Connect with us

Politics

Where Presidential Candidate John Delaney Stands On Marijuana

Published

on

Former U.S. Rep. John Delaney (D-MD) might not have the same level of name recognition as other Democrats running for their party’s 2020 presidential nomination, but what he does share with most other candidates is support for reforming federal marijuana laws.

That said, the Maryland politician—who announced that he was running on July 28, 2017—hasn’t vocally embraced full cannabis legalization. But he received a “B” grade from NORML in 2016 for his consistent votes in favor of marijuana reform amendments in the House. Delaney suspended his campaign on January 31, 2020.

This piece was last updated on February 7, 2020 to include the candidate’s statements and policy actions on marijuana since joining the race.

Legislation And Policy Actions

Delaney co-sponsored seven cannabis-related bills during his time in Congress. That includes legislation that would remove cannabidiol (CBD) from the Controlled Substances Act (signing onto versions of this specific bill three times), another that would protect individuals participating in state-legal marijuana activities from federal interference, one that focuses on protecting patients in medical cannabis states and two versions of a bill to shield banks working with marijuana businesses from federal penalties.

He didn’t introduce any cannabis bills himself, however.

When it came to House floor votes for amendments aimed at scaling back federal marijuana enforcement, Delaney was a consistent “aye” in support of reform. He voted for proposals to protect medical cannabis states from federal intervention in 2014 and 2015. He supported another measure covering CBD-only states in 2015 and that year also voted for a broader amendment to shield all legal cannabis states from Justice Department intervention.

Delaney backed an amendment to allow U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs doctors to recommend medical cannabis for veterans during in 2014, 2015 and 2016. He also voted “aye” on four separate amendments meant to lift federal restrictions on industrial hemp.

Finally, the former congressman supported an amendment that would block the federal government from punishing banks that work with marijuana businesses acting in compliance with state law.

On The Campaign Trail

The candidate’s website pledges to remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and impose a 25% federal excise tax on cannabis to fund “grants for state public defenders, medical and public health research, addiction treatment, and education and job training programs.” It also pledges he will direct prosecutors to expunge past records for low-level cannabis convictions and implement “strong federal guidelines and regulations to support decisions at the state level.”

While Delaney has a solid record of pro-reform votes, his public comments and social media posts on marijuana are far and few between. A search of his Twitter and Facebook accounts, where several Democratic candidates have been particularly vocal about their support for reform, turns up no hits for key search terms related to cannabis.

He did discuss marijuana policy twice in March 2019. In an interview with Cheddar, he said that the federal government should be “getting out of the way” of states that opt to legalize or decriminalize cannabis.

“The states are clearly moving in a very clear direction,” he said. “They either legalized it for medical purposes, which I obviously support, or they’re decriminalizing it because it’s really contributed to the injustice in our criminal justice system—particularly the racial injustice in our criminal justice system. And then some states are moving toward legalization.”

“I think what the federal government should do in many ways is get out of the way, let the states make their own decisions,” he added. “To the extent that they do decide to legalize it, make sure that there’s a framework in place for how you label it, how it’s distributed, et cetera. I kind of think of this as a states’ rights issue, which gets the federal government out of the way, which a lot of people say means legalization but really it’s up the states but the federal government isn’t prohibiting it.”

The former congressman also suggested during a CNN town hall event that legalization can curb illicit drug markets.

He said “having these things being sold in the shadows” contributes to trafficking and that’s why “in many ways, there’s such a movement at the state level to legalize marijuana, to decriminalize it, and at a minimum to allow it to be legal for medical purposes.”

“I think the federal government should get out of the way and let that movement continue because right now the federal government is blocking it by keeping marijuana as a scheduled substance,” he said.

“I think that’s preventing the states from doing really what they want to do. So I’m in favor of that, which would basically get marijuana out of the shadows, and get it into a market where it could be regulated, where we can make sure it’s labeled and distributed appropriately, where we can tax it.”

When then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded Obama-era guidance on federal marijuana policy, Delaney spoke out in a statement to The Washington Post.

“The Cole Memo provided clear guidance to an otherwise conflicting situation,” he said. “Revoking the Cole Memo will restore that confusion and undermines the will of the voters in several states.”

Delaney told the Boston Globe that current marijuana policy “has contributed to a criminal justice system where people of color are disproportionately harmed.” A spokesman told the newspaper that the candidate “supports removing marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, allowing states to set their own policy on legalization, and implementing sweeping federal regulatory policies and taxation on its use.”

Asked by a C-SPAN caller what he thought about medical cannabis in a February 2019 appearance, Delaney said, “I clearly am supportive of medical marijuana. I think everyone should have it available to them as prescribed by their doctor. So to me that’s a fairly straightforward issue.”

During an earlier C-SPAN interview about a book he’d written, former interim Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile mentioned that he hadn’t dedicated pages to issues like criminal justice reform and marijuana legalization. Delaney expressed his support for criminal justice reform broadly but didn’t clarify where he stands on legal cannabis.

Previous Quotes And Social Media Posts

In 2013, a Daily Kos contributor reportedly reached out to Delaney’s office to inquire about his position and part of the response they received noted that “while federal, state, and local laws pertaining to marijuana do lead to criminal justice costs, there is also a risk that decriminalization or legalization might further exacerbate these costs.”

Personal Experience With Marijuana

Delaney has not spoken publicly about any personal experience with cannabis.

Marijuana Under A Delaney Presidency

Based on his consistent embrace of legislation designed to protect legalized states from federal marijuana enforcement, it’s reasonable to assume that the cannabis industry would continue to be able to operate and evolve under a Delaney presidency without federal interference. That said, the former congressman’s personal position on legalization remains somewhat vague, and so it’s not certain that he’d pursue a wide-ranging reform agenda as a priority if elected.

Where Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris Stands On Marijuana

Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.

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

GOP Congressman Falsely Claims Marijuana Can Be Legally Consumed In Public In ‘Many States’

Published

on

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.”

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.

House Democrats Block Amendment To Restrict Marijuana Products In Anti-Vaping Bill

Photo courtesy of WeedPornDaily.

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

VA Notice About Researching Medical Marijuana For Military Veterans Deleted Shortly After Posting

Published

on

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: 

VA Request For Medical Mari… by Marijuana Moment on Scribd

House Democrats Block Amendment To Restrict Marijuana Products In Anti-Vaping Bill

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.
Continue Reading

Politics

House Democrats Block Amendment To Restrict Marijuana Products In Anti-Vaping Bill

Published

on

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.

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.”

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.

Banning CBD Products Would Be ‘A Fool’s Game,’ FDA Chief Admits

Image by Lindsay Fox from 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.
Continue Reading
Advertisement

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!