Connect with us

Politics

Key Committee Chair Broke Promise On Marijuana Justice Before Banking Vote, Advocates Say

Published

on

Marijuana industry excitement over Wednesday’s House vote on cannabis banking legislation is palpable. But as the bill approaches the floor, some advocates are feeling burned by a key committee chair who they say made a deal to take up comprehensive reform before passing a proposal viewed as primarily favorable to large marijuana businesses.

In February, House Financial Services Chair Maxine Waters (D-CA) apparently made the agreement with several leading advocacy groups including the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), ACLU and the Center for American Progress. So when Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced earlier this month that he intended for the House to vote on the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act by the end of September, it ignited debate within advocacy circles.

A number of advocacy organizations wrote a letter to House leadership urging a delay on the banking vote until broader legislation that addressed social equity issues passed. They didn’t get their wish, though, as Hoyer later confirmed a vote would take place on Wednesday.

During their first meeting with Waters and Financial Services Committee leadership in February, the groups “brought up our strategic concerns about the way the banking bill hitting the floor first could potentially take air out of the room for broader and more comprehensive reform, really emphasizing all the points we’ve been continually talking about,” Queen Adesuyi, policy coordinator with DPA, told Marijuana Moment.

“The banking bill doesn’t actually address the crux of the issue when it comes to prohibition and how it’s impacted individuals and communities,” she said. “They made it seem like they were in alignment with our concerns and recognized them and acknowledged them.”

Waters, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, told Marijuana Moment in an interview last week that she appreciates the concerns expressed in the letter requesting a delay of the floor vote, but she said the problem is a lack of action on the part of Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who has yet to put his more wide-ranging legalization bill to a vote in his panel in preparation of potential action by the full body.

“And so what’s going to happen is [the SAFE Banking Act] that gives safe harbor to the banks is going to move, and whenever Judiciary gets that bill done, then it’s going to move too with the same kind of support that [the banking] bill is going to get,” she said.

But as Adesuyi described it, ensuring that Nadler’s bill received a vote before the banking legislation was explicitly part of the groups’ verbal agreement with Waters’s office.

“If the deal was upheld and the MORE Act moved first and the banking bill moved second, we wouldn’t be in this position.”

Prior to the August congressional recess, rumors began circulating that the SAFE Banking Act would soon be scheduled for a vote, and the advocacy groups arranged a follow-up meeting.

“We met again with [staff for] Chairwoman Waters and Financial Services leadership, asking ‘what’s the deal’ and they reiterated the fact that the deal was still on the table and they still were abiding by it and the MORE Act would still go first,” Adesuyi said. “There was a reiterating of alignment with our concerns and alignment with our perspective around needing more comprehensive reform rather than a piecemeal reform.”

“We were struck and disappointed to see within the first two weeks of them coming back from recess hearing that the banking bill was being scheduled for a vote,” she said. “Chairwoman Waters went back on her word, and Financial Services went back on their word. That’s essentially what happened.”

Representatives from Waters’s office did not respond to Marijuana Moment’s request for comment on the agreement advocates described by the time of publication, but late on Tuesday night the chairwoman released a statement saying she is “pleased” that the banking bill will be on the floor and that it is “one important piece of what should be a comprehensive series of cannabis reform bills.”

“I have long fought for criminal justice reform and deeply understand the need to fully address the historical racial and social inequities related to the criminalization of marijuana,” she said. “I support legislation that deschedules marijuana federally, requires courts to expunge convictions for marijuana-related offenses, and provides assistance such as job training and reentry services for those who have been disproportionately affected by the war on drugs.”

Lawmakers And Groups Weigh In On Eve Of Historic Cannabis Vote

In recent weeks, industry stakeholders, advocates and lawmakers have voiced a wide range of perspectives on the best way to approach banking reform for the cannabis industry.

In an interview with Marijuana Moment on Tuesday, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said that while she’s in favor of broad, all-encompassing marijuana legislation, there are political realities that ought to be considered, stating that “we’ve become desensitized in terms to how challenging this process of moving policy is.”

“Oftentimes it is easy for people to believe if one thing happens, something else won’t happen,” she said. “And the idea that we could have it all is really fading for many people who are pushing for progress in this country.”

Omar’s message to groups opposed to allowing the banking vote to proceed first is “to believe that it is possible that we could get all of these policies implemented, that we don’t have to forego a particular idea or policy implementation because something else is more pressing or more important.”

