Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) was the only presidential candidate to bring up marijuana during Thursday’s Democratic debate—and reform advocates weren’t happy about it.
In his closing statement, Hickenlooper said that he’s a “small business owner who brought that same scrappy spirit to big Colorado, one of the most progressive states in America” and then rattled off a list of accomplishments he appeared to claim at least partial credit for.
That list included cannabis legalization.
“We were the first state to legalize marijuana and we transformed our justice system in the process,” he said.
“You don’t need big government to do big things,” he added. “I know that because I’m the one person up here who’s actually done the big, progressive things everyone else is talking about.”
But as advocates quickly pointed out, the candidate seemed to be offering a revisionist history of his role in the state’s historic marijuana reform move. After all, he actively opposed Colorado’s 2012 legalization ballot measure, which voters went on to approved via referendum despite the governor’s objections.
Though his administration implemented the legal cannabis system effectively by most accounts, Hickenlooper acknowledged two years after the vote that he “opposed it from the very beginning” and that “it was reckless.”
“Hickenlooper deserves zero credit for legalization in Colorado and his attempts to claim otherwise are politically craven and amount to outright lies,” Erik Altieri, executive director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment. “The only ones who deserve credit are the citizens of Colorado who took the bold and sensible step towards legalization, despite the utter lack of leadership from their governor.”
— NORML (@NORML) June 28, 2019
Marijuana Moment reached out to Hickenlooper’s campaign for comment, but a representative did not respond by the time of publication.
Hours before the debate, the governor addressed his previous opposition to legalization during a Reddit AMA session.
Pressed on his record, Hickenlooper said “[n]o state had ever legalized marijuana before and I had concerns about how that would actually work in practice.”
“But when Coloradans made their preference clear, my team and I came together and created the first regulatory framework for legal marijuana,” he said. “It was a mammoth effort but the end result was much better than the old system. We’re no longer arresting tens of thousands of people—disproportionately people of color—over a joint.”
Users didn’t let him off easily.
“So… you were in favor of disproportionately arresting people of color over a joint, until the citizens of Colorado asked you to stop?” one person, whose comment has almost 10 times as many upvotes as Hickenlooper’s, wrote.
Elsewhere in the thread, Hickenlooper said that he now favors descheduling marijuana at the federal level, allowing the Food and Drug Administration to study cannabis, providing banking access to marijuana businesses and expunging the records of individuals with prior “low-level, non-violent” cannabis convictions.
But while he recognized his past opposition on Reddit, that same nuance did not make it into his final statement at the Democratic debate, frustrating reform advocates.
Wait, Hickenlooper is flexing on being first to legalize marijuana when he has only barely come around to supporting it last year?
— 'Radical' Russ Belville (@RadicalRuss) June 28, 2019
To be fair, he implemented a law he didn't agree with and did so in good faith.
But it definitely happened despite him.
— Sam Kamin (@ProfSamKamin) June 28, 2019
A reminder that John Hickenlooper was a strong opponent of the marijuana legalization he just touted
— Stephen Wolf (@PoliticsWolf) June 28, 2019
Colorado resident here! Hickenlooper misrepresented himself, at best. He opposed marijuana, had no part in instituting the program to reduce teen pregnancy, and did nothing for climate change when he oversaw the addition of tens of thousands of fracking wells.
— Suzie (@SuzieB303) June 28, 2019
Hickenlooper opposed legalizing marijuana but takes credit for it in Colorado #Democraticdebate
— Brian Frederick (@bfred34) June 28, 2019
“It’s a little strange that Hickenlooper is seemingly taking credit for legalization in Colorado, and it’s upsetting that he tried to use it as a way to distinguish himself from the rest of the field,” Mason Tvert, who co-directed the Colorado legalization initiative, told Marijuana Moment. “As a mayor and then as governor, he repeatedly opposed efforts to roll back marijuana prohibition, including the state’s historic legalization initiative in 2012.”
“While he deserves credit for implementing that law and finally coming around on the issue, he has no business holding it over the heads of the other candidates who support legalization—especially since several of them never fought it like he did,” he said. “If Hickenlooper wants to use marijuana policy as a campaign issue, he should avoid misrepresenting what he did in the past and focus on what he would do in the future.”
