[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEVELOPMENTS IN STATE CANNABIS
LAWS AND BIPARTISAN CANNABIS
REFORMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-108
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-682 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Pat Fallon, Texas
Georgia Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California Mike Flood, Nebraska
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Russ Anello, Staff Director
Devon Ombres, Subcommittee Staff Director
Melanie Mpanju, Deputy Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Chairman
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Nancy Mace, South Carolina,
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Ranking Minority Member
Robin Kelly, Illinois Jim Jordan, Ohio
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts Andy Biggs, Arizona
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Scott Franklin, Florida
Columbia Byron Donalds, Florida
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Danny K. Davis, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 15, 2022................................ 1
Witnesses
Paul Armentano, Deputy Director, National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Eric Goepel, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Veterans
Cannabis Coalition
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Amber Littlejohn, Senior Policy Advisor, Global Alliance for
Cannabis Commerce
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Andrew Freedman, Executive Director, Coalition for Cannabis
Policy, Education, and Regulation
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Keeda Haynes, Senior Legal Advisor, Free Hearts
Oral Statement................................................... 14
Jillian Snider, Policy Director of Criminal Justice & Civil
Liberties , R Street Institute
Oral Statement................................................... 13
The Honorable Randall Woodfin, Mayor, City of Birmingham, Alabama
Oral Statement................................................... 16
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Articles supporting States Reform Act; submitted by Rep.
Mace.
* Letters supporting States Reform Act; submitted by Rep. Mace.
* Articles regarding Cannabis Research; submitted by Rep. Mace.
* Minority Cannabis Business Association National Cannabis
Equity Report; submitted by Rep. Mace.
* Journal of American Medicine article; submitted by Rep. Mace.
* Smart Approaches to Marijuana Statement; submitted by Rep.
Higgins.
* Questions for the Record: to Andrew Freedman; submitted by
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
DEVELOPMENTS IN STATE CANNABIS
LAWS AND BIPARTISAN CANNABIS
REFORMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
----------
Tuesday, November 15, 2022
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil LibertiesWashington,
DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m.,
via Zoom, Hon. Jamie Raskin (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Raskin, Kelly, Pressley, Norton,
Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Mace, Higgins, Sessions, and Biggs.
Mr. Raskin. The committee will come to order. Without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the
committee at any point.
Without objection--do we have members who sought waiver on
the committee? No, OK.
Well, good morning, everyone. Welcome to our witnesses for
being here. We've got some sensational witnesses who have
joined us.
Last month, President Biden announced that he was issuing a
blanket pardon to people who had been convicted of simple
possession of marijuana under Federal law, and he said that his
administration would review the scheduling of marijuana under
the Controlled Substances Act.
And I applaud his announcement as an important and key
first step in rectifying the many social injuries that have
been inflicted on communities and our people across the country
by the war on marijuana. It's just a first step, and we already
know what the next step should be: Cannabis must be
decriminalized at the Federal level as a matter of basic
justice in the country and, I would say, to vindicate the
antiprohibition principle that's in our Constitution.
We tried prohibition of liquor, and all it did was lead to
the growth of organized crime in the country. It pitted the
government against the people. It eroded respect for the law as
all of the prohibition laws were being honored only in the
breach, and it basically set the society at war against itself.
And we've seen the exact same thing with marijuana prohibition.
It's not that marijuana is great for everybody in all
circumstances, and I certainly discourage my kids from smoking
marijuana or drinking alcohol, but the point is that the war
against marijuana has ruined so many lives in our country, and
we can do a lot better by treating all of these as public
health questions and regulatory questions rather than questions
of crime and putting people behind bars.
Decriminalizing cannabis would benefit a lot of
communities, including especially people of color, individuals
incarcerated for nonviolent offenses, veterans, and Federal
employees. It will also benefit the small businesses operating
in states where cannabis has already been legalized by
providing access to banking services. They will no longer have
to operate on a cash-only basis, which is obviously dangerous
and makes them ready targets for criminal gangs.
We've already seen the benefits of decriminalizing in the
states. As of May 27, 2022, 19 states, 2 territories, and the
District of Columbia, where we sit today, have enacted measures
to regulate cannabis for adult non-medical use. They've
accepted and embraced the antiprohibition principle that's in
our Constitution. In addition, 37 states, 3 territories, and
Washington, DC, the vast majority of the country, allow the use
of medical marijuana. What an extraordinary outbreak of
commonsense in America.
Despite efforts to legalize and decriminalize cannabis
possession at the state level, cannabis arrests today still
remain widespread. They account for 43 percent of all drug
arrests. Nine in 10 of those arrests are for simple possession
of marijuana. However, states that have reformed their cannabis
laws have seen markedly fewer arrests between 2010 and 2018.
Regardless of the status of legalization, racial
disparities in cannabis arrests continue to persist nationally,
although Black and White people use cannabis at roughly the
same rates. In fact, Black people are nearly four times as
likely to be arrested for marijuana possession as White
citizens are.
In many states, these arrests can have life-altering
consequences: Parents lose children. Disabled and low-income
recipients of public assistance may lose healthcare. Families
can be evicted from public housing, and finding a job can be
difficult or outright impossible for people who have a
marijuana conviction on their resume.
Black and Brown people disproportionately face these
repercussions, evidencing the systemic problems in the criminal
justice system. Decriminalizing cannabis will help to relieve
these disparities. Allowing automatic expungement for
nonviolent arrests and convictions would quickly help to
reverse much of the damage being caused by the war on drugs. It
would also benefit the thousands of veterans who suffer from
chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder. Under current
law, the VA is unable to prescribe medical marijuana to its
patients, instead having to rely on traditional pharmaceuticals
and opioids, and we know the dangers of opioids.
Furthermore, decriminalization would benefit approximately
2.1 million Federal civil--civilian employees and countless
applicants for government jobs. Even in the states where it's
been fully legalized, Federal employees and applicants are
still vulnerable to being fired or rejected from their jobs
even for having used a medical marijuana prescription in a
state where that's lawful. We should not be denying our
constituents the opportunity to serve in Federal office simply
because they have used marijuana, as a majority of the country
records that it has.
In addition, the Federal cannabis prohibition hinders the
operation of above-board cannabis companies and undermines
communities' economic integrity due to lack of access to formal
banking. It also leaves cannabis companies vulnerable to theft
and burglary because they're forced to deal in an all-cash
market. Moreover, entry into the industry is effectively much
more difficult for historically disempowered groups, women and
minorities, compared to more resourced competitors who dominate
in this space.
Legalization at the Federal level is a step that must be
taken economically for the public health and for social equity
for everyone in the country. To achieve true equity, marijuana
should be descheduled and removed from the Controlled
Substances Act scheduled categories altogether. The House has
already passed the MORE Act this Congress. I call on our Senate
counterparts to do the same and to end the absurd prohibition
on marijuana in the 21st century.
With that, I now get to recognize the very distinguished
ranking member, Ms. Mace, for her opening statement. She has
been a tremendous leader in this field. And, in fact, it was
her idea for us to have this hearing today to collect
information about what's taking place across the country and
then to emphasize what needs to be done at the Federal level.
Ms. Mace, you are now recognized for your opening
statement.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the honor of putting
together this hearing together, historic, bipartisan hearing on
cannabis on the Oversight Committee. This is a great day in
America, and it's a true honor to be here. And it's an honor to
serve with you and to work together on so many issues. And
we're--our Nation looks so divided on the outside, but today
this is an example where we can work together.
And I've shared this before, but this issue is not just an
issue that to me is just--it's just a bill. This issue is
personal. I was raped when I was 16 years old, and it was a
devastating event in my life. It's trauma that I have lived
with for almost my entire lifetime.
I dropped out of school shortly thereafter. And my doctors
at the time prescribed me antidepressants that made my
depression worse. And, rather than end everything, I stopped
taking those prescription drugs, and I started using cannabis,
not realizing at the time that I was self-medicating for the
trauma that I had experienced. And I used it for a period of
time, and it cut my anxiety. I was able to sleep better, and I
stayed alive.
And I took that job at the Waffle House. I turned my life
around. I learned some tough lessons during some tough times. I
eventually would become the first woman to graduate from The
Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina. I'm the first
Republican woman ever elected to Congress from South Carolina.
If I can make it, anybody can. And this plant literally saved
my life. I don't know where I would be today had I not had that
kind of experience that I can share with millions of Americans
today.
And so the only place that cannabis is really controversial
today is here on the Capitol. In bright red South Carolina,
medical cannabis is supported by the vast majority of South
Carolina residents. And, in fact, in my very purple district,
in South Carolina's First congressional District, even
recreational is supported by the vast majority of constituents
in that area.
And so I have a lot to say about the problems with our
cannabis laws, but more importantly, I have a solution. In my
first year in Congress, we worked for nine months to create the
States Reform Act that would be a bipartisan bill looking at
the ways that we can come together, the left and the right, to
put forth legislation that was smart, that was responsible, and
can bring together ideas from both sides of the aisle.
So the States Reform Act puts power back where it should be
at the state level. There are 47 of 50 states that have some
form of cannabis regulation or reform. The last three don't
even have CBD. But South Carolina, we have CBD and hemp;
Florida, for example, has medical cannabis; you have other
states that have full adult recreational use.
Every state is different, and the States Reform Act
respects the laws of every single state in the country and
respects the right of federalism. It empowers Governors and
state legislators to choose the reforms that are best for their
state and their constituents and what they support. And States
Reform Act has the constituents' needs with oversight
coordination and commerce in mind.
The States Reform Act would bring about regulatory reforms
which would enable us to tackle complex issues within the
cannabis industry that we've seen over the last couple of
years. The States Reform Act, in addition, would bring certain
protections to children and veterans, something I'm extremely
proud of.
It looks at potency labeling--the consistency and
concentration--in packaging. It looks at ensuring that we can
reduce the proclivity of the illicit market by having very
low--a very low Federal excise tax at three percent. It looks
at sales to unintended customers like kids in coordination with
the FDA. It looks and takes social equity and capital access in
lending for small businesses through the SBA.
It ensures that there's parity with alcohol regulation. The
regulatory framework already exists today: commerce through
TTB, medical through the FDA, growers through agriculture, et
cetera, and the ATF.
There's a safe harbor provision for veterans. There's no
reason, with the rate of veteran suicide today, that any
veteran in our country should be denied access to medical
cannabis to prevent their suicides from happening.
