Connect with us

Politics

Federal Officials Give Hemp Legalization Update At Senate Hearing

Published

on

The Senate Agriculture Committee heard from federal agencies about efforts to implement the legalization of hemp at a hearing on Thursday.

In the months since the crop and its derivatives were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill, lawmakers and industry stakeholders have made repeated calls to expedite the development of regulations providing for the lawful marketing of hemp products.

The panel requested updates to that end from invited witnesses, which included representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) said the hearing was meant to provide “certainty and predictability for farmers” and that “this developing industry has great opportunity but—to be truthful—also has much uncertainty and risk for farmers.”

“There are complex questions in this space. Is hemp the crop of a generation? What will this industry look like in 10 years?” he said. “I do not know the answers to these questions, and I am not sure if anyone actually can answer them.”

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the committee’s ranking member, discussed the history of hemp in the United States, calling it a “new, old crop” that is part of a “great American tradition.”

Noting that founding fathers like George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson all grew hemp, she joked that “maybe Lin-Manuel Miranda will make his next musical about that,” referring to the “Hamilton” creator.

“We also need to ensure that these new opportunities in hemp production are fair and equitable for all farmers,” she said on a more serious note. “Given the USDA’s troubling history of discrimination, the Department must be proactive to ensure socially-disadvantaged farmers have the same opportunity to get a license to grow hemp. It’s also critical that there is fair testing and enforcement of harvested hemp across the board.”

Witnesses on the first panel at the hearing included USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Greg Ibach, USDA General Counsel Stephen Vaden, FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drugs Amy Abernethy and EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Assistant Administrator Alexandra Dunn.

The second panel consisted of National Hemp Association Executive Director Erica Stark, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians Tribal Chairman Darrell Seki and Kentucky farmer Brian Furnish.

Watch the hearing below:

Thursday’s hearing marks the second congressional cannabis-related meeting of the week after the Senate Banking Committee convened on Tuesday to discuss banking issues in the broader marijuana industry.

Even after hemp’s legalization, lawmakers and industry participants have raised concerns about ongoing problems accessing financial services businesses involved with the crop and its derivatives, some of which have said they’ve been denied credit lines and insurance policies due to a lack of guidance from federal regulators. That issue also came into play during Thursday’s hearing.

While few GOP senators attended the week’s earlier marijuana-focused meeting, hemp has garnered strong bipartisan support and this hearing reflected that shared political interest. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been a particularly vocal proponent of the crop, shepherding his hemp legalization provision to passage as part of the large-scale agriculture legislation that was signed by President Donald Trump in December.

McConnell made an appearance and said that he’s “glad” the crop is “making a comeback, and it’s generated incredible excitement all across my state.” He noted that it is being grown in 101 out of 120 counties in Kentucky.

“This product is incredible—from food to clothing to wellness products, what a diversified product,” he said, adding that there are some remaining issues that need to be resolved. Those issues include ensuring that hemp farmers have access to crop insurance and financial services.

McConnell led Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue on a tour of a Kentucky hemp farm earlier this month and also met with Acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless, advising the official to create a pathway for CBD to be lawfully marketed in food items and dietary supplements. Former Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said that developing such regulations could take years absent congressional action.

FDA’s Abernethy recognized in her testimony that a multi-year process for rules to be developed “is a long time to wait for regulatory clarity, particularly given the significant public interest in hemp products, and CBD in particular.” FDA said earlier this month that it is speeding up its rulemaking effort for CBD, adding that it plans to issue a status update by early fall.

The official acknowledged that the Farm Bill “unleashed a wave of interest and innovation in hemp agriculture” and stressed “how significant of a policy sea change this has been.”

Abernethy said that “FDA’s approach to cannabis and cannabis derived products, including hemp products, is to treat these products just like we do any other.”

“FDA is committed to advancing hemp products through the Agency’s existing regulatory pathways, and we are further exploring whether it would be appropriate to make additional regulatory pathways available to hemp products such as those containing cannabidiol (CBD). FDA believes taking this approach protects patients and the public health, fosters innovation for safe and appropriate products, and promotes consumer confidence.”

She went on to say that FDA is “wrestling with questions not only about the intrinsic safety of CBD, but also about potentially unsafe manufacturing processes for products containing CBD.”