She added that she will be a “yes” vote on the banking bill—which will be the first standalone piece of cannabis reform legislation in history to receive a full House floor vote—and that she’s “for all of it” in terms of broader marijuana reform.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said in a statement on Tuesday that he would vote for the banking bill and further committed to schedule a vote in his panel on more far-reaching marijuana reform legislation.

Waters said in her statement that she wants that done “as quickly as possible.”

“The sooner the better,” she said.

While drug policy reform advocates broadly share the sentiment that there’s a need for legalization legislation that seeks to resolve the injustices of the war on drugs, with disagreements mostly coming down to timing, financial associations have been unambiguously focused on passing the SAFE Banking Act as soon as possible.

That’s been true from the onset: 50 state banking associations, the National Association of State Treasurers, the top financial regulators of 25 states have all voiced support for the bill’s passage throughout the year.

And on Tuesday, the American Bankers Association (ABA) sent a letter to the leaders on Tuesday that described the legislation as “an important measure that helps clarify many issues for the banking industry, regulators, businesses and consumers.”

“It also provides immediate relief for urgent public safety and cannabis industry oversight challenges, which will help keep our communities safe and should not be delayed while Congress works to build consensus on broader questions of national drug policy,” ABA said.

ABA, Americans for Prosperity, Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Electronic Transactions Association, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National Association of Professional Employer Associations, National Association of REALTORS and Wholesale & Specialty Insurance Association also sent a separate letter to House leaders calling on Congress to advance the legislation.

“A safe harbor would not only enable law enforcement and states to effectively monitor and regulate cannabis transactions and businesses, but it would bring billions of dollars and tax revenue out of duffel bags and safes and into the regulated banking sector,” the groups wrote.

“We understand that creating a true federal regulatory framework for cannabis is a multi-step process,” they said. “However, we strongly believe that the SAFE Banking Act is a critical first step to ensure that legal cannabis marketplaces are safe, legal, and transparent.”

Marijuana-focused groups that want to see a vote argue that besides serving as a first step on the path to comprehensive legalization, the banking bill does address social equity to an extent by opening up opportunities to credit and financial services that disadvantaged groups have been shut out of.

National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) Executive Director Aaron Smith said in a press release Wednesday that the bill “would greatly improve public safety and transparency, and represents a chance to even the playing field by allowing small businesses and people from marginalized communities participating in this emerging industry to access traditional lending.”

“Current banking regulations disproportionately hurt small businesses, women, and people of color, and we cannot afford to wait any longer while they are being excluded from the opportunities created by legal cannabis markets,” Smith said. “We urge every member of the House who is concerned about safety and fairness to support this bill.”

The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) made a similar argument in an op-ed published on Monday.

“Members of Congress should allow banks to provide financial services to cannabis businesses,” MPP Executive Director Steve Hawkins said. “This creates access to resources for minority and women entrepreneurs and increases the chances for success in state equity initiatives. The SAFE Act is the best next step toward establishing a more equitable cannabis industry in the U.S.”

Justin Strekal, political director of NORML, wrote in an op-ed on Tuesday that a “congressional fix is necessary” to resolve banking issues in the marijuana industry.

“In short, the upcoming banking vote is an important first step by Congress,” he said. “But much more action will still need to be taken in order to ultimately comport federal law with the new political and cultural realities surrounding marijuana.”

Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried said she agreed with MPP’s position, writing that the SAFE Banking Act “improves equity for minority & women entrepreneurs—Congress should pass it.”

The Cannabis Trade Federation and Veterans Cannabis Project also voiced supported for passing the banking legislation.

The bill will “set things right by granting legal marijuana businesses access to traditional banking services, just as any other legitimate business receives,” Law Enforcement Action Partnership said in an action alert.

That said, Will Heaton, vice president of government affairs at JustLeadershipUSA, another group that called for the banking vote delay, told Marijuana Moment in an interview that congressional cannabis reform “requires a very holistic approach.”

“Even in Chairwoman Waters’s statements in the markup and in the hearings earlier this year, she’s been a very avid supporter of justice reform and I don’t want to take away from that record at all,” he said. “At the same time, I think this is just a misstep in terms of not taking advantage of the opportunity that we had here to pass legislation that would be able to significantly address some of these disparities.”