It also brings together much needed medical research,
including research into PTSD, epilepsy treatments, for example,
and it would include crucial research into driver safety and
including truck driver testing as well. This landmark
legislation treats cannabis like alcohol. And, in fact,
cannabis is safer than alcohol and tobacco. I know this by
talking to our law enforcement and our police at every level of
government.
It receives an entirely different treatment, though, under
Federal law. As you mentioned, Blacks, Browns--Brown folks and
African Americans are four times as likely to be arrested. So
there's no time like the present to end this very expensive,
very painful, very harmful war on a plant.
And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for our discussion
today.
I also want to thank President Biden for his executive
order. I mean, he's looking at rescheduling cannabis.
And I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter the
following documents for the record.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Ms. Mace. I have articles supporting the States Reform Act
from various nonprofits. I have letters supporting and
endorsing the States Reform Act from groups, including NORML
and The Americans for Prosperity, law enforcement groups,
veterans groups, et cetera. I also have articles regarding
cannabis research, including the NIH-supported studies--we need
data and research, more importantly--and also the Minority
Cannabis Business Association's National Cannabis Equity Report
for 2022 all right here for you today.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Without objection, they will be
entered into the record.
Ms. Mace, I want to really salute you for your intellectual
vigor and courage with which you've pursued this question. And
I hope that this extremely bipartisan hearing will be a
harbinger of what can take place in the next Congress,
regardless of which one of us ends up on top by one vote or
two. And I thank you for the spirit with which you initiated
this hearing.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Sessions. I'd seek time if the gentleman were to allow
that?
Mr. Raskin. I'm sorry?
Mr. Sessions. I would like to seek time if the gentleman
would allow that.
Mr. Raskin. Oh, sure. We were going to have the witnesses
first, but we'll come to you immediately. Is that OK?
Mr. Sessions. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Raskin. Great. All right.
Well, welcome to all of the members of the committee, and
thank you to our witnesses for being here.
First, we're going to have Paul Armentano, who is the
deputy director for NORML, the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws. Then we'll hear from Eric Goepel, the
founder and CEO of the Veterans Cannabis Coalition. Then Amber
Littlejohn, a senior policy adviser for the Global Alliance for
Cannabis Commerce. Next we'll hear from Andrew Freedman,
executive director of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy,
Education, and Regulation. Then Jillian Snider, the policy
director of Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties in the R Street
Institute. Next, Keeda Haynes, a senior legal adviser at Free
Hearts. And, finally, we'll hear from the Honorable Randall
Woodfin, the mayor of Birmingham, Alabama.
So the witnesses will be unmuted so I can swear you in.
Please, stand, if you would, and raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
give today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth so help you God?
Let the record show that all of the witnesses have answered
in the affirmative. Thank you very much.
Without objection, your written statements are going to be
made part of the complete record, but each of you will now have
five minutes to synthesize your testimony.
And, with that, Mr. Armentano, you're now recognized as our
first witness.
STATEMENT OF PAUL ARMENTANO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS
Mr. Armentano. Thank you. I wish to thank the members of
this distinguished committee for allowing us to have the
opportunity to speak to you today.
For nearly 30 years, I've worked professionally on cannabis
policy reform. I've witnessed seismic shifts in scientific,
cultural, and political opinions during this period of time.
In the summer of 1996, about one year into my career, there
were no states that regulated the possession or use of
cannabis. Public support for legalization hovered around 25
percent, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had just
introduced legislation to impose the death penalty upon those
convicted of importing as little as four ounces of cannabis
into the United States. That's where we were then. My, how
times have changed.
Today, 21 states have policies regulating the production,
use, and retail sale of cannabis to adults, and 37 states
authorized the use and dispensing of cannabis for medical
purposes.
In the past 25 years, not a single state has ever repealed
or rolled back their cannabis legalization laws. This is
evidence that these policies are working primarily as both
voters and as state officials have intended.
In addition, more than two-thirds of Americans, including
majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, now say
that cannabis use by adults should be legal. As more states
have embraced legalization, public support for these policies
has increased in parallel. There is no buyer's remorse among
the American public. They see that legalizing and regulating
cannabis works and that this policy is preferable to one of
criminalization, discrimination, and stigmatization.
America now enjoys a quarter-century real-world experience
with state-level cannabis legalization laws. The data gathered
from this experience is plentiful and reassuring. A keyword
search of PubMed, the repository for all peer-reviewed
scientific studies, identifies over 42,000 published studies
specific to cannabis and its effects. Over half of these papers
were published just within the last decade. This literature
establishes that, although cannabis is not all together
harmless, it most certainly is not so dangerous as to warrant
its Federal classification as a prohibited Schedule 1 substance
like heroin.
President Biden recently acknowledged this reality when he
publicly criticized Federal cannabis criminalization as a
failed approach and called for a review of its prohibitive
status under Federal law. On two recent occasions, the House
has reached a similar conclusion when it voted to pass the
Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act--which,
among other changes, removes cannabis from the U.S. Controlled
Substances Act in a manner similar to that of alcohol. This
policy is known as descheduling. It eliminates the existing
state/Federal conflict by providing state governments with
explicit authority to establish their own individual cannabis
policies free from the threat of undue Federal intrusion.
Descheduling is necessary in order to close the growing and
untenable divide between state and Federal cannabis laws. By
descheduling cannabis, tens of millions of Americans who reside
in states where cannabis is legal in some form, as well as the
hundreds of thousands of people who work for the state license
industry that services them, will no longer face needless
hurdles and discrimination, such as a lack of access to
financial services, loans, insurance, Second Amendment rights,
tax deductions, certain professional security clearances, and
other privileges. More importantly, these millions of Americans
will no longer have to live in fear of Federal prosecution.
Nearly a century ago, the Federal Government wisely decided
to repeal the Federal prohibition of alcohol. Then, much like
today, a growing percentage of politicians recognized that
criminal prohibition was a politically unpopular law that was
running afoul of the policies of many states.
Congress' solution? Respect the 10th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and empower states, not the Federal Government, to
be the primary arbiters of local alcohol policies. This path
made sense in 1933 and makes equal sense today.
Our Nation's Federalist principles demand that the Federal
Government respects voters' decisions to legalize cannabis. At
a time of record public support for legalization and when a
majority of states have adopted this policy, it makes no sense
from a political, fiscal, or cultural perspective for Congress
to try to put this genie back in the bottle or to place its
collective heads in the sand. It is time for the government to
end its nearly century-long experiment with cannabis
prohibition.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Armentano. I appreciate that
very much.
Mr. Goepel, you're now recognized for your five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIC GOEPEL, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
VETERANS CANNABIS COALITION
Mr. Goepel. Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, and
members of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, good morning.
My name is Eric Goepel, founder of the Veterans Cannabis
Coalition. I served in the U.S. Army for seven years, including
two tours in Iraq, providing communications and intelligence
support in a special operations unit. I am also the son and
grandson of veterans, all now passed, who have served this
country since World War II.
In my capacity with the Veterans Cannabis Coalition,
alongside my fellow Iraq war veteran and cofounder Bill
Ferguson, we have been working for close to five years on this
nexus of issues. On behalf of our community and all patients
who rely on cannabis as a medicine, we thank you for holding
this hearing and gathering a variety of perspectives on this
knot of state and Federal challenges.
We greatly appreciate the bipartisan work the chair and
ranking member have put into making this happen and look
forward to the day when Congress comes together to end cannabis
prohibition and restores those harmed by government action once
and for all.
Every death by suicide, overdose, and toxic exposure is not
a tragedy. It is a policy failure. It is not just a dereliction
of Congress' duty to provide for the general welfare of the
Nation but a betrayal of the explicit promise this country has
made for hundreds of years to care for those who have borne the
battle.
Each passing of family, friends, and brothers and sisters
in arms leaves a void and, for those of us who go on, a
lingering question: Could we have done more?
We are here to provide an answer: Yes, we could have done
more. We can do more, and we should do more. We could've done
more for the 127,560 veterans who have died by suicide in the
last 20 years, despite billions of dollars spent on studies and
interventions. We could've done more for the hundreds of
thousands of Americans lost to overdose, made worse by
crackdowns on legal prescribing and a tainted drug supply.
Congress, most of all, must do more to acknowledge, stop,
and care for the generations of servicemembers, families, and
host communities poisoned by toxic exposure caused by the
Department of Defense.
So many veterans have served, suffered trauma, received
care that they found lacking, and, teetering on the edge of
crisis, discovered cannabis. Commonly, they pointed to how
cannabis helped with pain, sleep, and stress where the
pharmaceuticals and therapies fell short. For all, cannabis
served as a catalyst that assisted them with regaining lost
function and improving their quality of life.
The case is clear that change is needed, but where should
we start? We have worked to apply those lessons in California
where we have brought together nonprofits, educators, and
licensed operators to raise awareness of a unique state law,
the Dennis Peron and Brownie Mary Act, commonly referred to as
SB-34. The law allows regulated companies to donate to eligible
patients at no cost, eliminating a major barrier to access.
Our allies in Canada, who American servicemembers have
fought side by side with since World War I, have provided their
veterans with a medical cannabis reimbursement program since
2011. In the most recent year, Veterans Affairs Canada
subsidized the purchase of $150 million in legal cannabis for
more than 18,000 veterans.
In contrast, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs have
opposed every congressional attempt to expand research, make it
easier for veterans to access state legal medical programs,
codify protections for veterans using cannabis, or provide them
safe harbor. Their counter arguments always boil down to the
simple fact that cannabis is a Schedule 1 substance.
That is one of many reasons that the cornerstone of any
Federal reform must be removing cannabis from the Controlled
Substances Act entirely. Keeping cannabis on the schedule keeps
the plant criminalized. Even if you were to move it to Schedule
5, possession without a doctor's prescription would still
remain a Federal felony. Deschedule is decriminalization.
Once cannabis is descheduled, Congress must also mandate
the Department of Veterans Affairs--excuse me, the Department
of Defense initiate an automatic review and upgrade process for
veterans with an other-than-honorable discharge linked to a
cannabis offense. Elements of this are in the States Reform
Act, for which we would very much like to thank the ranking
member. Far too many veterans have been stripped of their
benefits because they self-medicated to manage trauma. The
Federal Government must make veterans who have been doubly
punished over cannabis whole again.
We are canaries in the Nation's public health coal mines.
