Much attention has been paid to the prospects for ending marijuana prohibition this year in Vermont and New Jersey. But another state has a shot to advance a cannabis legalization bill through its legislature — and it could happen this week.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives is expected to consider the issue after the legislature reconvenes for the year on Wednesday.
The 400-member body’s calendar for that day includes HB 656, a marijuana legalization bill that was rejected by a divided Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee in November.
But supportive members of that panel are planning to amend the bill on the floor in a way they believe gives it a chance of passing and advancing to the Senate.
As introduced, the bill would create a full system of legal, taxed and regulated cannabis sales. Opponents say that because a legislative study commission is currently examining how legalized marijuana commerce could one day work in the state, passing the legislation now would be premature.
So pro-legalization lawmakers will move to scale back the legislation to allow only low-level possession and home cultivation.
That approach would be similar to legislation that neighboring Vermont’s lawmakers and governor are expected to enact this month.
Matt Simon, the Marijuana Policy Project’s New England political director, predicted in an email to Marijuana Moment that there will be “significant debate” on the issue this week.
Here’s what to expect, according to Simon:
“First, the House will vote on whether to uphold the committee’s ‘inexpedient to legislate’ motion, which passed in a vote of 13-7. I think there’s a good chance the committee will be overturned (as has happened many times on marijuana bills dating back to 2008). If that happens, the minority of the committee will get to make its case for an amendment that would simply legalize possession and cultivation. If the House votes to adopt the amendment, the next motion will be ‘ought to pass’ as amended.
“If that all happens, since the tax component will have been removed, the bill presumably won’t need to go to a second committee — it would head straight to the Senate, where it would have to at least receive a public hearing in committee.”
Passage in the Senate would be far from assured, but the House victory would amount to significant early progress at the start of a year that advocates believe will bring about several big wins for cannabis in states across the country.
In New Hampshire, the House repeatedly approved legislation to decriminalize possession of small amounts of cannabis over the course of several years, only to see those bills consistently defeated in the Senate.
It wasn’t until last year that the support of newly elected Gov. Chris Sununu (R) provided a boost to the decrim effort and the bill passed both chambers and was enacted into law.
Now, advocates will try to expand on that victory by removing the fines that are assessed to adults possessing small amounts of marijuana, and add legal home cultivation.
“The minority of the committee believes the war on pot is over,” Rep. Frank Sapareto (R) wrote in a summary of arguments in favor of the bill from Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee members who support it. “The minority supports the home-grow option of three immature and three mature plants.”
Simon, of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), said the bill “would have to be considered a longshot in the Senate.”
“However, if the House passes HB 656 in any form, it will rightly be viewed as one more nail in the coffin of marijuana prohibition in New Hampshire,” he said. “The most recent poll indicates that 68% of Granite Staters believe marijuana should be legalized, and 2018 is an election year, so I won’t be surprised if more and more legislators decide to evolve on the issue.”
In 2014, the New Hampshire House became the first legislative chamber in U.S. history to approve a marijuana legalization bill, but it later died in the Senate.
MPP is asking supporters in New Hampshire to contact their representatives about this week’s cannabis vote.
VA Admits It “Can Look At Marijuana As An Option For Treating Veterans”
Despite repeated claims to the contrary, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is now admitting that it “can look at marijuana as an option for treating Veterans.”
The stance, which comes in the form of new content uploaded to a VA webpage last week, contrasts with a letter that Veterans Affairs Sec. David Shulkin sent to members of Congress in December, less than two months ago.
“Federal law restricts VA’s ability to conduct research involving medical marijuana, or to refer veterans to such projects,” he claimed at the time.
There have been no changes to federal cannabis laws in the interim.
The VA Office of Research & Development’s webpage on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) now says that earlier research on medical cannabis “found limited evidence that marijuana use might alleviate neuropathic pain in some patients, and that it might reduce spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, but found insufficient evidence to assess the effects of marijuana on PTSD.”
“VA is not currently able to prescribe medical marijuana to Veterans,” it continues, “but can look at marijuana as an option for treating Veterans.”
A cached previous version of the same page doesn’t mention marijuana at all.
The update to the webpage comes as Shulkin and the department are under increasing pressure on medical cannabis and completely unrelated issues.