To be sure, Waters said during her committee’s vote on the banking bill that it “addresses an urgent public safety concern for legitimate businesses that currently have no recourse but to operate with just cash,” but that “I also consider this bill as part of a holistic approach toward providing criminal justice reform to those who have been harmed by criminalization of marijuana, and should not by any means be the only bill the House takes up on the important issue of cannabis reform.”

Despite pushback against the bill from certain progressive lawmakers such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who said last week she was considering voting against it because it didn’t fully grapple with social equity, insiders generally expect the SAFE Banking Act to pass in the Democratic-controlled chamber, even under the expedited procedure being used that requires a two-thirds majority.

In an effort to broader the bill’s GOP appeal, its sponsor, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) moved to add amendments at the last minute that would clarify that banks would be protected while servicing hemp and CBD businesses and also stipulate that federal regulators couldn’t target certain industries like firearms dealers as higher risk for fraud without valid reasons.

The lobbying arm of the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation remains opposed to the legislation, however, writing on Tuesday that the bill is “a shortcut to federal marijuana legalization and undermines existing federal law in the process.”

The group is joined by the prohibitionist Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which similarly opposes the reform move.

Advocates who wrote the delay request letter made an eleventh-hour attempt to insert additional social equity language into the bill, but that didn’t come to fruition.

The House will vote on the bill on suspension of the rules, meaning it needs the supermajority threshold to pass and that no amendments can be added on the floor. Discussion on the legislation will also be limited to 40 minutes.

Aaron Houston contributed reporting from Capitol Hill for this story.

This story was updated to include a statement from Waters.

Senate Committee Includes State Medical Marijuana Protections In Spending Bill

This story was updated to clarify that groups met with staff for Waters rather than the lawmaker herself.

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

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 Sacramento-based senior editor. His work has also appeared in High Times, VICE and attn.

Politics

Maryland Lawmakers Must Override Governor’s Drug Paraphernalia Decriminalization Veto (Op-Ed)

Published

on

“Criminalization, marginalization, isolation, injury and death are all part of a largely preventable cycle of harm.”

By Scott Cecil, Maryland Matters

The writer is a regional ambassador of the Baltimore Harm Reduction Coalition.

At the urging of public health professionals and harm reduction advocates during the 2021 session, the Maryland legislature approved Senate Bill 420 decriminalizing the possession of drug paraphernalia. Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R) decision to veto that bill flies in the face of the expertise of those same public health professionals and harm reduction advocates.

His action constitutes a failure to meaningfully respond to the calls to abolish hyper-criminalization in policing, reimagine public safety in our society and address the crisis of accidental fatal drug overdoses in Maryland.

Because of the veto, in Maryland, the tools which may be used to consume drugs will continue to be illegal to possess and use. This makes them scarcer and encourages people to share them with others, putting them at an elevated risk of contracting bloodborne illnesses and disease such as hepatitis and HIV.

Criminalization of paraphernalia is dangerous for all Marylanders, including those who do not use illicit substances, because it increases the likelihood that the public at large and law enforcement personnel can be directly harmed. Under continued paraphernalia criminalization, people who use drugs will continue to be reluctant to hold onto their supplies due to the fear that the police will use possession of these items as a means to search and arrest them.

With the threat of having to interact with law enforcement personnel, drug users are more likely to dispose of paraphernalia in public spaces. Paraphernalia criminalization laws also put law enforcement personnel at greater risk because they are more likely to be endangered by hidden supplies when interacting with or conducting a search of someone’s body or belongings.

Prohibitive drug paraphernalia laws are ostensibly intended to discourage both drug use and the availability of paraphernalia. Decades of the so-called War on Drugs has shown us that aggressive enforcement and criminalization of drug use have not reduced the rate of drug use in our society nor the availability of drug paraphernalia.

Meanwhile, the rates of infectious diseases and accidental fatal overdose deaths among drug users have surged. Last year, more than 93,000 Americans (including approximately 2,800 people in Maryland) died of accidental fatal drug overdoses.

Decriminalization or paraphernalia is rooted in the harm reduction principle of equipping people to use drugs more safely.

This is positive for everyone in the community—including law enforcement agents, by stemming the spread of infectious disease and lifting the stigma which so dangerously isolates people who use drugs.

By contrast, criminalization, and perceived suspicion of criminal activity—like illicit drug use—is far too often used as a means for law enforcement personnel to target historically marginalized groups, such as people living with mental illnesses and people who are surviving without access to housing. These folks are more likely to be suffering from substance use disorders, thereby placing them at extremely elevated risk of injury or death from drug use.