We suffer disease and disorder across the board at greater
severity and frequency than our peers. We have been the target
of some of the most focused--excuse me, of some of the most
focused healthcare interventions in U.S. history but are dying
at rates never before seen.
So, if cannabis is helping some of the most severely
injured and ill people in our society who have been failed by
traditional care achieve a better quality of life, then why is
the Federal Government determined to deny the reality and
deprive them of their liberty? To everyone gone, could we have
done more for them? The answer has always been yes. What
remains to be seen is whether we will summon the political will
and resources to do.
Thank you for this time, and we hope we can be a resource
to the committee going forward in helping understand how
prohibition is harming veterans.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Littlejohn, you're now recognized for your five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF AMBER LITTLEJOHN, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, GLOBAL
ALLIANCE FOR CANNABIS COMMERCE
Ms. Littlejohn. Good morning, Chairman Raskin, Ranking
Member Mace, and members of the committee. Thank you for
allowing me to testify today on challenges for small and
minority-owned cannabis businesses, the impact of Federal
prohibition, and opportunities for bipartisan reform.
My name is Amber Littlejohn, senior policy adviser for the
Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce. GACC is the leading
cannabis trade association advocating to end Federal
prohibition. We seek policies that create an open and
sustainable industry and true second chances for those harmed
by prohibition. I am before you today as a witness, lawyer, and
a testament to the transformative power of economic
opportunities that can ripple for generations.
In 1927, my grandfather, Ben Littlejohn, was born in
Gaffney, South Carolina, to a family of sharecroppers. In the
1970's, after a distinguished career in the U.S. Army, he had
the opportunity the enter the emerging personal computer
industry. This opportunity changed the trajectory of his life,
the lives of his children and grandchildren, and generations to
come.
Today, we stand again at the forefront of a new industry
with a chance to provide intergenerational opportunities that
can impact lives in Gaffney, Baltimore, Chicago, Boston, and
also Birmingham. The legal cannabis industry in some form
exists in 48 states. The medical-and adult-use industries
employ over 400,000 Americans, and last year alone contributed
$3.7 billion in state tax revenues.
Cannabis is now the sixth largest legal cash crop in the
U.S. Despite these significant contributions to our economy,
Congress has failed to implement sensible cannabis reform.
Under the threat of criminal penalty and forfeiture, the status
quo of Federal cannabis prohibition continues to balkanize
state marketplaces and raise insurmountable barriers to entry
with devastating consequences for small and minority-owned
businesses.
Consequently, minority-owned cannabis businesses are in
decline. Black Americans bear the brunt of the disparate
enforcement of cannabis laws. They now also bear the brunt of
failed state policies and the devastating impact of Federal
prohibition on the legal cannabis industry. Black Americans
comprise just two percent of owners in the legal cannabis
industry despite representing 13.6 percent of the population.
To promote economic opportunities and restorative justice
objectives, 15 states have implemented cannabis social equity
programs. However, without addressing the barriers made
insurmountable by Federal prohibition, no program is sufficient
to enable small businesses to compete in an industry dominated
by large operators and the unlicensed market.
Ending prohibition is a critical step toward addressing the
failed impacts of failed Federal drug policy. Today, less than
10 percent of Americans support continuing the status quo. The
majority of Democratic and Republican voters favor ending
Federal prohibition, which requires descheduling. Rescheduling
is recriminalizing; descheduling is decriminalizing.
President Biden took a laudable step toward meaningful
reform by prompting the review of the status of cannabis under
the Controlled Substances Act. However, it was Congress that
codified prohibition and the vast machinery of antidrug laws
that sparked decades of disparate enforcement. Now Congress has
the power and the obligation to comprehensively and
thoughtfully correct it by focusing on sensible regulation and
harm reduction.
Fortunately, Congress has substantial opportunity for
bipartisan reform. The three leading comprehensive proposals--
the States Reform Act, Cannabis Administration and Opportunity
Act, and the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement
Act--differ in their approach to ending prohibition but provide
a sound basis for progress.
The bills reveal common bipartisan aims to intentionally
deschedule and not reschedule cannabis, provide true second
chances for those impacted by prohibition, ensure low barriers
to entry and support for small and minority-owned businesses,
define a role for the Federal Government that respects diverse
state regulatory frameworks, and thoughtfully and expeditiously
transition to an interstate marketplace with support for new
opportunities for small and minority owned businesses.
From these areas of agreement, Congress can move forward to
end prohibition and enact sensible cannabis laws. The American
cannabis industry provides too many jobs, too many economic
opportunities, and supports too many social and economic
initiatives for Congress to remain at impasse.
On behalf of GACC, thank you, Chairman Raskin, Ranking
Member Mace, and committee members for this hearing on
exploring bipartisan opportunities for reform.
Last, thank you, Ranking Member Mace, for your thoughtful
approach to protecting existing small businesses in the SRA and
helping build this bridge for bipartisan collaboration.
I look forward to the committee's questions.
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Littlejohn, thank you very much for your
testimony.
And, Mr. Freedman, you're now recognized for yours.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW FREEDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION FOR
CANNABIS POLICY, EDUCATION, AND REGULATION
Mr. Freedman. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member
Mace, and distinguished members of the committee.
As the former cannabis czar for the state of Colorado and a
policy professional having advised nearly 20 governments, it is
an honor to join today's discussion on the need for Federal
cannabis reform.
When Colorado voters approved a ballot initiative in 2012
legalizing adult-use cannabis, the Then-Governor and present-
U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper appointed me to lead the state's
efforts to implement its new law and to oversee the medical
cannabis and hemp programs. I have had a front row seat to one
of the most remarkable political phenomena and federalism
experiments in modern American democracy.
Last week, as we marked the 10th anniversary of Colorado's
passage of its adult-use cannabis initiative, we saw voters in
two more states legalize adult-use cannabis, including in the
very red state of Missouri. Today, roughly half of Americans
live in the 21 states and the District of Columbia that have
legalized adult-use cannabis, and there are a total of 37
states that have legalized cannabis for medicinal use.
Prohibition is no longer the law of the land even as it remains
Federal law.
While voters from across the political spectrum agree that
Federal prohibition has failed as badly as alcohol prohibition
did a century ago, other motivations for legalization vastly
vary. In the last 10 years, I have advised rural counties that
were interested in licensing cultivation facilities so their
farmers could participate in the market, large East Coast
cities that were concerned with ensuring minority-owned
businesses were first to get licensed, and states that
prioritize safe access for medical cannabis patients.
Throughout this work, one fact remained constant: states were
critically hampered in achieving their goals and mitigating
their concerns without Federal reform.
So, in 2020, we founded the Coalition for Cannabis Policy,
Education, and Regulation, or CPEAR, to embrace a simple
reality: Cannabis reform is here to stay, and it is time for
the Federal Government to institute regulatory, public health,
public safety, and criminal justice policies that respect and
align with the states.
The coalition consists of members representing regulated
industries, think tanks, government associations, public safety
officials, medical and mental health professionals, financial
services firms, and social equity organizations. Together, this
coalition strives to be a trusted, data-driven resource for
lawmakers and the larger stakeholder community.
CPEAR does not advocate that a state should or should not
legalize cannabis. States should remain free to determine what,
if any, form of legalization they wish to pursue. But where
states have decided to pursue cannabis reform and even in
states where cannabis remains illicit, the Federal Government
should provide regulatory guardrails. States are demanding
this.
This committee is asking the right question: How can
changes to Federal law help the cannabis policy landscape? For
instance, to combat driving under the influence of cannabis,
Federal policy is critical to augment and improve drug
recognition expertise, create universal intoxicating standards,
and to fast track the implementation of new impairment
detection technologies.
Congress can combat youth misuse by supporting youth
programming networks, establishing a national minimum
purchasing age of 21, drawing upon best practices of point-of-
sale age verification, and restricting advertising that targets
youth. To combat the illicit market, states have implemented
track-and-trace inventory control systems to monitor cannabis
products throughout the supply chain.
Reform requires a unified Federal and state response. That
means Federal reform efforts should supplement and integrate
with existing state systems.
There are dozens of issues where Federal engagement is
critical, including addressing mental health concerns,
conducting research, restricting unproven health claims,
preventing substance abuse, known as cannabis-use disorder, and
maintaining safe access for patients and veterans.
This is not to say the entire Federal Government isn't
paying attention. Ranking Member Mace, present today, has
championed the States Reform Act, which provides a Federal
regulatory framework for cannabis. Representative Ocasio-Cortez
co-leads the Harnessing Opportunities by Pursuing Expungement,
or HOPE, Act, an important bill for those impacted by
prohibition. Both of these bills have CPEAR support.
Ranking Member Comer has championed the Federal effort to
provide regulatory clarity to the U.S. hemp industry. As
Kentucky's commissioner of agriculture, he implemented hemp
pilot programs permissible per the 2014 farm bill. He has
secured provisions in 2018 farm bill for fully legalizing the
crop. He has since conducted regulatory followup and oversight
of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Today's hearing is a testament to your further commitment
to get bipartisan Federal cannabis reform done right. To aid
the committee in discussing cannabis reform, CPEAR has entered
four policy papers into our written statement. These present a
framework for small and minority-owned businesses, solutions
for mental health and substance abuse, a plan to prevent youth
misuse, and policies to combat driving under the influence of
cannabis and other drugs.
I thank you for your time today and look forward to
answering any questions you may have today or in the future.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Freedman, thank you very much.
I now recognize Ms. Snider for five minutes of your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JILLIAN SNIDER, POLICY DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE & CIVIL LIBERTIES, R STREET INSTITUTE
Ms. Snider. Good morning, Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member
Mace, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
invitation to speak at this hearing. My name is Jillian Snider,
and I am the policy director of Criminal Justice & Civil
Liberties at the R Street Institute, which is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan public policy research organization.
In addition to my current role, I'm also a lecturer at John
Jay College of Criminal Justice and a retired New York City
police officer. I'm here to speak to you today about the
critical nature of and growing bipartisan support for cannabis
reform at the Federal level.
For more than five decades, the United States has
prioritized the prohibition of cannabis, but these efforts have
been futile. As it stands, cannabis is the most widely used
illegal substance in the United States. It is estimated that 55
million Americans currently use marijuana. And recent polls
indicate that more than 90 percent of the American public,
Democrats and Republicans alike, support legalization for adult
use of medicinal or recreational cannabis.
