed rule mandating that hemp be tested only at DEA-certified laboratories will have an unnecessary bottlenecking effect and they should be able to have a wider range of labs to use. That was one policy USDA temporarily lifted earlier this year, and now it wants to hear from the public on whether it “should be permanently removed.”

Another rule that USDA paused due to feedback concerns disposal and remediation of non-compliant hemp that contains excess THC. The agency’s Interim Final Rule stipulated that so-called “hot hemp” must be eradicated under law enforcement supervision. Farmers have complained about that restriction and said they should be allowed to remediate the crop using a number of techniques. USDA wants to hear more about that proposed alternative.

The department is also open to amending the 15-day testing window and is requesting information about why many industry participants feel a 30-day window would be more appropriate, as many said during the past comment period.

Jonathan Miller, general counsel at the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told Marijuana Moment that the group is “hopeful” that after this comment period, USDA will arrive at a “final rule that hemp farmers and the industry can embrace.”

This new USDA announcement reopening the comment period marks the latest example of the federal government asking the public and stakeholders to weigh in on key cannabis issues.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is still in the process of developing regulations for hemp-derived CBD products, and it indefinitely reopened its own comment period on the topic.

DEA recently filed its own set of rules to comply with hemp’s legalization, but advocates suspect that they are intended to undermine the industry.

All told, it appears that USDA is taking seriously the feedback it’s received and may be willing to make certain accommodations on these particular policies. The notice reopening the comment period will be formally published in the Federal Register on Tuesday. The window to individuals to provide input will then last for 30 days, though October 8.

The department’s rule for hemp, when finalized, is set to take effect on October 31, 2021.

In July, two senators representing Oregon sent a letter to the head of USDA, expressing concern that hemp testing requirements that were temporarily lifted will be reinstated in the agency’s final rule. They made a series of requests for policy changes.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) called on USDA to delay the implementation of proposed hemp rules, citing concerns about certain restrictive policies the federal agency has put forward in the interim proposal.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) last month wrote to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, similarly asking that USDA delay issuing final regulations for the crop until 2022 and allow states to continue operating under the 2014 Farm Bill hemp pilot program in the meantime.

As it stands, the earlier pilot program is set to expire on October 31. The senators aren’t alone in requesting an extension, as state agriculture departments and a major hemp industry group made a similar request to both Congress and USDA this month.

Perdue has said on several occasions that DEA influenced certain rules, adding that the narcotics agency wasn’t pleased with the overall legalization of hemp.

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, hemp industry associations pushed for farmers to be able to access to certain COVID-19 relief loans—a request that Congress granted in the most recent round of coronavirus legislation.

However, USDA has previously said that hemp farmers are specifically ineligible for its Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. While the department initially said it would not reevaluate the crop’s eligibility based on new evidence, it removed that language shortly after Marijuana Moment reported on the exclusion.

Two members of Congress representing New York also wrote a letter to Perdue in June, asking that the agency extend access to that program to hemp farmers.

Hemp farmers approved to produce the crop do stand to benefit from other federal loan programs, however. The department recently released guidelines for processing loans for the industry.

State Of California Officially Promotes Marijuana Industry With New Campaign

Photo courtesy of Brendan Cleak.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Marijuana News In Your Inbox

Support Marijuana Moment

Marijuana News In Your Inbox

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!