Criminalization, marginalization, isolation, injury and death are all part of a largely preventable cycle of harm. And criminalization is perhaps the only part of that cycle which can be meaningfully and quickly addressed by public policy and law.

The Maryland legislature understood this when they passed SB420 into law earlier this year. It is unfortunate that Gov. Hogan has failed to acknowledge this reality.

His statement on the veto demonstrates that he either lacks a sufficient understanding of the expertise of public health professionals and harm reduction advocates, or that his decision making on this issue has been clouded by outdated, misleading or simply false drug-warrior misinformation.

It is now up to the Maryland legislature to override his veto.

Maryland must be led down a path which has the greatest chances of success for reducing the risks associated with drug use for all Marylanders (including those who do not use illicit drugs) and stemming the tide of accidental fatal overdoses in Maryland which have reached catastrophic proportions.

This content was republished with permission from Maryland Matters.

Sign up today for the Maryland Matters Memo, a news roundup delivered to your inbox every day—free.

Pennsylvania’s Lieutenant Governor Wants To Process As Many Marijuana Pardons As Possible Before Leaving Office

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

Pennsylvania’s Lieutenant Governor Wants To Process As Many Marijuana Pardons As Possible Before Leaving Office

Published

on

The lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania is stepping up his push to get marijuana records cleared, promoting an expedited petition program that he hopes will provide relief to thousands of people negatively impacted by prohibition.

In an interview with KDKA that aired last week, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) said one of his key goals in his final year in office is to ensure that as many eligible people as possible submit applications to have the courts remove their cannabis records and restore opportunities to things like housing, student financial aid and employment.

“I’m a fervent believer in second chances. And one of the things I quickly discovered was that people’s lives were just being ruined by these silly charges, and you have all this unnecessary review [to seal records],” Fetterman, who chairs the state Board of Pardons, said.

“This is a plant that’s legal in many jurisdictions across America, and it’s not a big deal, but you go through your life in many cases a convicted felon, and that excludes you from a lot of opportunities,” he said. “So I developed an expedited review process that I encourage everybody to partake in.”

There are about 20,000 marijuana-related cases in Pennsylvania each year, he said. And some eligible cases go back decades, including one case that recently went through the petition process where a man had a felony conviction on his record for possession of eight ounces of cannabis that dates back to 1975.

“If you’ve got some stupid charge like that on your record, it doesn’t cost anything to apply, and we can get that off your your permanent record,” the lieutenant governor said. “I don’t care how conservative or how liberal you are politically. I don’t think we as a society should be really damaging people’s future for consuming a plant that is now legal in many jurisdictions—and soon will be in Pennsylvania.”

While both Fetterman and Gov. Tom Wolf (D) support mass expungements of cannabis convictions, he said that, right now, this is “the only way to free records.”

But the official is optimistic about the prospect of future reform to both legalize marijuana in the state and provide an even more effective process to get past convictions sealed. He pointed to a legalization bill that was recently filed by a Republican lawmaker as an example of the “evolution towards this” and described the legislation’s introduction as “a quantum leap in acknowledging it.”

For now, however, he’s doing what he can to raise awareness about the expedited petition program under the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons. People with non-violent marijuana convictions can apply for free on the board’s website.

“I’m lieutenant governor for a little over a year, and we want to get as many people free of these silly convictions and charges that are holding the record back,” Fetterman said. “The application doesn’t cost anything. You don’t need an attorney. And our turnaround time is, right now, down to three to four months.”

In May, Wolf pardoned a doctor who was arrested, prosecuted and jailed for growing marijuana that he used to provide relief for his dying wife. That marked his 96th pardon for people with cannabis convictions through the Expedited Review Program for Non-Violent Marijuana-Related Offenses.

Meanwhile in Pennsylvania, a lawmaker introduced a bill last month to expand the number of medical marijuana cultivators in the state, prioritizing small farms to break up what she characterized as a monopoly or large corporations that’s created supply problems.

Separately, bipartisan Pennsylvania senators said this month that they are introducing a bill to allow medical marijuana patients to cultivate their own plants for personal use.

A much-anticipated bipartisan Senate bill to legalize marijuana in Pennsylvania that has been months in the making was formally introduced last month.