“FDA knows from CBD products it has tested that they may not contain the amount of CBD indicated on a label, or they may contain other potentially dangerous compounds that are not listed on the label,” she said. “Therefore, FDA must consider questions related to good manufacturing practices for CBD products and potential labeling that might be appropriate for these products to address any potential risks to consumers.”

Further, Abernethy described the complications the agency faces as it considers allowing for the lawful marketing of CBD products in the food supply or as dietary supplements. She suggested FDA would have to create exceptions for hemp under all of its regulations because carving out just one exception could “end up generating additional confusion in the marketplace—a result the Agency believes all stakeholders would prefer to avoid.”

“FDA will only consider creating legal pathways for CBD to be marketed as a dietary supplement or in a food if the Agency is confident that it can develop a framework that addresses safety concerns,” she said.

“Another issue that FDA plans to consider is whether allowing CBD to be marketed as a dietary supplement or in a food will deter clinical research to substantiate additional therapeutic uses for cannabis-derived compounds,” Abernathy added. “Less research into the promise of cannabis-derived compounds and fewer drug approvals in this area would be a significant loss for American patients.”

She also said that confusion generated from the legalization of hemp and its derivatives has led some companies to engage in interstate commerce and that “storefronts and online retailers have flooded the market with these products, many with unsubstantiated therapeutic claims.” Just this week, FDA sent a warning letter to CBD business Curaleaf for selling “unapproved products with unsubstantiated therapeutic claims,” sending the company’s stock plummeting.

“As this new market emerges, we have seen substantial interest from industry, consumers, and Congress,” she said. “However, in the midst of the excitement and innovation, FDA’s role remains the same: to protect and promote the public health.”

USDA, for its part, initially said that it was aiming to release an interim final rule for hemp in August, but the Department’s Ibach said in his testimony that while officials are “committed to timely establishment of this program,” the rule “is currently undergoing interagency review and we hope to issue regulations in the Fall of 2019 to accommodate the 2020 crop year.”

“Once the regulation is published and becomes effective, [Agriculture Marketing Service] will move quickly to establish the program,” Ibach said. “AMS will begin accepting and reviewing state and tribal plans as well as license applications submitted by individuals who are located in States or territories of Indian Tribes that will not operate their own State or Tribal plan, and who wish to be licensed under the USDA plan.”

EPA’s representative discussed the agency’s role in approving pesticides for hemp plants, saying that officials anticipate that “pesticide registrants will intensify their interest in gaining crop protection approvals for use” on the crop thanks to “strong economic forecasts for hemp production.

“I can report that the agency has recently begun to receive a number of registration requests seeking to add hemp to pesticide labels,” Dunn said. “Currently, there are 10 product registration requests under review at the EPA.”

Dunn also said that the agency is prioritizing and reviewing on an expedited basis requests involving biological and microbial chemicals because they tend to have a low environmental impact.

“I anticipate these will be the first of a group of decisions that will support growers and this new industry,” she said.

An interagency dialogue is underway across EPA, USDA, FDA and the Justice Department, she said. Additionally, EPA is “also in discussions with the Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency about their approved pesticide labels and approaches to regulating hemp.”

During the second panel, Furnish, who was one of the first hemp farmers in Kentucky, talked about the potential of the hemp industry but also the unique risks that cultivators face.

Since the crop is now legal, “we need to take a close look and remove, one by one, the barriers to success so hemp can be on the same production playing field as all the other crops,” he said.

He also brought up part of Dunn’s testimony and emphasized the lack of EPA-approved pesticides for hemp.

“Most folks in the government and even in production agriculture probably don’t know or realize that hemp has no legal pesticide or herbicide or fungicide,” Furnish said. “A grower can lose its entire crop to weeds or pests. Without an approved herbicide or pesticide we may have to pay labor between $500 – $2500 an acre to pull the weeds to keep our hemp crop pure and healthy.”

Echoing a point that his home state senator, McConnell, has made on numerous occasions, he said hemp stands to be an economic benefit to Kentucky as tobacco farming dwindles.
“The labor necessary to successfully plant and harvest hemp is much the same as tobacco,” Furnish said. “That’s why hemp is and can be a great replacement for the dwindling tobacco production.”

“Corn, wheat and soybeans all have hundreds and maybe thousands of product uses. Hemp can too, but they need the barriers removed and the consistency and stabilization which come from the regulatory framework you all can give us. On behalf of the hemp farmers and growers, I’m asking for that help.”