Proposed Federal legislation indicates increased support
for alternatives to Federal cannabis prohibition, which is
critical to provide clarity on the overall legal status of
cannabis. Currently, cannabis may be legal in one state and
decriminalized in another, but because it is still prohibited
at the Federal level, users or possessors of the substance are
subjected to criminal penalty. This dual legality is
problematic. It not only confuses the average citizen, but it
also results in extremely varied approaches of policing.
Federal prohibition and related enforcement efforts have
intensified racial disparities, clogged court dockets,
contributed to mass incarceration, devastated communities and
families, proliferated an illegal drug market, diverted police
resources from substantial threats in the community, increased
the number of negative police-citizen encounters, produced an
associated distrust of the police, and continues to weaken the
police community relationships that are integral to reducing
more serious and violent crime.
Of course, the legalization of cannabis alone cannot solve
all these issues, but the potential benefits of smart Federal
legalization policy would outweigh the established consequences
of prohibition.
The widespread use of marijuana in the United States and
its distinct lingering odor makes the substance especially
prone to initiating police contact. During my policing career,
I worked with the street-level narcotics enforcement unit and
served on the anticrime unit which proactively looks to deter
violent crime and illegal weapons possession.
The smell of marijuana was often the predicate for the team
and I initiating a citizen stop. And, while on rare occasions
we uncovered additional crimes, many of them low level in
nature, such as driving on a suspended license or having a
warrant for an unpaid summons, the fact remains that most of
these encounters did not result in the seizure of more serious
drugs or dangerous weapons.
Continued cannabis prohibition has contributed to the
evisceration of community confidence in police and the criminal
justice system. A 2020 poll found that, for the first time in
27 years, the majority of Americans do not trust the police.
When citizens lack faith that the police can keep them safe,
violence escalates, street-level justice becomes preferred over
police intervention, and public safety is sacrificed.
Compounding the issue of low levels of community trust is
the diminishing view of police legitimacy, which refers to the
public support for their officers' authority to manage and
resolve conflicts. The core principle of this mutual
relationship is that the police have trust and confidence that
the officers are honest and working diligently to keep them
safe.
If the police have the support of the public, citizens are
more willing to defer to the authority of the police and
believe that their actions are morally justified and
appropriate to the circumstance. When police and the
communities they serve collaborate, citizens are more willing
to cooperate in efforts to prevent and respond to crime. This
dynamic has the capacity to reduce neighborhood levels of crime
and decrease opportunities for potential harm to police.
Considering recent crime trends, focusing on anything other
than violent crime is a distraction of law enforcement
priorities. The United States must prioritize violent crime
reduction in lieu of the emphasis on low-level cannabis
enforcement to improve public safety. Smart, thoughtful
cannabis legalization that is attune to the demands of the
market and the needs of the people has the capacity to
revolutionize our communities and their interactions with law
enforcement.
The Federal Government has the opportunity to end the war
on cannabis. Ending cannabis prohibition can disrupt illegal
drug markets, reduce violence, enhance public safety, lessen
negative police/citizen interactions while restoring police
legitimacy, and allow for reallocation of resources to quell
the recent surge in homicides and other serious crime.
Regardless of personal or moral perspectives, the Federal
prohibition of cannabis is bad public policy.
Thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward to
your questions.
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Snider, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Next is Keeda Haynes. You are recognized for your five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEEDA HAYNES, SENIOR LEGAL ADVISOR, FREE HEARTS
Ms. Haynes. Good morning. First of all, I would like to
start by thanking Chair Raskin and Ranking Member Mace for
inviting me to speak today, and to all the members of this
subcommittee for your time and consideration of this important
issue. My name is Keeda Haynes, and I am the senior legal
adviser for Free Hearts, which is a national-based nonprofit
that provides support, education, and advocacy for families
impacted by incarceration.
I'm also the Federal policy analyst for the National
Council of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and
Girls. I'm a former congressional candidate, and I served my
national community as a public defender for over six and a half
years.
But, prior to that, I was 00017-011. While in college, my
boyfriend asked if I would accept packages for his cell phones
and pager company because no one would be at the store when the
packages would be delivered. Turns out, those packages never
contained cell phones and pagers but instead marijuana. I was
indicted with 28 others. And, after a lengthy jury trial, I was
acquitted of the actual marijuana conspiracy and other various
charges. But, unfortunately, I was found guilty of aiding and
abetting that conspiracy to distribute 100 to 400 kilograms of
marijuana, and I was sentenced to seven years in Federal
prison, two years above the mandatory minimum.
After several appeals, I was finally released on December
1st of 2006, after serving almost four years for a crime that I
did not commit. Unfortunately, I had become a statistic, but I
refused to become a permanent casualty. I attended law school,
I passed the bar exam, and I eventually became a licensed
attorney in the state of Tennessee.
As a public defender, I regularly represented Black and
Brown clients whose lives were turned upside down because of
disproportionate marijuana arrests and convictions, giving me a
view firsthand of the harm that was caused to them, their
families, and our communities. Because of this, and my own
personal experience, decriminalization of marijuana is
extremely important to me.
It is evident that the country has changed course with
several states legalizing marijuana, President Biden's recent
executive action, and bipartisan support in Congress for
decriminalization. I applaud this shift, but more definitely
needs to be done.
The racial disparities in marijuana arrests and
prosecutions and the harms inflicted upon Black and Brown
communities is well documented. As Congress considers
comprehensive marijuana reform, these racial disparities must
be acknowledged where policies are created that alleviate the
harm that has been caused, because marijuana reform is racial
justice.
Those of us with convictions on our record experience a
range of collateral consequences that impact the ability to
acquire jobs, housing, education, licenses, the right to bear
arms, the right to vote, and, frankly, an individual's overall
quality of life because of outdated and excessive prosecution.
To correct the decades of injustice experienced at the
hands of marijuana prohibition, our criminal records should
automatically be expunged, restoring our rights to participate
in society where we are no longer subjected to a host of
collateral consequences or relegated to live as second-class
shadow citizens.
As for the thousands more still sitting in prison with
marijuana convictions, some serving life, they should be
released and have their records expunged or at the very least
giving an opportunity to have their sentences reviewed and
reduced.
Most of us with Federal marijuana convictions have
extremely complex cases. Some have convictions for conspiracy,
distribution, manufacturing, or continuing criminal enterprise,
where others may be convicted under RICO statutes or even
money-laundering statutes, and still more, like myself, may be
convicted under 18 U.S.C., section 2, the aiding and abetting
statute. Without fully understanding the complexity of
marijuana offenses and including adjacent offenses in marijuana
reform, the full scale of harm that needs to be repaired will
not be reached.
I have experienced and seen firsthand the destruction of
lives and the devastation of communities by marijuana
prohibition, and I urge this committee and Congress to go
beyond decriminalization and make a concerted effort to
actually repair the damage that has been done. It is time for
the United States to move past these failed marijuana practices
of the past and to restore dignity and freedom to millions who
have suffered under this prohibition.
And, on a final but important note, again, I want to say
thank you for including me and my directly impacted community
in this hearing. The directly impacted community's voices are
extremely important, as we have distinctive experiences,
narratives, and perspectives resulting from our involvement
within the criminal legal system, and we deserve to be heard
and part of the healing and justice for our communities.
So thank you again, and I look forward to any questions.
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Haynes, thank you so much for your
testimony.
And I come now finally to The Honorable Randall Woodfin,
who is the mayor of Birmingham, Alabama. You are recognized for
your five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RANDALL WOODFIN, MAYOR, CITY OF
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
Mr. Woodfin. Chair Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, and members
of the subcommittee, good morning, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify on this important issue of reforming our
cannabis laws.
I serve as mayor of the city of Birmingham, Alabama, a 75-
percent Black city with a historic legacy of fighting for civil
rights. And I accepted this invitation to testify because I
believe that mayors have a very unique role to play in how we
address this issue of ending the prohibition of cannabis.
You know, ending the prohibition of cannabis has taken far
too high of a human toll on Black and Brown communities. I also
wanted to use this opportunity to urge Congress to pass during
this lame duck session commonsense reforms that will expunge
criminal records, normalize banking and financial services, and
expand our ability to research cannabis.
As mayor, I've taken action on this issue by using my
pardon power to pardon over 23,000 individuals charged with
possession of cannabis in the city of Birmingham. I've also
encouraged our state government to take action on moving
forward with cannabis decriminalization and the expungement of
past convictions.
I've commended Alabama's effort to move forward with a
medical cannabis program, but I will also urge Alabama to go a
step further in providing full adult recreational use for many
of the reasons I will explain in detail.
Mayors across our country have a meaningful role to play as
many of us continue to push for cannabis legalization. As
mayors, many of us can prioritize the enforcement of minor
cannabis offenses, use our executive authorities for pardons,
eliminate from consideration prior cannabis convictions from
employment applications for city employment, and embrace
cannabis as both the moral imperative and economic development
opportunity that we know it can be.
As mayor, I work closely with law enforcement in my city.
And some of them may disagree with me on this issue, and I
understand and respect their perspective, but I believe that
our position on issues like cannabis legalization should be
guided by the facts and the science. There is no evidence that
legalization leads to appreciable increases in any form of
crime. There is no evidence of increased drug use by teens in
states that have already legalized cannabis.
If anything, legalization actually frees up law
enforcement's resources to pursue violent crime, a priority for
every mayor in any urban core in our country. And legalization
also provides state and local governments with sales taxes,
business license fees, and property taxes that we can use to
reinvest in our communities. And, while mayors can do a lot,
truthfully we can't do it all. We need help from Washington.
The Biden administration made a good first step in urging
the Department of Justice and HHS to consider rescheduling or
descheduling cannabis, and I firmly believe that descheduling
is the best path forward. If cannabis is descheduled, it will
make the legal status of cannabis clear across the country,
effectively legalizing and disproportionately benefiting Black
and Brown communities that have paid the human costs for the
war on drugs.
Any such relief of the cannabis industry should also come
with robust restorative justice provisions. The Biden
administration took the right first step, but it should be
followed up with the Department of Justice aggressively
processing the thousands of delayed clemency petitions for the
thousands of Americans that have been unjustly incarcerated.
There are other ways to incorporate equity considerations
into this space, including research partnerships that give our
land-grant HBCUs the same opportunity that the University of
Mississippi has had for decades to research the medical uses of
cannabis and license their research to pharmaceutical partners,
providing special capital access programs for home-grown micro
businesses and collectively owned cannabis, and leveraging
entities like the Small Business Administration and the
Minority Business Development Agency to provide capital access
and technical assistance to minority-owned cannabis firms.
