Join Now

Omnibus Leaves Industry Hanging

by Michelle Rutter Friberg, NCIA’s Deputy Director of Government Relations

Photo By CannabisCamera.com

Since 2014, federal funding bills, or appropriations bills, have included provisions restricting the Department of Justice from using tax dollars to prosecute or penalize state-legal medical cannabis businesses and patients. Since then, NCIA and others have worked diligently to expand those protections and enact cannabis reform through the budget, with some efforts being more successful than others. Another issue making matters more complicated: the federal appropriations process requires this provision to be approved by congressional process annually, so introducing, lobbying on, and enacting these provisions has to reoccur every year.

Last week, Congress passed the most recent omnibus appropriations bill, which is increasingly used to group together the budgets of all departments in one year. Keep reading to find out  what provisions related to cannabis were included (or weren’t!) and why it matters:

PROTECTIONS

If you’ve been in cannabis for a while, you might remember when medical cannabis protections were first enacted in 2014. Back then, the provision was known as the “Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment,” named for then-Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam Farr (D-CA). This amendment forbids the Department of Justice (DOJ) from spending money to prevent the implementation of state-level medical cannabis programs, in addition to removing funding for federal medical cannabis raids, arrests, and prosecutions in states where medical cannabis is legal. To put it simply: the DoJ can’t use any of its money against state-legal, compliant medical cannabis businesses.

So, the omnibus had some good news and some bad news regarding protections for cannabis businesses from the Department of Justice. Good news? Those protections for medical cannabis businesses, patients, and programs remain in place. Bad news? Congressional leaders declined to expand those protections to include all cannabis businesses, despite the fact that the House has voted twice in the past to do so. 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

For decades, Congress has used its power and jurisdiction over Washington, D.C. as a bargaining chip and test subject for various policies, and cannabis is no exception. 

Washington, D.C. voted to legalize adult-use cannabis via Initiative 71 in 2014. However, because the Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, Washingtonians have been, and continue to be, unable to implement the taxed and regulated sales of cannabis for adults. (That hasn’t stopped a flourishing gray market, but that’s a topic for another blog!)

One Congressman, in particular, has obstructed D.C’s cannabis market: Andy Harris, the lone Republican in the House from the state of Maryland. The “Harris Amendment,” which prevents legal sales from occurring in D.C., has been included in every appropriations bill since – again, despite the fact that House Democrats have voted to strip the language multiple times. 

The inclusion and maintenance of this provision – especially while Democrats control both chambers of Congress – is simply unacceptable and inexcusable. To that end, NCIA recently signed on to a letter urging leadership to remove the language. It’s also critical to point out that Washington, D.C. is one of the places where disparate cannabis arrests occur at an alarming rate, making the need for reform even more dire. 

EXPUNGEMENTS

A new appropriations amendment that NCIA supported was also included in the most recent omnibus. The language, championed by Cannabis Caucus Co-Chair Dave Joyce (R-OH), would allow JAG funding to be used for the cost of state and local cannabis expungements and record clearing. This is a small but incredible reform that we hope will be the first step in providing justice to individuals impacted by the War on Drugs. 

VAPING

The omnibus also included report language related to cannabis. Report language is non-binding and essentially encourages an agency to do something. In this case, Congress is urging NIDA (the National Institute on Drug Abuse) to conduct interdisciplinary research on the relationship between the vaping of tobacco and marijuana, with an emphasis on risk perceptions, decision-making, and neuroscience. 

Interestingly, the appropriations process for FY2023 is beginning to get underway already. NCIA will be working with appropriators and other allies in Washington, D.C. to maintain provisions that protect cannabis businesses and consumers while stripping those that deny opportunity and justice to others. Interested in learning more about appropriations, or working with our team on an amendment? Learn more about our Evergreen Roundtable and committees by visiting our website

 

Congress Holds First Cannabis Policy Reform Hearing of 2020 This Week

by Morgan Fox, NCIA’s Director of Media Relations


This week, Congress will hit the ground running by holding the first cannabis policy reform hearing of 2020 only weeks into the new session. The hearing, entitled “Cannabis Policies for the New Decade,” will be held by the House Energy Subcommittee on Health on Wednesday.