This seems to be something of a theme among governors of legal cannabis states. Like Hickenlooper, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who is also seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has also appeared to claim credit for his state’s legalization vote—despite having opposed it before the voters of his state enacted it over his objections. He said in April that “we’ve legalized marijuana” in Washington, seemingly falsely counting himself among the voters who brought the change about.
We know that the drug wars have been part of the racial disparity that too many have suffered so we’ve legalized marijuana and I’m the first governor to offer pardons to thousands of people who have had marijuana convictions. pic.twitter.com/u1ORz9oVxg
— Jay Inslee (@JayInslee) April 12, 2019
Photo courtesy of YouTube/NBC News.
GOP Congressman Falsely Claims Marijuana Can Be Legally Consumed In Public In ‘Many States’
A Republican congressman wrongly claimed that marijuana can be legally consumed in public in “many states” in a Twitter post on Friday.
Following a House vote in favor of anti-vaping legislation that also included a ban on menthol cigarettes, Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) argued that the bill is an example of government overreach and that it would not prevent youth from using vaping products.
“Now, Democrats propose making possession of a menthol cigarette a violation of federal law when smoking a marijuana joint in public is legal in many states,” he wrote in his tweet. “Instead, we need to focus on real healthcare issues like surprise billing, the opioid epidemic and curbing coronavirus.”
Now, Democrats propose making possession of a menthol cigarette a violation of federal law when smoking a marijuana joint in public is legal in many states. Instead, we need to focus on real healthcare issues like surprise billing, the opioid epidemic and curbing coronavirus.
— Rep. Andy Barr (@RepAndyBarr) February 28, 2020
The claim about laws governing public cannabis consumption is likely to raise eyebrows among reform advocates familiar with state-legal marijuana programs.
It’s not the case that “many states” allow individuals to smoke in public areas. In fact, it’s one of the most commonly prohibited activities in legalization measures.
“Rep. Barr is anti-freedom and pro-false hysteria when it comes to cannabis,” Justin Strekal, political director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment. “Sadly, his desire to continue to see hundreds of thousands of Americans be arrested and incarcerated due to minor marijuana charges is held far too many of his colleagues in Congress.”
Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies at the Marijuana Policy Project, told Marijuana Moment that Barr’s “facts and priorities are wrong.”
“No legalization state allows public smoking of cannabis (other than in adult-only locations in some cases), and almost all medical cannabis states forbid it,” she said. “Marijuana isn’t associated with increased mortality, while cigarettes are associated with more than 480,000 deaths a year in the U.S. alone. Why is Rep. Barr maligning and voting against the safer substance, and working to keep it illegal?”
Here are some examples of public consumption policies in legal cannabis states.
Alaska: For adults over 21 years of age, the law permits “consumption of marijuana, except that nothing in this chapter shall permit the consumption of marijuana in public.”
California: “You can consume cannabis on private property but you cannot consume, smoke, eat, or vape cannabis in public places.”
Colorado: “Using marijuana in any way—smoking, eating or vaping—isn’t allowed in public places.”
Illinois: “There is no public consumption allowed for cannabis. Smoking or consuming weed is illegal in motor vehicles and public spaces, including your front porch.”
Massachusetts: “You can’t use marijuana in any form (smoking, vaping, edibles, etc.) in public or on federal land.”
Nevada: “Adults 21 years and older can legally consume marijuana, but with restrictions on where it can be consumed: You cannot use marijuana in any public place.”
Oregon: “Recreational marijuana cannot be sold or smoked in public.”
Put simply, the notion that public consumption of marijuana is widespread is a false narrative. A standout exception is Oklahoma, where medical cannabis patients are able to consume wherever tobacco is permitted. That said, Barr’s assertion that public marijuana smoking is legal in “many states” is patently false.
That the congressman is perpetuating that narrative isn’t especially surprising, however. Barr is no fan on cannabis, voting against spending bill amendments preventing the Justice Department from using its fund to interfere in state-legal medical marijuana programs as well as a separate measure last year that would’ve extended protections to all state cannabis programs.
That said, Barr isn’t alone in his opposition to the menthol cigarette ban that cleared the House on Friday. Several Democrats joined Republicans in voting against the measure in committee and on the floor. But their reasoning was generally that the targeted ban would lead to overpolicing of minority communities.