As I've stated, mayors can do a lot, but we can only do so
much. The state-by-state patchwork leaves too many Americans
out of reach from the promise presented by ending the Federal
prohibition on cannabis. Congress must act now during this lame
duck session to get SAFE Plus done, because we need
expungements, normalized banking and capital market access, and
more research now. And Congress must push the Department of
Justice to process far more clemency petitions such that every
American unjustly incarcerated is released and given an
opportunity to participate in this new industry.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering any of your questions.
Mr. Raskin. Mayor Woodfin, thank you very much for your
testimony.
What awesome testimony across the board from all of you. I
know the ranking member, Ms. Mace, and I both have a million
questions for you, but we're eager to hear from our members,
who are also champing at the bit.
So I'm going to defer first to my distinguished colleague
from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley. You're recognized for your
five minutes.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, for your
leadership. And I agree with you, excellent panel.
Thank you, everyone, for lending your insightful expertise
to this issue.
Clearly, the failed war on drugs has sustained a mass
incarceration crisis that has ravaged Black and Brown
communities, destabilized our families, and inflicted truly
intergenerational trauma. With marijuana arrests accounting for
nearly half of all drug arrests, today's hearing really does
underscore the need to combat this crisis by legalizing
marijuana and repairing the harm of incarceration by providing
pathways into the legal cannabis industry for those directly
impacted.
As the cannabis industry is projected to raise revenues of
over $50 billion--that's with a ``B''--dollars by 2026, a
recent report found that less than two percent of the industry
is owned and operated by Black entrepreneurs. This is certainly
a grave injustice.
Ms. Littlejohn, would you just enumerate, for the purposes
of the record, what are some of the top challenges that Black
and Brown folks continue to face when seeking access to the
cannabis industry?
Ms. Littlejohn. Thank you, Congresswoman Pressley.
Barriers to entry exist really from the outside. New
entrants to the market commonly find that licenses are not
available to newcomers, and if they are, they are rendered
nearly impossible to secure due to tensions between state and
Federal law.
For example, in one state, to secure an adult-use cannabis
license, you would need to come up with $3 million, but you
would also need to meet low-income requirements at the same
time. Many applicants are required to secure commercial
property at 4 to 10 times the going rate and hold that property
indefinitely with no promise of actually securing a license.
And they do all of this without access to capital and Federal
loans and services for small businesses.
If they can actually get their doors open, they would face
an effective tax rate of 70 to 90 percent, a lack of access to
banking, insurance, and Federal IP protections. And together
this makes it nearly impossible to navigate in a market that's
made incredibly volatile both by Federal illegality and
competition from unlicensed and unregulated operators.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Ms. Littlejohn. I appreciate you
enumerating that and offering those very specific examples,
which really does just speak to the fact that, first, we need
laws that center healing and prioritize equity, but every law
is only as good as its enforcement. And, also, it seems that,
even with some of those laws, we still see these inequities
being perpetuated. So thank you so much for your testimony.
And I will lift up that, representing the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, that we did create the first in the Nation
social equity program which does provide residents who are
disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs with access to
critical resources grants and low-or no-interest loans.
Ms. Haynes, so good to see you, and thank you so much again
for your testimony. Why is it beneficial to mandate equity
provisions which help formerly incarcerated individuals?
Ms. Haynes. Thank you for your question, Representative
Pressley, and it is good to see you again as well.
Again, as I stated in my testimony here and even in my
written testimony, those of us that are directly impacted, we
experience a host of collateral consequences. And just imagine,
you know, being subjected to these collateral consequences
while you were seeing particularly White men make billions off
of the cannabis industry and to also see people freely using
something that you are relegated to live as a second-class
citizen for.
And so it is with those things in mind, and so, you know,
no, Congress will not be able to give me back the four years
that I lost or any other time that anybody has lost, but by
automatically expunging these convictions, again, like I said,
so that we no longer have to live in the shadows in our
community, will be able to help us to secure jobs where we can
have meaningful jobs.
It will help us to secure housing. It will help us to be
able to get into the marijuana business if one so chooses, and
it--and just to various other things. It will help us be able
to regain our right to vote to participate in our democracy
fully in this country. And so there's just a lot of things
that, like I said, we are relegated to live as second-class
citizens in this country because of marijuana convictions.
And so it is just extremely important that it is automatic
expungement, not something that we have to go through the
courts for, because some people might not be able to afford
lawyers and, you know, all of those different things. It is
something that should be automatically done for those of us who
have, you know, experienced collateral consequences because of
the prohibition on marijuana.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you for being as precise as the laws
that caused the harm. So I appreciate your being so instructive
there and comprehensive in your response.
Ms. Littlejohn----
Mr. Raskin. Actually, the gentlelady's time is expired.
We'll see if we might be able to do a second round. Thank you,
Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. OK. All right. I'll stay tuned.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Stay tuned. I know everybody has got
a million questions here.
I'm delighted to come to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. Sessions, you are now recognized as the first
questioner on the minority side for your five minutes.
Mr. Sessions. Chairman, thank you very much. I did request
that time a few minutes ago, and I appreciate the gentleman
living up to that.
We talk about this issue as being bipartisan, but I think
we also need to include all the facts of the case. If you look
at CDC, provisional data from CDC indicates that there were an
estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States
during a 12-month period ending in April 2021, a 28.5-percent
increase from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year
before. The new data that estimated drug overdoses to 75,000 in
a 12-month period ended April 2021, up from 56,000 the year
before. So we're now headed to increase that substantially.
Marijuana and drugs are crippling. They cause addiction.
They cause crime, and they cause mental issues. And today I
think it's important for us to know as people attack the police
department, police are there to help secure communities to save
people, to save people from criminals and dangerous products.
During my lifetime, we've gone to where we stopped allowing
cigarette smoking in public but now openly allow marijuana to
be just used all over the place in communities that cause harm.
In the state of New York, in the year 2000, they
implemented criminal justice legislation whereby it eliminated
cash bail for nonviolent felonies, and yet a man was arrested
just a few weeks ago with 20,000 fentanyl pills--each of the
pills would be expected under that man's thinking to be broken
up and used a number of times, but 20,000 fentanyl pills--was
arrested. No bail. He was let free.
It is important that we look at the facts of the case about
what marijuana does to children, to families, to women.
Last year, more drivers experienced serious crashes or
deaths with cannabis in their system than any other drug. In
2020, 27 percent of drivers who were injured or killed in a
motor vehicle crash tested positive for marijuana. The bottom
line is it is addictive. It is addictive in causing people to
live their daily lives not only with marijuana but with these
dangerous potencies.
Cannabis potency rose every year on an average by 0.29
percent from 1970 to 2017, meaning, it is true, when I was in
high school, that it was far, far less, hundreds of times less
potent. Today there are marketplaces that increase THC to
increase not only the high but also that rate that would cause
addiction.
Mr. Sessions. It is important for us to know that the most
popular strains in Colorado ranged from 17 percent to 28
percent THC by 2017--a 400 percent increase from 1970.
The product is being marketed, the product is being sold,
the product is being advocated by people who are in it to make
money. Slavery made money also and was a terrible circumstance
that this country and the world went through for many, many
years.
I began watching ``Drugs, Inc.'', which is a 6-year or 7-
year program that is on National Geographic, and they talk
about both sides of the drug industry. They talk about how
these drug dealers go make money: They carry weapons; they
threaten people; they kill people; they kill families.
This is what the industry is. It is not the pretty
opportunity that has been presented today. Over 300 people
between the ages of 18 to 35 die every day of drug overdose.
We hear today veterans. And I appreciate the gentleman for
his service and other veterans who have taken time to be here
today to present their story, and we do respect you for your
service. But it is important to note that the reason why the VA
does not want to allow this is because no more than they do
want to do surgery or help a drunk person. They require a
person to dry out.
It takes about 30 days before marijuana is out of your
system. And many of the issues that these people deal with with
the VA are related to receptors, things that cause pain in
their body. Marijuana THC directly affects receptors, which
means that false positives or not the real circumstance would
be understood by a treating physician at the VA.
And so they don't, just like they don't want to treat a
person who's drunk, they don't want to treat people and get
something that is not the actual occurrence.
So, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that next time that there
would be one of these hearings that more facts of the case
about the open harm to our children, to our communities, to
this country, of the people who are able to go to work, of the
people who provide transportation.
And all I can tell you is I got involved in this years ago
when there were many deaths on our highways and in our train
systems because people were high. And whether it's high off
alcohol or high off marijuana or high off heroin, people lose
their life.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Sessions, for all those
provocative insights. And I hope we'll get to address them----
Mr. Sessions. Well, I still have 1:58 remaining.
Mr. Raskin. No, I think you're 1:58 over.
Mr. Sessions. Oh, 1:58----
Mr. Raskin. But that's all right.
Mr. Sessions. Well, I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. Raskin. We wanted to hear from you, and we thank you
for your thoughts.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir.
Mr. Raskin. The chair of the full Oversight Committee has
joined us. Mrs. Maloney is here.
I'm going to recognize you for your five minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
for having this important hearing.
I would like to ask Mr. Armentano, although there is no
Federal law that prohibits banks from serving the cannabis
industry, current regulations require extensive and costly
reporting and impose fines for procedural missteps. This
obviously discourages banks from working with businesses in the
cannabis industry, leaving many of these businesses without any
access to banking services.
So, Mr. Armentano, can you expand on why banks are so
reluctant to take on above-board cannabis companies as
customers?
Mr. Armentano. Thank you for that question. I am happy to
expound upon that.
Banks and other financial institutions and credit unions
are largely discouraged from working with these cannabis-
related businesses that are licensed at the state level by the
simple fact that cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled
substance. And it is that categorization that has been in place
since 1970 that discourages these institutions from taking on
these businesses. They are worried that at some point in time
they may run afoul of Federal law, they may be prosecuted for
things like money laundering.
Look, in even my own personal experience there have been
times where NORML, a nonprofit advocacy organization that
simply works to reform cannabis laws, has struggled to obtain
banking and credit card services and has lost those services. I
know other advocacy reform organizations that have as well. And
we don't even touch the cannabis plant, and we certainly are
not engaged in any retail sales of the cannabis plant.