A group of members of Congress are pushing the VA to allow its physicians to recommend medical cannabis, or at least to refer veterans to studies on the drug’s potential.
And a VA inspector general’s report released last week found that Shulkin made “serious derelictions” that resulted in improper use of taxpayer money to cover portions of an overseas trip he and his wife took to Denmark and the UK last year.
The report, which included portions of Shulkin’s travel agenda, happened to reveal that on July 19 he met with British officials to discuss medical cannabis as part of the trip.
Under an internal VA administrative directive, the department’s policy is that its “providers are prohibited from recommending, making referrals to or completing paperwork for Veteran participation in State marijuana programs.”
Shulkin has repeatedly tried to pass the buck to Congress when asked about the issue.
During a White House briefing last year, for example, he said that state medical cannabis laws may be providing “some evidence that this is beginning to be helpful, and we’re interested in looking at that and learning from that.” But he added that “until time the federal law changes, we are not able to be able to prescribe medical marijuana for conditions that may be helpful.”
The distinction between recommendation and prescription is an important one. No physician in the U.S. — government or private — can prescribe marijuana, because prescription is a federally-regulated process and cannabis currently falls under the Controlled Substances Act’s restrictive Schedule I, a category that is supposed to be reserved for drugs with a high potential for abuse and no medical value.
That’s why the 29 states with medical cannabis access allow doctors to simply recommend the drug, circumventing the prescription process.
Shulkin has the unilateral authority to rescind the internal ban and clear the way for VA doctors to recommend medical cannabis to veterans in states where it is legal, but he has repeatedly claimed that federal law — without citing a particular statute — blocks him from doing so.
The secretary’s unwillingness to move on marijuana goes beyond just letting doctors who work for him recommend it. He has also thus far refused to help lift institutional roadblocks preventing the department from participating in scientific research on cannabis’s uses.
In an interview last year, he said that it is “not within our legal scope to study that in formal research programs.”
That position has led to recruitment issues for researchers conducting trials. For example, one such study on marijuana’s effects on PTSD has been prevented from reaching veterans at the Phoenix, Arizona VA hospital.
“This study needs 50 more participants and the Phoenix V.A. is in the best possible position to assist by simply allowing principle investigators to brief [VA] medical staff on the progress of the study, and by allowing clinicians to reveal the existence of the study to potential participants,” the American Legion, which represents more than 2.4 million military veterans, wrote to Shulkin in September. “Your immediate attention in this important matter is greatly appreciated. We ask for your direct involvement to ensure this critical research is fully enabled.”
And John Hudak, a researcher with the Brookings Institution said that despite Shulkin’s claims, “doctors and researchers at the VA or in VA hospitals could conduct research into the medical efficacy of marijuana while remaining completely compliant with federal laws, regulations, and the United States’ obligations under international agreements.”
In December, VA issued an updated policy offers physicians greater encouragement to discuss cannabis with their patients.
The new directive urges government doctors to “discuss with the Veteran marijuana use, due to its clinical relevance to patient care, and discuss marijuana use with any Veterans requesting information about marijuana.”
But it maintains the longstanding departmental ban on physician recommendations.
The new website language, however, and the revelation that Shulkin discussed the issue on his overseas trip, shows that VA’s opposition to cannabis is not necessarily set in stone, at least when it comes to research, though the implications aren’t immediately clear.
“No other arguments have worked in the past so this may be a breakthrough,” Sue Sisley, the researcher running the Arizona PTSD trial, told Marijuana Moment in an interview, referring to the webpage update. “VA can definitely be more helpful if they wanted to. There is nothing blocking them.”
Marijuana Opponent Kennedy Reconsiders State Legalization Protections
A Democratic congressman who has acknowledged he is out of step with his party on marijuana policy now says that he doesn’t necessarily support federal crackdowns on states with legalization, even though he has repeatedly voted to allow such enforcement actions.
“The federal government policy on this is incoherent, and the federal government needs to get far more coherent on this,” Congressman Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) said in an interview this week. “For states that have put in place the proper safeguards and procedures, I’d be inclined to support those states.”
Legalization supporters were upset when Democrats tapped Kennedy last month to deliver the party’s response to President Trump’s State of the Union address.