The farmer also cited the lack of crop insurance and uncertainty about whether FDA will allow hemp derivatives in foods and dietary supplements as issues that lawmakers can help address.

Tribal Chairman Seki argued that USDA has left native populations out of the rulemaking process and he implored the department to take a more inclusive approach as it develops regulations for hemp, saying that officials have “frequently mischaracterized the sovereignty of Indian Tribes in the context of industrial hemp regulation under the 2018 Farm Bill.”

“Despite significant progress in the Farm Bill itself for Tribal sovereignty, USDA decisions to delay regulations are threatening to cripple Tribal industrial hemp projects before they can even begin,” he said. “If Tribes had always been on the same footing with states in terms of growing and regulating industrial hemp, this regulatory delay would merely be a source of frustration. Instead it poses a serious threat to competitive Tribal agribusiness.”

“The legalization of industrial hemp production marks a potential landmark economic opportunity for Tribes and Tribal producers through value-added agriculture. Because of this, it is vital that federal policymakers and agency officials negotiate with Tribal leaders, in robust government-to-government consultation, in shaping the federal regulatory structure implementing the industrial hemp provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill. This commitment must be made real from top to bottom at USDA. Otherwise, there is a high risk of this turning into yet another missed opportunity for Indian Country.”

A USDA memo released in May asserted that Indian tribes can engage with states that have approved hemp research programs authorized under the prior 2014 Farm Bill but they can’t authorize such programs themselves. Seki said it reflects a lack of inclusivity that native tribes are grappling with as states continue to move forward on hemp without the same restrictions.

He also decried delays in implementation, saying that “the more the AMS delays, the less time Tribal producers are given to prepare, plan, finance, and plant for the new crop year.”

Stark, of the National Hemp Association, said that the industry is in particular need of clarification when it comes to testing protocols, sampling, personnel eligibility requirements, cross-pollination and the importation of biomass.

“At the very heart of what we need to move forward is simplicity and clarity,” she said. “We need regulations that create an even playing field across the country. We need to eliminate the unintended consequences of legal ‘gray areas’ caused by each state testing differently and operating under a different set of rules and regulations.”

“The hemp industry has been struggling with legal uncertainties for too long and looks forward to reasonable regulations which will afford the opportunity for all to prosper within a clear legal framework,” she said.

While advocates have cast doubts on interest within the Republican-controlled Senate to pursue broader marijuana reform, hemp is one area where lawmakers from both parties have expressed support. And that sentiment was made clear during Thursday’s hearing.

Kentucky GOP Congressman Touts ‘High Hemp IQ’ Of His Constituents

Photo courtesy of Pixabay.

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

Where Presidential Candidate Deval Patrick Stands On Marijuana

Published

on

Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) announced on November 14, 2019, that he is seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

The latecomer to the race does not have an especially reform-friendly record on drug policy issues compared to many of his rival contenders, and questions remain about where he stands on legalization for adult-use—or even medical use for that matter.

During his time as governor, he voiced opposition to a marijuana decriminalization proposal and raised concerns about a medical cannabis legalization measure. After voters approved that latter initiative, he said he wished the state didn’t have the program, and his administration faced criticism over its implementation.

That said, Patrick, who also served as the U.S. assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, does not appear to have expressed hostility to marijuana reform in recent years and during his time in office did take action in support of modest proposals such as resentencing for people with non-violent drug convictions. Here’s where the former governor stands on cannabis:

Legislation And Policy Actions

Patrick’s administration said that despite a marijuana decriminalization policy going into effect following the passage of a 2008 ballot initiative, law enforcement should be able to continue to search people suspected of possession. However, his office declined to approve a request from prosecutors to delay the implementation of the voter-approved policy change.

After the decriminalization proposal passed, Patrick directed the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) to develop an implementation plan.

“Our office will continue to work collaboratively with EOPSS and the district attorneys and law enforcement agencies on implementation,” a spokesperson said. “It’s an ongoing process.”

The then-governor said he would work to toughen up enforcement of fines levied against people possessing marijuana.

“The bottom line is the governor believes that if people are fined they should pay the fines,” a spokesperson for his administration said.

Following the passage of a 2012 medical cannabis initiative in Massachusetts, Patrick said simply that the “voters have voted,” and pledged that he wouldn’t seek to repeal the law.