So that gives you some idea of what the environment is like
and why, in fact, we know, according to the Department of
Treasury, that currently only about 11 percent of banks and
four percent of credit unions are willing to provide,
transparently provide services to the literally thousands of
state-licensed cannabis businesses and the ancillary services
in this industry as well.
Mrs. Maloney. Now, turning to you, Mr. Freedman.
In your time as Colorado's first marijuana czar, what
economic impact, both on companies and customers, did you
observe when legal cannabis companies were unable to access
banks?
And also, you know that the Congressman from Colorado,
Congressman Perlmutter, has advocated a Federal law to allow
banking services to those states that have legalized marijuana.
Could you comment on both of these issues please?
Mr. Freedman. Thank you, Chairwoman.
So at the beginning of us instituting or implementing
cannabis legalization in Colorado, it was the situation where
there would literally be duffel bags full of cash that could
not get paid--that could not be entered into depository
institutions. We had to get a larger window for receiving cash
for state taxes.
There was a lot of good news. People were very happy about
the amount of tax revenue that was coming in and how these
businesses were doing. But there was certainly a scary time
where merchant services hadn't stepped up.
We, fortunately, did have a number of community banks in
Colorado that have since stepped up and done that sort of
banking. And merchant services now are largely taking care of,
although at a cost, in Colorado as those community banks go
forward. And Representative Perlmutter has really been the
leader on this issue with safe banking and with other issues.
And I think it points to a larger issue in cannabis, which
is commonsense public health and public safety issues, such as
banking, such as insurance, and even things like proper
pesticide use. And none of those things can really be addressed
because they're all overseen by the Federal Government unless
we're dealing with the world of descheduling and regulation.
Thank you for your question.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. Thank you.
And turning back to Mr. Armentano, many advocates argue
that the Federal Government should regulate cannabis like
alcohol and respect state decisions on their use and
possession.
Canada was the first country to develop national
regulations to limit the potency of edible marijuana products,
reflecting the wider concern about the potential for misuse
from overconsumption of high-strength products. The U.S. has a
nationwide cannabis industry which requires similar national
regulations.
So, again, Mr. Armentano, what are the strengths and
limitations of existing U.S. policies compared to other
policies like those in Canada?
Canadian law also attempts to prevent children from
accessing legal marijuana products. For example, they banned
sales through vending machines and packaging that might appeal
to you.
So your comments please.
Mr. Raskin. And the gentlelady's time has expired, but you
can answer the question, Mr. Armentano.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raskin. You bet.
Mr. Armentano. Thank you.
So with respect to Canada's policy, Canada does provide
some basic national regulations, but regionally the provinces
make the bulk of the decisions with respect to how cannabis is
regulated.
For instance, in some provinces private retailers can
engage in cannabis sales. In other provinces it's limited only
to government. The equivalent in Canada is equivalent to ABC
stores.
Provinces set the age limit in Canada. The Federal
Government does not. In some provinces the age limit is 21. In
other provinces the legal limit to use cannabis is 18.
So it's a very in some ways similar system to what we're
seeing right now in the United States where it's a bit of a
patchwork system, and that's because, again, in Canada
provinces largely can set their own regional cannabis
regulatory policies, much like in the United States. By
default, states have been setting their own localized cannabis
regulations.
And, of course, these regulations are in place by the
states to do things like discourage underage use. All of the
states impose a 21 and older age limit. In fact, studies have
been done in Colorado, in California, in Oregon where they test
to see if regulators are actually checking for IDs before
people enter retailers or are sold cannabis. In some of these
instances, like in California, studies have found 100 percent
compliance with these age impositions and ID restrictions,
higher compliance than we see with alcohol.
The final thing I would say with regard to potency is
states right now certainly have the ability under a regulatory
legal system to regulate the potency of certain cannabis
products. Some states go ahead and do this. Montana has a
potency cap right now. Vermont has a potency cap on THC right
now. Connecticut imposes a potency cap. Other states, like
California, don't necessarily impose caps on potency, but they
impose caps on serving size, so there's only so many milligrams
of THC allowed in certain products.
Again, we want to have regulation----
Mr. Raskin. I'm going to impose a cap on time,
unfortunately, if that's all right, Mr. Armentano.
Mr. Armentano. Of course. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. But thank you for that thorough answer.
And now, by the forbearance of the ranking member, I am
going to recognize our friend from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I personally strongly advise young Americans
that I speak to all the time, before Congress and as a cop,
that it's a part of the narrative of our country regarding
marijuana and its impact. And I personally strongly advise
young Americans to refrain from even the limited use of modern,
super-high THC marijuana in any form. It's just too powerful. I
have seen scientific analysis showing THC levels as much as
two, three, four thousand times the average THC level from
marijuana of the seventies. It's just not your grandfather's
weed anymore.
However, that being stated, I'm a constitutionalist, and I
support the freedom of individual Americans to determine their
best course of action for medical treatment. So I publicly have
supported for years the Veteran Administration's access to
prescribe medical marijuana for our veterans.
So, Mr. Goepel, I'm going to move to you in a second.
Because, Mr. Chairman, you are a constitutional scholar.
And we discussed before, we face a very real constitutional
quandary in America. You have Federal restrictions of
marijuana, it's a Schedule I drug, and yet we have our
sovereign states have legalized marijuana or decriminalized it
to some level across the country.
We can just not continue to ignore the fact that we have to
address this constitutionally. And, personally, I think it
could be a very good idea, certainly it would be subject for
debate, perhaps in the 118th Congress, perhaps in this
committee, to talk about rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III
or even IV.
But for Mr. Goepel, I am particularly concerned about my
veteran brothers and sisters having access to whatever medicine
that they determine is best to treat their condition, whether
it's pain management or PTSD, whatever the case may be.
Marijuana is currently a Schedule I controlled substance.
So just to clarify for America, it is currently unavailable to
veterans through VA health facilities. Is that correct, sir?
Mr. Goepel. Yes, VA doctors who are in the position of
being Federal employees are barred from discussing--well, they
can discuss, but they cannot do anything more than discuss----
Mr. Higgins. Exactly. Thank you for clarifying that. But
there are clearly potential benefits of medical marijuana for
veterans. Again, we're not talking about high school children,
we're not talking about young Americans in college that want to
experiment and party. I completely discourage that behavior.
We're talking about mature veteran men and women who have some
form of service-related condition that they need to treat, and
clearly there are potential benefits for medical marijuana for
veterans who are suffering chronic conditions.
Would you address, Mr. Goepel, like what happens in the
real world on the street when a veteran figures out that it may
be his best course of action to use marijuana medically to
treat his condition, but he cannot access it from the VA
legally? How does that veteran get his dope?
Mr. Goepel. So it depends on their state of residence. I
mean, if they are one of the 150 million Americans in a legal
state, then there's a process by which adults can purchase THC
products. Pretty much every veteran has access to----
Mr. Higgins. Right, but technically that puts them in
violation of Federal law.
Mr. Goepel. Exactly.
Mr. Higgins. Which brings us back to the constitutional
quandary that we must address in this body. And I look forward
to working with my colleagues across the aisle. It might be the
one thing we can completely agree on.
I have been advised that the States Reform Act protects
states' rights, protects vets, regulates labeling for potency
concentration.
So having been a spokesman for my colleagues here, let me
not forget to introduce on behalf of my colleague,
Representative Biggs, if I may for the record, Mr. Chairman, a
statement by an organization called Smart Approaches to
Marijuana.
Mr. Raskin. Without any objection at all.
Mr. Higgins. So, Mr. Goepel, in my final 15 seconds here,
do you have a word for America regarding what Congress should
do for marijuana as it regards our veterans? Go.
Mr. Goepel. I would say that because veterans are in that
special quandary being a population that receives Federal
healthcare, there is no other option other than descheduling,
because without descheduling you are still criminalizing some
forms of possession and denying veterans the access that they
need.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank all the panelists. I very much appreciate you being
here.
And I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Higgins, for your
questioning.
I am now delighted to recognize the vice chair of the Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And
we're going to see whether we can bring Mr. Higgins and Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez together for a true harbinger of a different
future.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, you are recognized for your five
minutes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
thank you for convening a hearing on bipartisan consensus on
cannabis reform. Check to see if there are pigs growing wings
in this country, because I do believe that there actually may
be some consensus here on the opposing sides of the aisle on
this issue.
But I do want to begin actually with President Biden's
order, executive order, from last month. On October 6,
President Biden announced that he would pardon some, not all,
simple Federal marijuana possession convictions. And while the
spirit of this executive order should absolutely be applauded,
I do believe that issue experts have rightly pointed out that
there is necessary action needed from Congress and state
governments to actually fulfill the true impact and live up to
the spirit of that order.
In fact, the White House itself and the U.S. Sentencing
Committee reported that there are currently actually only zero
people currently in Federal custody for simple possession of
marijuana.
Now, Mayor Woodfin, an important distinction here is that
President Biden issued pardons, not expungements, which is not
necessarily within his purview.
You, as mayor of Birmingham, have also issued a large
degree of pardons and we thank you for that. But can you
quickly explain the difference between a pardon and an
expungement?
Mr. Woodfin. Congresswoman OC, yes, ma'am, I can.
And, Mr. Chairman, just briefly before I answer the
Congresswoman's question, words matter. And while I'm on
record, I would just like to say to you directly, your
committee member's putting cannabis and slavery in the same
category is patently offensive and flagrant. So I wanted to
state that.
But related to the Congresswoman's question, pardons, as
you know, are at the executive level. So President, Governors,
mayors. And that allows us to set aside penalties, or if one is
actually incarcerated at any level, city, county jail, state,
or Federal, that they can immediately be released.
But the expungement is extremely important because that's
more at the judicial level. And even if you pardon me, if I
applied for a job, for instance, the record that I was--that
this can still be on my record. But, more importantly, the
arrest.
So the expungement of the judicial process allows a
person's entire record to be concealed. That's not only the
actual charge, but that it also includes the arrest.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Thank you for both those
points, Mayor Woodfin.
And so for folks following at home, a pardon may reduce or
decrease the penalty of a crime, but an expungement is actually
what wipes that slate clean, correct?
Mr. Woodfin. That is correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And if you have that criminal record
without that expungement, it's harder to get a job, correct?
Mr. Woodfin. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Harder to qualify for affordable
housing?
Mr. Woodfin. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Harder to access financial aid for
education.