As a member of Congress, Kennedy has not only opposed his state’s move to legalize marijuana, but has voted against amendments to shield state medical marijuana laws from federal interference, allow military veterans to access medical cannabis and protect children who use non-psychoactive cannabidiol extracts to treat severe seizure disorders.
One of only a handful of Democrats to oppose those proposals, Kennedy knows that his views on cannabis are out of step with the party.
“I come at it a little bit differently, obviously, than the vast majority of my colleagues,” he said in a separate interview this month. “I think the party is clearly moving in that legalization direction. It might already be there.”
But in the new interview this week, Kennedy made clear that he still has a lot of concerns about legalization, which he campaigned against in Massachusetts.
“There’s a pretty robust voice in the addiction community that points out some of the challenges and how it has had negative impacts on folks,” he said. “Those voices should be listened to as well.”
He also isn’t sold on medical cannabis, which voters legalized in his state in 2012.
“If we are going to treat something like a medicine, it needs to go through the proper medical trials,” he said. “We’re not going through that process.”
But although Kennedy has repeatedly voted in Congress to allow the Department of Justice to arrest and prosecute medical cannabis patients and providers, he says he doesn’t necessarily want the DEA to launch large-scale raids.
“Assuming there are communities that are doing this in a safe and effective way, I certainly could see myself allowing that go forward,” he said. “I don’t want to upend the access to care that these patients need.”
Although he’s “not proposing a crackdown on it,” Kennedy acknowledged that his overall skepticism about cannabis is “not necessarily reflective of the voters of Massachusetts.”
“I want to make sure that we go about this in the right way with the right safeguards in place to not end up in a circumstance where we can get ourselves in trouble,” he said.
Kennedy’s grandfather, former U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, criticized the hypocrisy underlying marijuana criminalization half a century ago.
Photo courtesy of Martin Grondin.
Joe Arpaio Supports Medical Marijuana, “Kind Of”
A former sheriff known for disregarding the rights of immigrants, Latinos and people convicted of drug crimes — and who recently received a pardon from President Trump for his own criminal contempt of court — is voicing support for medical marijuana.
“I wish there was something more we could do with the medical dispensaries to help our veterans [and] people who are sick. I still can’t understand why you can’t go to a drug store on a prescription and get this type of drug,” Joe Arpaio, now a U.S. Senate candidate in Arizona, said. “The medical dispensaries, I kind of support it if it can help the sick people.”
Arpaio was answering a question from Larry King.
This isn’t the first time the former sheriff has spoken in support of medical cannabis.
In 2015, he appeared at an event aimed at educating senior citizens about medical marijuana.
“If this is one thing that really will help them, the medical part of it, and is done legitimately, no diversion, I don’t know, what’s the difference going to the drug store and getting a prescription,” he said at the time.
The opinion of the former Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs special agent appears to have shifted over time. In 2010, he campaigned against Arizona’s medical cannabis ballot measure, which ultimately eked out a narrow victory on Election Day.
But while Arpaio sees medical potential for marijuana, he doesn’t support its broader legalization.
“I don’t support using or selling marijuana across our nation,” he said in the new interview with King. “Actually it’s against the law. It’s against the federal law anyway.”
Last year, Arpaio was found in contempt of federal court after refusing to obey a judge’s order to stop racial profiling practices. He also, at one point, got a tank from the Army and decorated it with “Sheriff Arpaio’s War on Drugs” written on the sides.
Congresswoman Martha McSally, who is also running for the Republican nomination for the Arizona Senate seat, voted against amendments to protect state medical cannabis and marijuana legalization laws from federal interference.
Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat running for the seat, voted in favor of both measures.
Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore.
Politics5 months ago
This Obscure 45-Year-Old Federal Law Exempts State-Legal Marijuana
Politics3 months ago
Trump Administration Considering Marijuana Policy Changes, Sessions Says
Politics4 months ago
These States Will Probably Vote On Marijuana In 2018
Politics4 months ago
Former Surgeon General: Legalize Marijuana; Decrim Not Good Enough
Politics5 months ago
FDA To Review Medical Claims About Marijuana
Culture2 months ago
Bill Nye: Marijuana’s Federal Status ‘Not Based In Science’
Politics5 months ago
Marijuana Is A Big Issue In Next Month’s Elections
Politics3 months ago
New Sessions Memo: Does It Impact Marijuana?