But there were some complications that arose during his administration’s medical marijuana licensing approval process.

In February 2014, Patrick contradicted the state health department, which had recently announced that 20 business licenses had been accepted.

“No licenses have been given. No provisional licenses have been given. What we have is a multi-step process of screening out applicants,” he said. “Don’t get ahead of where we are. There was a balance struck here about trying to let the public in through transparency to the process even though the process was unfinished.”

When reports emerged that certain medical cannabis applicants had apparently provided false or misleading information in their application forms, Patrick said “[n]o good dead goes unpunished.”

“Rather than wait till the end when all that vetting and screening had been done, we’re going to do that first cut from 100 [applicants] down to 20, and we’re going to tell everybody,”

The next month, he dismissed requests for a review of the licensing process by applicants who the health department had rejected.

“I don’t think we gain anything by starting over,” he said. “We are in the middle of a process. Nobody has a license, no one is going to get a license until we meet the standards of the application process.”

Patrick was also criticized for failing to follow up with patient advocates who urged him to effectively implement the program.

“It appears the governor wants to skip out of office without addressing medical marijuana because he doesn’t want to talk about it and he doesn’t want to deal with it,” Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance Executive Director Matthew Allen said in 2014.

Patrick’s successor, Gov. Charlie Baker (R), overhauled the his predecessor’s medical cannabis licensing process to create “a more streamlined, efficient, and transparent process that allows the Commonwealth to maintain the highest standards of both public safety and accessibility.”

Despite opposing marijuana decriminalization and expressing concerns about medical cannabis legalization, the governor did sign several drug policy reform bills during his time in office.

Patrick signed legislation in 2012 that reduced mandatory minimum sentences for people with non-violent drug convictions. He’d introduced a package of bills that included a call for the repeal of such mandatory minimums the previous year, earning praise from reform advocates.

“We need an effective and accountable re-entry program for those leaving the criminal justice system,” Patrick said in a statement. “Combining probation and parole, and requiring supervision after release, takes the best practices from other states to assure both public safety and cost savings.”

Another piece of legislation the then-governor proposed was to reduce the scope of “drug-free school zones,” where people charged with drug crimes would face mandatory minimum sentences. He recommended reducing the size of these zones from within 1,000 feet of a school to 100 feet.

Patrick signed off on a bill in 2014 to expand access to drug treatment.

“This bill creates some new rules and new tools for us to use together to turn to our brothers and sisters who are dealing with these illnesses and addiction and help them help themselves,” he said.

But in 2012, Patrick signed a bill prohibiting certain synthetic drugs called “bath salts.”

On The Campaign Trail

So far, Patrick has not made drug policy a center-stage issue in his campaign. However, his website says his agenda involves “making meaningful fixes to the big systems that consistently fail to meet modern needs.”

“This means a justice system that focuses less on warehousing people than on preparing them to re-enter responsible life,” the site says.

Previous Quotes And Social Media Posts

In 2007, a spokesperson for Patrick’s office said the governor would veto a proposed marijuana possession decriminalization bill. Patrick told the Associated Press that he had other priorities when asked whether he would sign the legislation.

He was listed as a supporter for a campaign that opposed the 2008 decriminalization ballot measure that voters later approved.

Several news reports from the time also noted that Patrick stood opposed to the modest proposal to remove criminal penalties for low-level cannabis possession.

Oddly, two years earlier, Patrick was asked about a decriminalization proposal during a debate and said that while he’s “very comfortable with the idea of legalizing marijuana,” he doesn’t “think it ought to be our priority.” He went on to say that he would veto a proposed decriminalization measure in the legislature.

Massachusetts voters also approved a 2012 medical cannabis initiative while Patrick was in office—in spite of the fact that he declined to endorse the measure.

Asked about the proposal during a radio interview with WBZ, the then-governor first cited an argument in support of legalization made by conservative author William F. Buckley Jr., who said regulating drug sales would remove a profit motive for illicit dealers. Yet he went on to say that “I’m not endorsing” the initiative.

“I’m not expressing a point of view and I’m not dodging, it’s just I’ve got so much else I’m working on,” he said.

The host asked if Patrick would implement the law if voters approved it and he said “that’s, I think, what we’re supposed to do.”

In September 2012, he said that he doesn’t “have a lot of enthusiasm for the medical marijuana” measure, which was set to go before voters two months later.