Photo courtesy of WeedPornDaily.
VA Notice About Researching Medical Marijuana For Military Veterans Deleted Shortly After Posting
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will soon release a notice announcing that it is seeking information about the potential of marijuana and its components to treat medical conditions that commonly afflict military veterans.
A post describing the request was briefly uploaded to a government website this week, though it’s since been deleted—but not before Marijuana Moment downloaded a copy. A representative said in response to an e-mailed query that the document was “rescinded for edits” and a revised version will be published “at a future date.”
VA’s Clinical Science Research and Development Service wrote in the filing that it is interested in establishing a research program designed to “examine the potential for medical marijuana and cannabinoids to treat disorders and diseases prevalent in our Veteran population.”
In a request for white papers on the topic, the department said it’s especially interested in identifying potential medical uses for cannabis to treat neuropathic pain and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
“Unrelieved neuropathic pain experienced by Veterans after spinal cord or peripheral nerve injury contributes to depression, anxiety, disrupted sleep, and overall decreased quality of life,” VA said. “PTSD, also highly prevalent in Veterans, is a mental health problem often co-morbid with chronic pain.”
“A large percentage of Veterans who seek relief from these conditions, resort to smoking marijuana or use unregulated dietary cannabis supplements, etc,” it continued. “It is therefore imperative to determine which cannabinoid compounds are truly effective, for which symptoms, in which populations, as well as the associated risks.”
VA said it is committed to researching and developing evidence-based treatment options for veterans, and that’s what the program is meant to address.
“Without the needed evidence base for medical marijuana, this will not be a treatment choice within VA,” the department wrote. “We hope to support a series of clinical trials, which in case of positive outcomes, will generate robust data to support the use of cannabinoid(s) for pain and/or PTSD (or one or more of its symptoms).”
The department plans to conduct clinical trials if the evidence indicates that medical cannabis can be useful. It touted the “cadre of experienced clinical investigators, a highly participatory research population, and mechanisms in place to support every aspect of clinical research.”
White papers submitted to VA under the now-deleted solicitation must contain four components: 1) the “formulation and route of administration of the cannabinoid preparation,” 2) their ability to manufacture and supply those preparations, 3) the investigational new drug registration for compounds that aren’t already approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and 4) evidence about the product’s efficacy in treating pain, PTSD and other conditions.
As drafted, the notice gives a deadline of March 15 to submit the requested one-page white papers, though it’s not clear if that will change when the updated notice is released.
Additionally, VA said it plans to collaborate with industry partners for “further understanding and development of evidence-based treatments such as medical marijuana and cannabinoids” and on April 27, will hold an “Industry Day” to discuss the “goals of the program.”
The department is “particularly interested in obtaining information about cannabinoid drugs availability, likelihood of their approval by the FDA (if not yet approved), and the data supporting their use for pain and PTSD treatment in Veterans,” the notice says.
Members of Congress and veterans advocates discussed the need for alternative treatment options, including medical cannabis, during a joint committee hearing earlier this week.
At the same time, bipartisan legislators are asking their colleagues to cosponsor a bill that would require VA to conduct research into the therapeutic potential of marijuana for veterans. That legislation already has 104 House cosponsors.
Read VA’s since-rescinded notice on medical marijuana research below:
Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.
House Democrats Block Amendment To Restrict Marijuana Products In Anti-Vaping Bill
House Democrats pushed back against a Republican attempt to include a flavored marijuana vaping ban in a broader anti-vaping bill that passed the chamber on Friday, arguing that it doesn’t make sense to prohibit products that are already illegal under federal law.
Instead, several lawmakers argued that Congress should enact separate cannabis reform legislation that could include provisions designed to protect public health and reduce the appeal of marijuana to youth.
The issue first came up during a House Rules Committee hearing on Wednesday, with Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) introducing an amendment to “include a prohibition against flavored marijuana products” such that they would be “treated in the same manner as flavored tobacco products” under the bill.
While the congressman argued that language of the legislation implicitly already provides for such a ban, he said it was important to clarify to send a message to young people that they can’t vape products containing nicotine or THC.
“Let it not be said in 2029 that we had a chance and we felt maybe we were getting to it in 2020,” he said. “Let’s just go ahead and do it. Let’s say you can’t sell flavored marijuana THC vaping products. My amendment makes that clear.”