Sens. Dan Laughlin (R) and Sharif Street (D) unveiled the nearly 240-page legislation months after first outlining some key details back in February. It would allow adults 21 and older to purchase and possess up to 30 grams of cannabis, five grams of marijuana concentrate products and 500 milligrams of THC contained in cannabis-infused products.

Meanwhile, Rep. Amen Brown (D) recently announced his intent to file a reform bill that he’ll be working on with Sen. Mike Regan (R), who expressed his support for the policy change a day earlier.

Additionally, a separate pair of state lawmakers—Reps. Jake Wheatley (D) and Dan Frankel (D)—formally unveiled a legalization bill they’re proposing.

While each measure generally seeks and end to marijuana criminalization by creating a regulated, commercial model for cannabis, there are some provisions that make each piece of legislation unique. For example, the proposals vary in how they would approach taxes, revenue and social equity.

While these recent moves to enact reform in the GOP-controlled legislature are encouraging to advocates, a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R) recently tempered expectations, saying that there’s “no significant support for the legalization of recreational marijuana in the House Republican caucus.”

Fetterman, who is running for U.S. Senate, told Marijuana Moment in a recent phone interview that he’s optimistic about the prospects of reform with these latest proposals, though he acknowledged that there may be disputes between legislators over how tax revenue should be distributed.

Wolf, for his part, has said that a bipartisan approach to legalization “would be a great thing. I think the time is right.”

Philadelphia voters also approved a referendum on marijuana legalization this month that adds a section to the city charter saying that “the citizens of Philadelphia call upon the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Governor to pass legislation that will decriminalize, regulate, and tax the use, and sale to adults aged 21 years or older, of cannabis for non-medical purposes.”

Wolf said earlier this year that marijuana legalization was a priority as he negotiated the annual budget with lawmakers. However, his formal spending request didn’t contain legislative language to actually accomplish the cannabis policy change.

The governor, who signed a medical cannabis expansion bill in June, has repeatedly called for legalization and pressured the Republican-controlled legislature to pursue the reform since coming out in favor of the policy in 2019. Shortly after he did that, a lawmaker filed a separate bill to legalize marijuana through a state-run model.

A survey from Franklin & Marshall College released this month found that 60 percent of Pennsylvania voters back adult-use legalization. That’s the highest level of support for the issue since the firm started polling people about it in 2006.

An attempt to provide protections for Pennsylvania medical marijuana patients from being charged with driving under the influence was derailed in the legislature last week, apparently due to pushback by the state police association.

Mexican Senators Circulate Draft Marijuana Legalization Bill, With Vote Expected Within Weeks

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

Mexican Senators Circulate Draft Marijuana Legalization Bill, With Vote Expected Within Weeks

Published

on

A draft bill to legalize and regulate marijuana sales in Mexico is being circulated among senators, and a top lawmaker says the plan is to vote on the proposal before December 15.

While the legislation hasn’t been formally introduced yet, the draft measure largely reflects an earlier version the Senate passed late last year, with some revisions.

Senate Majority Leader Ricardo Monreal Avila of the ruling MORENA party has been pushing for the reform and recently said that there’s agreement among leading lawmakers to prioritize legislation to regulate cannabis.

The Mexican Supreme Court declared nearly three years ago that the country’s prohibition on the personal possession and cultivation of cannabis was unconstitutional. Lawmakers were then obligated to enact the policy change but have since been unable to reach a consensus on legislation to put in place regulations for a marijuana program.

At the request of legislators, the court agreed to extend its deadline for Congress to formally end prohibition on multiple occasions. But because of the repeated failed attempts to meet those deadlines, justices ultimately voted to end criminalization on their own in June.

Monreal previously said that the stage is set for lawmakers to actually pass a marijuana legalization bill during the new session after multiple attempts in recent years fell short of getting over the finish line.

Under the draft bill that’s currently being circulated, adults 18 and older would be allowed to purchase and possess up to 28 grams of marijuana and cultivate up to six plants for personal use.

Members of the Senate Health and Justice Committees were tapped to formulate the draft of a cannabis bill.

The text of the measure states that the purpose of the reform is to promote “public health, human rights and sustainable development” and to “improve the living conditions of the people who live in the United Mexican States.”

It would further “prevent and combat the consequences of problematic consumption of psychoactive cannabis and contribute to the reduction of the crime incidence linked to drug trafficking, promoting peace, security and individual and community well-being.”

