Washington State’s top legal official is preparing to potentially sue the Trump administration over marijuana enforcement policies, he confirmed in an interview on Wednesday.
“In my view, we’ve got a legitimate business, playing by our rules here in Washington State and [if] the federal government comes in to try to shut that down, we’d be interested in that or any step that’s taken to adversely impact the system as a state that we have going forward,” state Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) said. “That would be something we would be paying close attention to. My job is to defend state law, including initiatives.”
While making it clear that any legal actions would be determined on a case-by-case basis, Ferguson said that his office is ready to defend cannabis businesses that are in strict compliance with state law.
“Hypothetically speaking, there could be a business that’s licensed in Washington State selling marijuana that’s all in state law. Let’s assume they’re following state law to a T — that’s important — and the feds go in and try to shut that business down, they seize the marijuana or the proceeds,” he said. “If it’s a business just following our rules and they’re a business minding their own business selling marijuana, yes, that would get our attention for sure… In general if there was a threat to our industry, that would have our attention.”
Ferguson’s comments, which came during a Wednesday interview with the editorial board of The Columbian, a local newspaper in Clark County, Washington, follow his office’s release of a notice last month that asked marijuana industry operators who believe they have been harmed by federal enforcement policy changes to get in touch.
The notice came in response to a move by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to rescind Obama-era guidance that has generally allowed states to implement their own cannabis laws without federal interference.
It was widely speculated that the invitation by Ferguson’s office for marijuana business owners to share their experiences signaled the start of preparations for possible lawsuits against the Sessions move.
I’m just speculating, but this reads to me like the Washington State attorney general’s office might be looking to ID potential plaintiffs for a federal lawsuit against Sessions’s anti-maijuana move… pic.twitter.com/o3SgGvfVI7
— Tom Angell 🌳📰 (@tomangell) January 22, 2018
Leafly noted that Ferguson has not been shy about starting or joining lawsuits against the Trump administration over the course of the past year, so it would not be surprising to see his office take the lead in a court action over cannabis policy.
Now, Ferguson has confirmed that he is “prepared if there needs to be a legal fight on the future of marijuana legalization in Washington State. We hope it doesn’t come to that, but we’ve always felt that way.”
He added that already “there have been conversations” with cannabis industry operators who feel they have been affected by the federal move.
“We’ve been reaching out,” he said. “As a result of Attorney General Sessions’s decision to roll back the Cole Memorandum, has anyone been adversely impacted by that? Has a bank stopped working with them, for example, no longer taking the proceeds from their sales? We’re interested if there’s any adverse impacts from that decision on any businesses out there and folks. We’re interested in hearing from them.”
Also in the interview with the Columbian, Ferguson criticized Sessions for refusing to meet with him and Gov. Jay Inslee (D) to discuss cannabis. And he called out the federal attorney general for making statements about marijuana that are “riddled with factual mistakes.”
“There’s no way to sugarcoat that,” he said.
Photo courtesy of Nicolas Raymond.
Marijuana Isn’t Addictive, Former A.G. Eric Holder Says
The nation’s former top law enforcement officer is not worried that the legalization of marijuana will lead to addiction.
“I’ve never seen any scientific evidence that points you to concerns about addiction through the use of marijuana,” former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in an interview published on Friday by NY1.
The comments by the former A.G. call into question cannabis’s current status as a Schedule I drug. That category is supposed to be reserved only for substances with no medical value and a high potential for abuse. In fact, it would mean that marijuana should be moved to at least Schedule III, where drugs with “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence” are categorized.
Although Holder did not move to reclassify cannabis when he had the power to do so as attorney general, he did specifically endorse such a change just months after leaving office.
“I certainly think it ought to be rescheduled,” he said in a 2015 interview with PBS.
And he still feels the same way.
“We need to move marijuana from Schedule I, so research can be done,” Holder said in the new NY1 interview. “It is classified now on the same level as heroin is, and clearly that is inappropriate.”
While he did nothing to officially recategorize marijuana as attorney general — and continually passed the buck to Congress when asked about the issue — Holder’s Justice Department did issue guidance, known as the Cole Memo, which generally allowed states to implement their own cannabis laws without federal interference.
Current Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded that memo earlier this year.
In the new interview, Holder said he thinks the federal government should continue letting states implement their own legalization laws.
“Let those be laboratories to see where we want to be,” he said. “I think if you allow the states to experiment we’ll ultimately come to a national consensus about what it is we ought to do with regard to marijuana.”
He also spoke about unfair enforcement of cannabis criminalization.