Watch the conversation below:
Democratic members said they shared Griffith’s concern about underage use of flavored cannabis vaping products. However, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) pushed back and said the proposal is not germane because marijuana remains illegal under federal law and so regulating these products requires separate congressional action.
Earlier in the hearing, he suggested that his House-passed cannabis banking bill—the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act—could serve as a vehicle to address the body’s concerns.
“We have to start addressing it because we have 47 states that now are allowing some level of marijuana use when the statute under the Controlled Substance Act clearly makes it illegal,” the congressman said. “There’s a bill sitting in the Senate called the SAFE Banking Act that may get back here at some point, and we could put some testing and regulatory components on it.”
Watch this exchange below:
Is a flavored marijuana vaping ban even necessary?
Also during the hearing, Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) pressed Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) about the lack of specificity in the bill as it concerns marijuana vaping products. Woodall said he wanted that aspect addressed before he leaves office in nine months.
“It strikes me…more than strange that banana crush [nicotine vaping products] will no longer be available to adults in my district. But banana strawberry cream, which is an illegal [marijuana] product today, will continue to be available at 180 retailers near you,” Woodall said. “I don’t know how I take that message into my high schools and say that we’re going to reduce drug dependency in the months and years ahead.”
Watch the conversation below:
Pallone said he appreciates Woodall’s concern that flavored vaping products can mislead consumers about what they’re actually putting into their bodies and that he “would tend to think that the same problem would exist” for flavored marijuana products. However, he said there’s a distinction to be made.
“Most people tell me that nicotine is much more toxic and much more dangerous to your health than marijuana so maybe we shouldn’t have restrictions on marijuana at all and maybe we shouldn’t have any restrictions on flavored marijuana because the marijuana doesn’t have the same health problems that nicotine has,” he said. “Maybe I should say, assuming that marijuana is dangerous then maybe the flavored should be. But it’s not as dangerous.”
“The reality is that we know that nicotine is much more dangerous than marijuana so maybe the flavors masking it is not as serious a problem as it would be for nicotine,” he said.
Griffith’s amendment was blocked from floor consideration in a party-line vote of 3-6 by the panel, but the conversation around flavored marijuana products continued on Friday on the House floor.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) brought a poster board showing pictures of flavored cannabis vaping products and lamented that they are not explicitly included in the anti-vaping bill.
“If you want to do something about kids—if you want to do something about lung disease—then we need to do something about marijuana and the oils it gets mixed with that this bill does not address,” he said.
But Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) pointed out that if Republicans are interested in ensuring that such marijuana products are properly regulated, the substance needs to be removed from the Controlled Substances Act to provide Congress with the means to enact regulations.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer counters by pointing to marijuana's schedule I status, saying federal regulation of flavored cannabis would be like trying to regulate "flavored heroin." Plugs the MORE Act to deschedule marijuana. https://t.co/w4Jpudt137
— Emily Kopp (@emilyakopp) February 28, 2020
Imposing regulations on marijuana while it’s still federally prohibited is “like regulating flavored heroin,” he said. The congressman added that a bill to deschedule marijuana called the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act would give lawmakers the tools to protect public health.
“The challenge that we have now is to be able to move forward—to be able to protect young people and the public,” Blumenauer said. “Cannabis is a red herring. If we tax and regulate it, then we can deal with the products they’re talking about. But unless and until we bring it—as two-thirds of the states have done—to actually tax and regulate it, we can’t deal with that. It doesn’t matter.”
We have a crisis of youth vaping. And we’ve seen a disturbing number of lung injuries & deaths tied to the oil used in marijuana vaping. Unfortunately #HR2339 before us today does nothing to impact either. Instead, it's a partisan publicity stunt by big government liberal elites. pic.twitter.com/AUx8ZMar0L
— Richard Hudson (@RepRichHudson) February 28, 2020
Not all Democrats were on board with the anti-vaping bill.
It was a tight 213-195 vote in the House on Friday. Top Democratic leaders are faced challenges as they worked to get the broader legislation approved. Some members of the party have expressed opposition over policies to ban flavored tobacco, including menthol, which they argue would lead to overpolicing of minority communities.
Image by Lindsay Fox from Pixabay.