“I mean I have heard the views on both sides and I’m respectful of the views of both sides, and I don’t have a lot of energy around that,” he said. “I think California’s experience has been mixed, and I’m sympathetic to the folks who are in chronic pain and looking for some form of relief.”

“I really have to defer to the medical views about this and individuals will get a chance to vote on this,” Patrick said in April 2012. “I haven’t been paying much attention to it.”

While his administration struggled to implement the program after voters had approved it, Patrick said in August 2014 that “I wish frankly we didn’t have medical marijuana.”

Patrick doesn’t appear to have publicly weighed in during the Massachusetts campaign about legalizing marijuana for adult-use, which voters approved in 2016 after he had left office.

In 2012, Patrick said during a State of the State Address that Massachusetts should reevaluate how it treats people convicted of non-violent drug offenses.

“In these cases, we have to deal with the fact that simply warehousing non-violent offenders is a costly policy failure,” he said. “Our spending on prisons has grown 30 percent in the past decade, much of that because of longer sentences for first-time and nonviolent drug offenders. We have moved, at massive public expense, from treatment for drug offenders to indiscriminate prison sentences, and gained nothing in public safety.”

“We need more education and job training, and certainly more drug treatment, in prisons and we need mandatory supervision after release,” he said. “And we must make non-violent drug offenders eligible for parole sooner.”

He also said that the “biggest problem is that our approach to public safety has been to warehouse people,” and that the “answer is new policies, not bigger warehouses.”

“We’ve been warehousing people for whom what they really need is treatment and not just time,” he said during a town hall event in 2009.

Patrick voiced support in 2006 for a bill that would legalize the over-the-counter sale of needles in order to prevent the spread of disease.

“Deval Patrick supports this legislation because he believes it will reduce dangerous diseases in our state,” a campaign spokesperson said. “Studies in other states have shown that programs such as these decrease the rates of disease infection without increasing drug use.”

Patrick later criticized then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) for vetoing the legislation, stating that the official “put misguided ideology before leadership in public health.”

Personal Experience With Marijuana

Patrick said in 2012 that he has never “experienced marijuana myself” but that during his school years there “was probably enough around me that there was a second-hand, a contact-high.”

Marijuana Under A Patrick Presidency

It is difficult to assess how Patrick would approach federal marijuana policy if elected president, but his vocal opposition to decriminalization in Massachusetts and his administration’s troubled implementation of medical cannabis legalization is likely to give advocates pause. While his current position on legalizing marijuana for adult-use is unclear, given that drug policy reform has become a mainstream issue that candidates are routinely pressed on, it is likely the former governor will be asked to weigh in on the campaign trail.

But for the time being, it appears that Patrick would not make marijuana reform a priority and, in fact, might prove more resistant to policy changes such as descheduling that the majority of candidates now embrace.

Where Presidential Candidate Mark Sanford Stands On Marijuana

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

Culture

Postal Service Unveils ‘Drug Free USA Forever’ Stamp Commemorating 1980s Anti-Drug Program

Published

on

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is rolling out a new stamp design that pays tribute to 1980s-era drug prevention programs and promotes a “drug-free USA.”

The stamps, which will go on sale starting in October 2020, were announced at the conclusion of this year’s Red Ribbon Week last month, an annual occurrence first launched under the Reagan administration.

“This Drug Free USA Forever stamp will help further raise awareness about the dangers of drug abuse, and the toll it is taking on families and communities around our country,” Robert Duncan, chairman of the USPS Board of Governors, said in a press release. “The Postal Service is glad to do its part in marking Red Ribbon Week, and renewing our commitment to helping these efforts to educate youth about the dangers of illegal drugs.”

Via USPS.

USPS explained that Red Ribbon Week originated after a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent was tortured and killed in Mexico while investigating drug traffickers in 1985.

“I am very pleased that the U.S. Postal Service will issue a stamp affirming our commitment to a drug-free America,” DEA Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon said. “This stamp will help raise awareness of the fight against drug addiction and honor those who have dedicated their lives to that cause.”

A description of the design states that the stamp “features a white star with lines of red, light blue and blue radiating from one side of each of the star’s five points, suggesting the unity necessary at all levels to effectively address drug abuse.”

USPS isn’t applying anti-drug messaging to the cannabis component CBD anymore, however. In September, the agency clarified that hemp-derived CBD products can be mailed under certain circumstances since the crop and its derivatives were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.