Mr. Woodfin. Also correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And so what you're saying, Mayor
Woodfin, is that a criminal record for marijuana use can still
effectively bar you from participating in much of society
without that expungement, correct?
Mr. Woodfin. Unfortunately, yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
Now, last year, to the chairman's point, I actually
introduced a bipartisan bill with Congressman Joyce of Ohio to
help fix this issue for the Federal Government to actually
begin creating grants to hand to states and local
municipalities to actually fulfill and carry through that
process of expunging criminal records for the tens of millions
of Americans who have been previously convicted of marijuana
offenses. And I want to restate that number: tens of millions.
That has impacts on our democracy, on our economy, on our
state of housing, and our ability to participate in public
institutions.
Now, while President Biden's pardon is a step in the right
direction, as we have just heard from Mayor Woodfin, it can't
be where we stop. Past marijuana convictions must be expunged,
federally and locally.
But also I'd like to finish off with Mr. Armentano. I also
want to discuss who was left out of that order, which was
undocumented people who were charged with simple possession of
marijuana.
Now, we know that while pardons may not have the full
benefit of expungement, Mr. Armentano, what is the difference
to someone in an immigration proceeding and who possibly may be
deported in having that pardon versus not having that pardon?
Mr. Armentano. I'm not an expert on immigration policy, but
certainly I'm well aware of expungements and their importance.
I'm also aware of where this policy you're referring to
comes from. It was a provision that was added in 1996 as part
of sweeping antiterrorism legislation.
This idea that we're somehow making America safer by giving
the Federal Government the ability to deport people with green
cards simply because they consumed cannabis, in some cases
legally, in their state or because they're working in the
state-licensed cannabis industry, that was an absurd policy to
pass then. I believe it's still an absurd policy to have in
place now. And I'm glad to see your leadership and efforts,
Representative Mace's efforts to try to address this issue. I
know there's provisions in the MORE Act that specifically speak
to remedying this situation.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much.
And I yield back to the chair.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
Now I'm going to recognize the minority ranking member, Ms.
Mace, for her five minutes.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I have a few questions that I would like to get
through. So I'm just going to ask our participants just to try
to keep it as brief so I can ask as many questions as I can.
My first question I'd like to direct to NORML, Paul
Armentano, if you don't mind.
There has been some discussion today about taking into
consideration some of the issues when it comes to packaging.
And so if you could just speak to the importance of legislation
that's responsible, maybe at the Federal level, looking at how
we can prohibit the marketing and advertising to kids, either
in labeling or packaging, what that would look like and the
importance of that responsibility.
Mr. Armentano. Thank you.
As you well know, right now those sort of decisions with
regard to regulations on marketing and packaging, labeling,
even testing, are a patchwork system. They're regulated by the
individual states. So you will have some states that may have
greater regulations or other states with lesser regulations.
We would like to see uniform regulations when it comes to a
number of these matters, such as labeling, such as testing,
such as packaging, very similar to what we have right now with
regard to alcohol.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
My next question goes to Mr. Goepel. I know that today
already we've talked some of the increases, major increases in
drug overdoses. Fentanyl, heroin, opioids, et cetera, would be
those examples.
But can you tell us today just exactly, every year since
2017, basically, what has been the leading cause of overdose
deaths, in terms of drugs? And how many deaths have there been
from marijuana overdoses?
Mr. Goepel. So I don't believe the CDC, DEA, NIDA, or any
other Federal agency has ever directly associated a fatal
overdose with cannabis.
Ms. Mace. That means zero, right?
Mr. Goepel. Zero, yes.
Ms. Mace. Zero overdose deaths related to cannabis.
Mr. Goepel. According to the Federal Government.
Ms. Mace. Uh-huh.
Mr. Goepel. Yes.
Ms. Mace. And I would agree. Thank you.
And then Ms. Littlejohn. And thank you, I love Gaffney and
the Gaffney Peach.
But can you talk to us a little bit about, I guess, in
terms of commerce, how do we ensure that consumers know what
they're buying and ingesting? We've talked in here a little bit
about labeling, concentration, potency. Some thoughts on the
importance of having some consistency there.
Ms. Littlejohn. Well, that, the first step, is legalizing
and creating a framework where there are standards. And so
every state that has legalized cannabis has strict packaging
and labeling requirements. And the primary purpose of these
marketing and labeling requirements is to protect the public
and keep these products out of the hands of children.
And so the legalization process provides a mechanism for us
to call upon the extensive experience that we have both through
TTB and other agencies and really creating policies that cannot
impede commerce while still keeping the public safe.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
Ms. Snider, I have a question for you this morning as well.
The opioid crisis. Huge crisis. We've heard about some of that
this morning. Some of the studies that I've read, including in
the Journal of American Medicine right here that I'm going to
hold up and ask that we enter into the record by unanimous
consent momentarily, but what I have read were there's one
dispensary in a state that stood up that opioid addiction, and
morbidity could be decreased by upwards of almost 20 percent in
the states where it was studied over a decade ago.
So could you just speak to a little bit about the opioid
crisis, the role of cannabis, and preventing some of those
deaths in addiction via cannabis?
Ms. Snider. Good morning, Congresswoman. Thank you for the
question.
So as you said, in states in which they have opened at
least one dispensary, you have seen a substantial decrease in
opioid-related deaths. And recent studies have shown that
opioid-related hospital visits additionally have subsided
substantially in jurisdictions in which recreational and
medicinal cannabis have been legalized.
Ms. Mace. Great.
And then my last question will go back to Ms. Littlejohn
this morning.
Cartels and drugs, they're making billions of dollars every
year. Some of your thoughts on how we can reduce the proclivity
for illicit markets continuing in the United States, the
importance of reducing that, maybe by lower taxes or by
regulations and greater accessibility to higher quality
cannabis for folks. But can you speak to the best way that the
Federal Government can ensure that we crush the illicit market?
Ms. Littlejohn. The two biggest factors perpetuating the
illicit market--the unregulated or unlicensed market--are high
Federal taxes--high taxes--and the lack of interstate commerce.
Because the unregulated market has both. Our country is flooded
with cannabis from the West Coast. And so allowing individuals
and legal companies to compete in that environment and to
compete with tax rates that are actually reasonable is critical
to their continued existence.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request unanimous consent to
enter this article that appeared in the Journal of American
Medicine that talked about the rate and reduction of opioid
overdoses, mortality, and addiction with cannabis into the
record.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you for your questioning.
And I will now come to the distinguished gentlelady from
the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for your five minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important
hearing.
Last month President Biden announced a blanket pardon for
everyone with a conviction for simple marijuana possession
under Federal and District of Columbia law. This is a very
welcome announcement.
But I would be remiss if I did not use this opportunity to
once again speak about the unique and undemocratic position of
the District of Columbia regarding both marijuana and clemency.
Under current law there is an appropriations rider that
prohibits the District of Columbia from spending its local
funds on commercializing recreational marijuana. Recreational
marijuana is legal in D.C., but Congress prohibits D.C. from
taxing and regulating the sale.
Prohibiting D.C. from creating a marijuana regulatory
regime, just like the states and territories can do, is a
violation of home rule and is harmful.
Another violation of D.C. home rule is that the President--
the President--exercises authority to grant clemency with D.C.
crimes. Like the states and territories, D.C. should have the
authority to grant clemency for its own crimes.
I'm grateful that last month this committee reported out my
District of Columbia Home Rule Expansion Act, which would,
among other things, give D.C. the exclusive authority to grant
clemency for D.C. crimes.
Ms. Haynes, as someone who has been directly impacted by
the Federal criminalization of marijuana, I would like to ask
about your reaction to President Biden's pardons. What is the
effect of the announcement for people who were previously
convicted? How will it change their lives.
Ms. Haynes. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
I think, pretty much like everyone that has talked about
President Biden's executive action last month, it was a great
first step, but I definitely feel that more needs to be done.
It will be extremely impactful for those individuals who
will be able to reap the benefits of this. They do have a
pardon, but as it was explained, the difference between a
pardon and an expungement. So we do need to go a little bit
further and to expunge those convictions as well too.
But it will open up some doors for people that have been
closed simply because of all of the collateral consequences
that those of us who do have marijuana convictions are
subjected to.
And, again, like I said, I would just urge the President,
urge Congress to go further because this was a very limited
number of people that are impacted, and there are so many
others like myself and those that are still incarcerated that
do have felonies on our record that are marijuana related, and
we deserve to have the harm reduced to us as well as those that
have simple possession misdemeanor marijuana offenses.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Armentano, while President Biden's pardons were an
important step forward, there are remaining issues that would
be solved by a full deschedulization of marijuana, as the last
witness has just spoken, and expungement of past convictions
for all.
For example, under the blanket pardon, anyone who was not a
citizen or permanent resident at the time of their conviction
was exempted.
So, Mr. Armentano, what are your thoughts on this
exemption?
Mr. Armentano. Like others, I do want to praise the
President for taking the action that he took. I thought it was
an incredibly powerful statement to have the arguably most
powerful elected official in this country, if not the world, to
call out marijuana prohibition as a 50-year failure.
Look, at the end of the day, as has been said by others,
there's been over 29 million Americans arrested for marijuana-
related violations in this country. The overwhelming majority
of those arrests occurred at the state and local level.
The President does not have the power to pardon or expunge
those records. That needs to be done at the state level. And
I'm very glad to see that now almost two dozen states have
enacted specific legislation at that state level to facilitate
that expungement process and that about 2 million Americans
have had those records expunged under that process.
We think there would be even more states taking these
opportunities if marijuana was descheduled federally and if
there was legislation enacted to provide better funding and to
facilitate that process at the state level. Ultimately, that's
what needs to happen to impact the overwhelming or the most
number of Americans who are suffering from the stigma of a
criminal conviction.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Norton, for your questioning.
We'll now next go to the distinguished gentlelady from
Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, for her five minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman Raskin, for this
incredibly important bipartisan hearing.
And thank you to our folks who are coming out to testify
about this.
I know despite states' efforts to legalize and
decriminalize marijuana possession, arrests and criminal
charges for marijuana possession continue in a significant
number of states.
And, Mayor Woodfin, I remember reading about, during the
pandemic, that your state was trying to actually build a
prison, if I'm not mistaken, with COVID dollars. I know, I
think it was, I don't know, millions of dollars that they were
pushing away from, obviously, public health during the public
health crisis, the pandemic, toward building yet another new
prison. Is that correct?