This hearing is expected to explore the barriers to cannabis research, the health impacts of current federal cannabis policies and the implications of reform, as well as several pieces of cannabis-related legislation including the Marijuana Opportunity, Expungement, and Reinvestment (MORE) Act, the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act, the Medical Cannabis Research Act of 2019, the Medical Marijuana Research Act of 2019, the Legitimate Use of Medicinal Marijuana Act, and the Veterans Medical Marijuana Safe Harbor Act.

This hearing is an excellent sign that Congress is willing to continue the groundbreaking progress it made last year. 

Unfortunately, all the witnesses for the hearing are representatives of government agencies that have not been overly receptive to ending cannabis prohibition, namely the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. But while we do not expect these witnesses to be cheerleaders for meaningful cannabis policy reform, there will no doubt be many tough questions asked by lawmakers who understand the importance of changing our nation’s outdated and harmful federal laws.

The hearing also presents an opportunity to help inform members of the subcommittee and others in Congress about the facts on this issue, as well as to show them that the cannabis industry is united in its common goal of removing cannabis from the schedule of controlled substances in a way that helps address the harms caused by prohibition, and let them know we are committed to working with them to address any concerns. A coalition of cannabis industry groups will be submitting a joint letter to the subcommittee, which will be available later this week, outlining these areas of agreement. NCIA will also be submitting written testimony for the congressional record.

You can watch the hearing here and we will be following up afterward with more information as well as responses, so stay tuned!

Senate Subcommittee Just Says Yes… To A Hearing

by Michelle Rutter, Government Relations Coordinator

Earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing entitled ”Researching the Potential Medical Benefits and Risks of Marijuana,” which was presided over by Sens. Graham (R-SC), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Grassley (R-IA), and Blumenthal (D-CT). Witnesses included Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), federal officials from NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse), NIH (National Institute of Health), and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and members of the medical and legal community. For more information on the hearing and the witnesses, click here.

The first panel included Sens. Gillibrand (D-NY) and Booker (D-NJ), who both testified on the benefits medical cannabis can provide and noted that they are both original co-sponsors of the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act (S. 683), better known as the CARERS Act. Some of the key points that the Senators mentioned during the hearing included removing cannabis from its designation as a Schedule I drug, dismantling NIDA’s monopoly on cannabis used for research, and the urgent need to ease restrictions to allow for more research.

The next panel was comprised of two government agency officials: the Director of the Division of Extramural Research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health, and a doctor who is Deputy Center Director for Regulatory Programs at the FDA. Both panelists repeatedly stressed the importance of continued research into the therapeutic and medicinal benefits of cannabis, as well as the development of cannabis-based drugs. The FDA official also highlighted that the DEA is currently reviewing a recommendation on cannabis’s designation as a Schedule I drug, and the decision is pending.

The third panel included two doctors and a lawyer representing the DEA. The first doctor noted that THC and CBD do have therapeutic value but stressed the need for more research to determine if/how to mitigate any negative side effects of medical cannabis use. The second doctor on the panel is a well-known cannabis opponent, whose testimony sounded more like “reefer-madness” than a Senate hearing on cannabis in 2016. The lawyer present gave a moderately short statement, but did state that the DEA regulations around Schedule I drugs already provide a great deal of flexibility for research and can and are waived to allow legitimate studies and that the reclassification of cannabis to Schedule II would have little impact on the barriers to research – a statement that most in the cannabis community would strongly disagree with.

During questioning, Sen. Graham (R-SC) asked if the witnesses believed that cannabis should be re-scheduled as a Schedule II drug. Both the FDA official and the NIDA/NIH official weighed in, and with the same conclusion: more research is needed in order to make that determination. Chairman Graham also asked how to best facilitate medical cannabis research, which was answered by the DEA’s lawyer, who responded that the “flexibility” in the regulatory system could allow for it.

What does it mean?

Past Congressional hearings regarding cannabis have typically focused on the harms, not the benefits, of marijuana. As such, it’s a positive sign that the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), held a hearing on the potential therapeutic benefits of medical cannabis. The main takeaway from the hearing was the desire from all parties – Senators, government officials, and medical professionals alike – for more research on cannabis, its compounds, and its effects.

Regardless, this hearing shows the progress that the industry has made in Congress and the momentum building nationwide behind the cannabis movement.

 

This site uses cookies. By using this site or closing this notice, you agree to the use of cookies and our privacy policy.