“One of the things that I am concerned about, though, is the racial disparity you see in the enforcement of marijuana laws,” he said. “You see African Americans, Latinos using marijuana at just about the same rates as whites, and yet seeing rates of arrest four, five times as great as it is for whites. That is something that I think is extremely troubling.”
Photo courtesy of US Embassy New Zealand.
Congressional Committee Protects Medical Marijuana From Jeff Sessions
A powerful congressional panel voted on Thursday to continue shielding medical marijuana patients and providers who comply with state laws from prosecution by the federal government.
While the provision has been federal law since 2014, when it was first attached to legislation that funds the U.S. Department of Justice, its continuance has been in question because of recent efforts by Republican leadership to prevent votes on cannabis amendments. But in a stunning bipartisan move, the House Appropriations Committee voted to add the provision as a rider to legislation funding U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session’s department for Fiscal Year 2019.
(Marijuana Moment’s editor provides some content to Forbes via a temporary exclusive publishing license arrangement.)
Congressional Republicans Block Votes On Hemp Amendments
In the latest development in a series of anti-cannabis moves, congressional Republican leadership has blocked consideration of several industrial hemp amendments.
Supporters were seeking to attach the measures to the large-scale Farm Bill, which sets food and agriculture policy for the country, but the House Rules Committee on Wednesday decided that the proposals cannot be considered on the floor.
The anti-cannabis chairman of the panel did, however, reveal that a broader deal for industrial hemp might be in the works.
One of the measures the committee killed, submitted by Reps. James Comer (R-KY) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), along with a bipartisan list of cosponsors, would have legalized hemp and made it eligible for crop insurance.
“Hemp is a crop with a long and rich history in our country,” Comer said in introducing his amendment before the committee. “It was grown by many of our founding fathers.”
Comer, who is a former Kentucky agriculture commissioner, said his state’s existing industrial hemp research program, which is authorized under a previous Farm Bill enacted in 2014, “has been a great success.”
He also spoke about the economic potential of the plant. “Times are tough in rural america,” he said. “For rural Kentuckians, industrial hemp has provided a new crop and business opportunity.”
But in a party-line move, the committee voted 8 to 3 to reject a motion to add Comer’s amendment to the list of proposals approved for floor consideration.
Another hemp amendment, filed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Jared Polis (D-CO), would have removed hemp from the list of federally banned substances.
A third proposal, submitted by Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), sought to create “a safe harbor for financial institutions that provide services to hemp legitimate businesses” that operate under state-authorized research programs.
“There is a proud history in American and in Kentucky [for hemp] as an agriculture product,” Barr said when testifying for his amendment, noting that it can be used in over 25,000 products.
Under current law, banks that work with legitimate hemp companies “fear reprisal from federal regulators,” Barr said, arguing that his proposed measure would protect financial institutions “from unnecessary interference from bank examiners and regulators” and give producers rights that “every other American crop enjoys.”
The committee did not hold specific votes on those two measures.
Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) has made a consistent practice of blocking cannabis measures from advancing over the past several years.
Sessions, seemingly mistakenly, told Comer during the Wednesday hearing that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has “a clause…that industrial hemp should be declassified under their Schedule I drugs, which they concur, which is the position you hold, too.”
A hemp lobbyist told Marijuana Moment in an email that he had not heard of the DEA taking a pro-hemp position.
Polis, who as a Rules Committee member made the unsuccessful motion to let the full House vote on Comer’s amendment, argued that hemp is a “common sense area” that enjoys bipartisan support. The measure, he said, would simply “treat industrial hemp as the agricultural commodity that it is.”
While Sessions and other GOP panel members were not swayed, the chairman did hint just before the vote that there may still be hope for hemp reform, saying that the issue would be “determined by an agreement that would be reached” with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
McConnell last month filed a hemp legalization bill, which Comer’s amendment closely modeled. Fully a fifth of the Senate is now signed on as cosponsoring that legislation, and the majority leader has already announced plans to attach his hemp language to the version of the Farm Bill being considered by the Senate this month.
While it is unclear what exactly Sessions was suggesting when he referred to an “agreement” with McConnell, it may have been a reference to the conference committee process that will merge the House and Senate’s respective versions of the Farm Bill into a single proposal after each chamber passes its legislation. If McConnell succeeds in attaching hemp legalization to the Senate bill, it would then be up for consideration as part of the final legislation sent to President Trump for signing into law.
In 2014, McConnell successfully inserted a provision to prevent federal interference in hemp research programs in that year’s version of the Farm Bill.
Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.