For those with mailing needs who aren’t interested in supporting the notion of a “Drug Free USA,” USPS does have another stamp that recognizes the 50-year anniversary of the drug-fueled 1969 counterculture music festival Woodstock.

Via USPS.

The stamp “features an image of a dove along with the words ‘3 DAYS OF PEACE AND MUSIC,’ evoking the original promotional poster for the festival,” USPS says.

Another option is a John Lennon Forever stamp, celebrating the iconic Beatles member and marijuana enthusiast who famously got “high with a little help” from his friends.

Via USPS.

“Still beloved around the world, Lennon’s music remains an anchor of pop radio and continues to speak for truth and peace,” USPS wrote.

Top CDC Official Suggests Legal Marijuana Regulations Can Mitigate Vaping Injuries

Photo courtesy of Wikicommons.

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

New Congressional Resolution Calls For Marijuana Legalization And Drug Expungements

Published

on

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) released a congressional resolution on Thursday that calls for a fundamental reshaping of the criminal justice system, in part by legalizing marijuana and expunging all drug-related convictions.

The congresswoman’s “People’s Justice Guarantee” resolution outlines “a bold, new vision for justice in the American criminal legal system” that’s designed to “transform the U.S. criminal legal system to one that meets America’s foundational yet unfilled promise of justice for all.”

The ultimate goal of the measure is to reduce mass incarceration in the country through a series of reform steps that includes ending for-profit prisons, decriminalizing certain non-violent offenses, imposing caps on criminal sentences, abolishing the death penalty, expanding access to mental health services in prisons and reinvesting in communities that have been most impacted by “tough of crime” criminal policies.

Some have characterized the resolution as the “Green New Deal” of criminal justice reform, comparable in scope and ambition to the climate change plan championed by fellow “Squad” member Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

Drug policy reform isn’t the main feature of the resolution, but it does call for “decriminalizing addiction, homelessness, poverty, HIV status, and disabilities, including mental health diagnosis, by legalizing marijuana and overdose prevention sites, declining to criminally prosecute low-level offenses such as loitering and theft of necessity goods, and expunging the records of individuals for all drug-related offenses.”

Interestingly, an earlier draft of the measure reportedly contained language specifying that law enforcement should “use civil citations instead of arrests for drug possession,” according to a paraphrase by a reporter with The Appeal who reviewed the document but later updated her story to reflect the version that was actually filed. A call for an 80 percent reduction in the prison population was also removed from the text.

It’s not clear if the provision on “decriminalizing addiction” in the final resolution would involve all drug possession offenses, or why Pressley apparently decided to scale back the scope of the measure from the draft her staff circulated to reporters. Marijuana Moment reached out to the congresswoman’s office for clarification but a representative was not immediately available.

The ACLU, Color of Change and National Immigrant Law Center are among several civil rights groups that have endorsed the resolution, which was created in concert with advocates from the National Immigration Law Center, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Immigrant Defense Project, UndocuBlack Network and others.

“You cannot have a government for and by the people if it is not represented by all of the people,” Pressley said in a press release. “For far too long, those closest to the pain have not been closest to the power, resulting in a racist, xenophobic, rogue, and fundamentally flawed criminal legal system.”

“The People’s Justice Guarantee is the product of a symbiotic partnership with over 20 grassroots organizations and people impacted by the discriminatory policies of our legal system,” she said. “Our resolution calls for a bold transformation of the status quo—devoted to dismantling injustices so that the system is smaller, safer, less punitive, and more humane.”

While the freshman congresswoman declined to endorse a 2016 marijuana legalization measure that was ultimately approved by Massachusetts voters, she’s since positioned herself as a champion for reform, including by voting against an amendment barring people with drug convictions from working in child care services with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

She also voted in favor of amendments to protect all state marijuana programs from federal intervention and another introduced by Ocasio-Cortez to remove a budget rider that she argued inhibited research into the therapeutic potential of psychedelics.

In addition, Pressley has cosponsored bills concerning marijuana descheduling, research on the benefits of medical cannabis for military veterans and banking access by state-legal businesses.

Read the full text of Pressley’s justice reform resolution below: 

Pressley_The People’s J… by Marijuana Moment on Scribd

Kamala Harris Jokes About CBD Body Rubs To Make A Serious Point On The Marijuana Industry

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

Stay Up To The Moment

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!