Posts

New York Senator Sponsors Federal Marijuana Law Reform

/in , , /by

Three Senators Offer Chamber’s First Broad Marijuana Reform Bill

An unusual group of three Senators — lead sponsor Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) and potential presidential hopeful Rand Paul (R-KY) — with a March 10 joint press conference announced introduction of a far-reaching marijuana law reform bill, the first of its kind offered in the Senate.

Flanked by several medical marijuana users, the trio argued S. 683, the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act, or CARERS Act, was needed to eliminate federal restrictions on medical marijuana where it is legal under state law (currently 23 states and the District of Columbia). According to Sen. Booker, the bill would “right decades of wrong” and abolish unneeded marijuana laws. The sponsors said their political diversity was proof of medical marijuana’s growing acceptance.

Protection for New York State Marijuana Users

The CARERS Act, its sponsors assert, brings federalism principles to drug policy by shielding from federal prosecution medical marijuana users in states that have authorized its use. Although the Obama administration in 2013 issued a directive advising federal prosecutors not to bring cases against persons properly using medical marijuana where it is lawful, the bill’s backers note that policy could be changed at any time, unless it’s written into federal law. Further, said Sen. Booker in his statement on introducing the bill, despite the administration’s stated policy, the Drug Enforcement Agency continues to target individual medical marijuana users in states allowing that use.

The bill would effectively lift the long-standing federal ban on marijuana by reclassifying it from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (for drugs with no valid medical use and a high risk of misuse, like heroin or LSD), and instead put it in Schedule II (for drugs with recognized medical uses, despite risks of misuse, such as methamphetamines or cocaine).

Legal US bank accounts for legitimate marijuana businesses

Other sections of the 10-page bill would provide “safe harbor” protections against federal sanctions for banks and other financial institutions, in an effort to make them more willing to deal with legitimate marijuana businesses. The bill would also allow Veterans Affairs doctors to prescribe cannabis for veterans in states where medical marijuana is permitted.

Another provision would permit states to import cannabidiol (CBD), a marijuana-derived oil virtually free of the THC intoxicant chemical, and which some doctors believe can bring relief for intractable epileptic seizures (though the Food and Drug Administration recently warned CBD sellers not to make medicinal claims for their products). Finally, the bill calls for revamping the current federal guidelines on marijuana research and issuing three licenses for producing marijuana and derivatives for FDA-approved research.

Legislative outlook for the CARERS Act

Despite the unprecedented Senate bill, the measure is not seen as likely to gain quick action. S. 683 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and none of its three sponsors serves on that panel. In addition, Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) has voiced opposition to removing marijuana from Schedule I, although he says he would welcome additional medical research.

The three original sponsors of S. 683 say they will lobby their colleagues to attract additional backers. While the bill faces long odds, it will be interesting to see if it can lure other sponsors.

Cannabis Chaos in Washington D.C. ???

/in , /by

It’s clear District of Columbia voters last November overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure (Initiative 71) to let residents age 21 and up legally possess as much as two ounces of marijuana for personal use, cultivate up to three mature plants, and give up to an ounce to other adults without compensation (selling would remain illegal). But, with the new law set to take effect February 26, not much else is clear about how it will work or whether Congress or the courts may override it.

To get even this far, the new D.C. law needed to get past a federal law giving Congress 30 legislative days to review and, by votes in both chambers and the president’s signature, invalidate D.C.-passed laws. Congress won’t use its potent but rarely-exercised veto power on the initiative, but Capitol Hill opponents of legal marijuana in December added a rider to the omnibus appropriations law to bar the D.C. government from expending tax funds to implement the voter-approved measure.

Nevertheless, D.C. officials are proceeding, arguing the no-spending provision came too late, since the marijuana legalization initiative had already been enacted, by being approved by the voters and certified by the local board of elections. It remains to be seen whether that issue will reach the courts, or how they would rule.

A bigger question mark is, even if the voter-approved measure escapes Congress’ spending ban, how the D.C. government will interpret and enforce the new law. Unlike voter-passed referenda in four states, the D.C. voters-approved measure does not provide a regulatory framework for such issues as licensing, sales, or taxation.

The District of Columbia authorized medical marijuana in a 1998 voter referendum which, like the legalization measure, won about 70% approval. Last year, the city decriminalized possession of up to an ounce of marijuana, making it a civil infraction subject to a $25 fine (which would end under the new law, though a $100 fine for public use would remain).

But the new voter-approved legalization law will take effect without any rules on where or how recreational marijuana can be legally obtained or regulating those markets. That absence, due to legal restrictions on what D.C. voter initiatives may include and drafters’ focus on home cultivation, leaves some observers predicting the Congressional ban, combined with eager marijuana entrepreneurs (a two-day Marijuana Expo is slated to start February 28 at a downtown hotel, with sessions on business trends and cultivation methods), could make the nation’s capital a new “wild west.”

A marijuana legalization and regulation bill (B21-0023) has been introduced in the D.C. City Council; it would authorize the D.C. government to register and supervise marijuana growers, product makers, testing labs, and retail outlets, and to impose taxes on legal marijuana sales. D.C. City Council bill lead sponsor David Grosso argues that, without regulations, confusion will reign on such much-discussed topics as the legality of private members-only “cannabis clubs.”

 Recently-installed D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser (D) says the initiative establishes “home grow, home use,” and promises to seek emergency legislation from the D.C. Council to ban Amsterdam-style coffee shops. Regardless of the fate of the voter-approved measure, federal law – which makes growing, possession or use of marijuana a crime — will still apply on the national mall and other federal-run property (which makes up over a fifth of the city’s total area).

Not only does the D.C. Council legalization bill face an uncertain future, but if enacted, it would also have to run the gauntlet of Congressional review, and could face legal challenges due to the Congressional ban. Opposition from Capitol Hill can be expected: after D.C. voters approved medical marijuana, it took almost a dozen years for Congress to relent and allow the District government to adopt a law licensing medical marijuana dispensaries.