Regulators would be tasked with developing separate rules to regulate cannabis for adult-use, research and industrial production.

The bill would establish a Mexican Institute for the Regulation and Control of Cannabis, which would be a decentralized body under the Ministry of Health. It would also be responsible for issuing licenses, overseeing the program and promoting public education campaigns around marijuana.

Retail licenses would need to be issued within 18 months of the enactment of the law.

In order to “compensate the damages generated by the prohibition,” the bill states that at least 40 percent of marijuana cultivation licenses would need to go to communities most impacted by cannabis criminalization for at least the first five years of implementation. After that point, at least 20 percent of licenses would need to be reserved for equity applicants.

After the Supreme Court independently invalidated prohibition earlier this year, advocates stressed that the decision underscores the need for legislators to expeditiously pass a measure to implement a comprehensive system of legal and regulated sales. They want to ensure that a market is established that’s equitable, addresses the harms of criminalization on certain communities and promotes personal freedom.

Advocates are pleased to see Senate leadership take seriously the need to establish regulations and provide access to cannabis for adults, but they have identified some provisions as problematic.

For example, possessing more than 200 grams of marijuana could still result in prison time.

Senate President Olga Sánchez Cordero, who previously served at a cabinet-level position in President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration, recently said that “there is no longer room for the prohibitionist policy.” And she also says the influence of the U.S. is to blame for failed marijuana criminalization laws in her country.

The Senate approved a legalization bill late last year, and then the Chamber of Deputies made revisions and passed it in March, sending it back to the originating chamber. A couple of Senate committees then took up and cleared the amended measure, but leaders quickly started signaling that certain revisions made the proposal unworkable.

After the Chamber of Deputies previously approved the Senate-passed legalization bill, senators said that the revised proposal was critically internally conflicted—on provisions concerning legal possession limits, the definition of hemp and other issues—and lawmakers themselves could be subject to criminal liability if it went into effect as drafted.

But Monreal said in April that if the court were to make a declaration of unconstitutionality before a measure to regulate cannabis was approved, it would result in “chaos.”

The top senator also talked about the importance of lawmakers taking their time to craft good policy and not rush amidst lobbying from tobacco and pharmaceutical industry interests.

“We must not allow ourselves to be pressured by interests,” he said at the time. “The Senate must act with great prudence in this matter.”

Sen. Eduardo Ramírez Aguilar of the MORENA party said in April that “at this time, it is important to legislate in the terms that are presented to us” and then consider additional revisions to cannabis laws through subsequent bills.

That’s the position many legalization advocates took as well, urging lawmakers to pass an imperfect bill immediately and then work on fixing it later.

Mexico’s president said in December that a vote on legalization legislation was delayed due to minor “mistakes” in the proposal.

The legalization bill cleared a joint group of Senate committees prior to the full floor vote in that chamber last year, with some amendments being made after members informally considered and debated the proposal during a virtual hearing.

Members of the Senate’s Justice, Health, and Legislative Studies Committees had approved a prior version of legal cannabis legislation last year as well, but the pandemic delayed consideration of the issue. Sen. Julio Ramón Menchaca Salazar of the MORENA party said in April that legalizing cannabis could fill treasury coffers at a time when the economy is recovering from the health crisis.

As lawmakers work to advance the reform legislation, there’s been a more lighthearted push to focus attention on the issue by certain members and activists. That push has mostly involved planting and gifting marijuana.

Late last year, Sánchez Cordero, then a top administration official, was gifted a cannabis plant by senator on the Senate floor, and she said she’d be making it a part of her personal garden.

A different lawmaker gave Sánchez Cordero, a marijuana joint on the floor of the Chamber of Deputies in 2019. That joint is now framed and hangs in her office.

Cannabis made another appearance in the legislature last year, when Sen. Jesusa Rodríguez of the MORENA party decorated her desk with a marijuana plant.

Drug policy reform advocates have also been cultivating hundreds of marijuana plants in front of the Senate, putting pressure on legislators to make good on their pledge to advance legalization.

Read the draft marijuana legalization bill that’s being circulated in Mexico’s Senate below: 

Click to access texto-normativo-para-nueva-iniciativa-1.pdf

Taliban Announces Deal To Grow Cannabis In Afghanistan Amid Questions Over Company’s Involvement

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

Marijuana Moment