Mr. Woodfin. Unfortunately, yes. I believe about 400
million.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. I think it's one of your top--the state
budget is predominantly corrections, correct?
Mr. Woodfin. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, in Michigan, the same thing. We're spending
like $60,000 or more per person that we're incarcerating,
something that we could actually be using toward other
resources like education. We're having a lot of issues
regarding public health disparities in our state.
And I know our state, Michigan, is moving in the right
direction. We have a Governor that is incredibly sympathetic
and also leading with compassion and understanding the
importance of decriminalization in this moment.
You know, Alabama again ranks 16th in the Nation of the
largest racial disparities of any arrests regarding marijuana
possession. Can you talk about what that looks like for many of
your residents right now?
Mr. Woodfin. I think the city of Birmingham has attempted
successfully to go in the opposite direction that our state is
going in related to this topic.
Prior to being mayor, I served as a lawyer and prosecutor
for the city, so I saw it firsthand, the type of charges that
came through our courts at the circuit level and at the
municipal level.
But since I've been in this position what we have tried to
do is reverse course on that. That's why we did--we attempted
to create a Pardons for Progress program at first, but what we
saw is that the average citizen either didn't understand or
want to participate in a process, which is why we then moved
to, less than the year of starting that program, of just a
blanket pardon.
And so we are now going back to those same people we
pardoned to assist in the expungement process because, again,
expungement is a process and most of our citizens don't
understand that. They believe the pardon gives them a free
slate.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Woodfin. But if they literally go apply for a job now,
that arrest record is still on their record that a potential
employer can see.
And so this is--it's been a journey and a process for us. I
have shared with other mayors across the state that they should
use their executive power to pardon their citizens within their
individual cities. But in addition to that, I have also
encouraged the Governor to, at a minimum, even if you don't
want to legalize it, you should decriminalize it.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, absolutely. I can't agree more.
Even though I think some of our states are moving in the
right direction, unlike Alabama, I know that--and I think this
is why the committee is so important--I mean, 40 percent of all
drug arrests right now nationwide is still around marijuana
possession. I mean, that is still a significant amount of
criminalization that is still happening across our country. And
we need to really understand and pay attention, because see
these ballot measures going on, people-driven? But the actual
implementation is what's missing.
And it's incredibly upsetting for me to see especially my
Black neighbors continue to have impacts on their lives.
And, Ms. Haynes, I know my good colleague from New York
talked about the long-term impacts. But can you talk about--
because it's fines, it's a number of things. Because even when
it's decriminalization, they still have to actually pay some of
those fines and some of the things that they were--some of the
punishment or whatever they did during the court process. Can
you talk a little bit about that?
Ms. Haynes. Yes. So some of the collateral consequences for
having a conviction, and even sometimes in order to be able to
apply for a pardon, is that you have to have paid up all of you
legal debt.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Ms. Haynes. Which does include fees and fines that could be
associated with these convictions. And sometimes if you do not
pay these fees and fines that are associated with these
convictions, in a lot of states you will lose your driver's
license as well too.
And so there are a lot of things that stem from the legal
debt that people have to pay when it comes to the collateral
consequences of a conviction. And it's important that we talk
about that because, again, there are some mandatory fines that
are associated with that. And a lot of times what we see is
that people are not able to afford that. And so this continues
to perpetuate this cycle of poverty within the criminal legal
system that we are constantly fighting against.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, thank you.
And, Mr. Armentano, I met with the Unified U.S. Deported
Veterans Resource Center out in Tijuana, and I could not
believe I shook the hands of folks that grew up in the United
States, served our country in the military, that was deported
on some small amounts of marijuana. A number of issues. Again,
green card holders, yes. But I was completely shocked.
And, Chairman, I would love for our committee to actually
meet with some of those veterans.
Right across the border. It was horrifying to hear them,
many of which have never set foot in Mexico, had served our
country, sacrificed their life, and our country deported them
on possession of marijuana. And I think it's something that we
should all work together on to try to address.
But it is something that I think we should continue to
highlight, how unjust and really the targeting that happened
in, I think, especially in communities of color.
With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you for your eloquent statement.
It looks like I'm next.
Well, thank you all for really an extraordinary set of
witness statements today.
The country between 1919 and 1933 had its experiment with
alcohol prohibition. And if you read some of the literature
about it, for example, a great book I read called ``Last Call''
by I think it's Michael Okrent, you'll find that prohibition
succeeded basically in building up organized crime in America
and organized criminal groupings, which got very rich and
succeeded in corrupting the police, the judiciary, and so on,
and basically set the society at war against itself.
And when we repealed prohibition, it wasn't because of a
unanimous feeling that alcohol was good for everybody in all
circumstances, but simply that the cost and the harms of
criminalizing alcohol were far worse than giving people the
right to make their own choices about their lives.
And I think we're very much in the same place today, and
we're also hearing some of the same propaganda and hysteria
about marijuana that people invoked in a last ditch effort to
save prohibition.
Ms. Snider, let me come to you. Back to this point about
overdoses, because we heard a lot about overdoses, and I had
actually introduced the medical marijuana law in Maryland and
decriminalization in Maryland. And one of the witnesses got up
and cited an article saying that in the 24 hours after Colorado
legalized marijuana, 37 people died of marijuana overdoses, and
then proceeded to launch into a diatribe about the horrors of
marijuana legalization.
Well, it turned out that he was quoting from The Onion or
another comedy website and a staff member brought me the
article that he was quoting from.
And I didn't want to embarrass him, but I did say, ``Would
this change your opinion, if you knew that this article was
false?''
And he said, ``Well, I would certainly have to rethink my
position a lot,'' but, of course, then went on to make other
arguments.
But I guess the question that I wanted to ask you, Ms.
Snider, is to what extent have you thought about this analogy,
culturally and socially and politically and legally, between
what happened with liquor prohibition over a period of 15 years
or so versus this marijuana prohibition which has been going
on, at least from the state level, for a century, and at the
Federal level for 50 years, which means that the harms have
been even worse than the harms of alcohol prohibition? What did
you see in terms of your work as a cop in New York?
Ms. Snider. So prohibition of alcohol, we saw how the
Nation responded. We saw that once it started to become more
morally acceptable or more societally acceptable by general
consensus, people were like, OK, we'll legalize it and regulate
it.
We're starting to see that now with cannabis. We're seeing
over 90 percent of the population is just so attuned to
thinking it's completely acceptable, completely normal. And
that's what I was seeing on the street as a police officer. No
one really discouraged--I don't want to say no one encouraged,
but it wasn't looked at as taboo as it once was.
Mr. Raskin. Right.
And so, Mr. Freedman, let me come to you, because you've
had a lot of experience with this at the state level and at the
local level.
Do you think the country is living through a transformation
like the end of prohibition and we're discovering what it means
to enter the post-marijuana prohibition era governmentally and
commercially at the same time?
Mr. Freedman. Thank you, Chairman.
I would go as far to say they've already gone through that,
the people of the United States. I think for the vast majority
of consumers and patients who now deal with cannabis, they deal
with it in what they view as a post-prohibition world. And the
last people to consider post-prohibition is the Hill and
Congressmen and the United States. The fact is kind of the only
things missing now are the sort of commonsense regulation and
science that our institutions of government can bring to it.
Mr. Raskin. So, Mr. Armentano, do you think Congress can
catch up with where a majority of the states are now in terms
of medical marijuana and decriminalization and legalization as
the mayor said? Do you think Congress will actually be able to
do it? I know this hearing is a promising sign, but what do you
think are the chances of our actually doing this in this
session of Congress or the next?
Mr. Freedman. Well, my business card doesn't say
prognosticator, but certainly one would hope that Members of
Congress see the need to act swiftly.
Look, to use your analogy with alcohol prohibition, the
Federal Government got out of the alcohol prohibition business
when ten states chose to go down a different path. The majority
of U.S. states have now chosen to go down a different path with
cannabis. And it is untenable to keep this chasm going between
where the states are on this policy and where the Federal
Government is.
At the end of the day, the Federal Government needs to come
to a way to comport Federal policy with state policy, and
that's by descheduling.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
My time has expired. And I go to the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman Raskin. And I appreciate
this bipartisan hearing. Hopefully, we can have more of those
in the future.
Marijuana is not yet legal in Kentucky, but marijuana's
friendly cousin hemp is, an industry very important to our
economy and the history of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Throughout my time in Congress, and during my service as
Kentucky's agriculture commissioner, I have supported policies
that promote the hemp industry's growth and implemented the
Nation's first hemp pilot program in the state of Kentucky.
Then, during the drafting of the 2018 farm bill, I was in
Congress and I offered language to federally legalize hemp for
industrial and commercial uses. Hemp and related products, like
CBD, which I take, hemp-derived CBD and fiber materials show
great potential for Kentucky farmers, patients, and consumers.
Innovative companies sprung up after legalization, and hemp is
now a component of everything from car door panels to hardwood
floors. And we have a really impressive hemp hardwood floor
factory in my district in Murray, Kentucky.
Unfortunately, the industry is currently struggling with an
uncertain regulatory environment that has depressed its ability
to expand and thrive despite clear demand for their products.
In my opinion, the U.S. FDA needs to get to work in this
space and provide regulatory certainly for hemp. We must also
provide financial certainty and access to credit for
entrepreneurs and farmers who operate legitimate businesses and
are innovating within this new market opportunity.
So, Mr. Freedman, are you aware that the FDA has failed for
several years now to promulgate regulations that would provide
certainty in the market for the hemp industry, especially with
respect to products containing CBD.
Mr. Freedman. Thank you, Ranking Member Comer.
Yes, I agree with your analysis, first of all, that the
rules and regulations regarding hemp will have a tie to
cannabis. If we don't get hemp right, it's going to be very
hard to get cannabis right.
And that we did legalize hemp without the FDA so far has
not created a pathway for the vast majority of products that
are used for CBD, nor have they created regulations around
intoxicating cannabinoids that are now coming out of hemp as
well, and that there is a lack of leadership that is now needed
from--that we now search to champions like you for that sort of
progress for.
Mr. Comer. And let me be very clear. I'm a Republican. I am
against excessive regulations. But here we have an industry
that all of the credible players want regulation. Because if
there's a bottle of CBD at a gas station, there's no one that's
there to determine whether that's CBD or not. When it says how
many milligrams of whatever is in it, there's no agency that's
looking into that to make sure that that's accurate reporting.
So what I think we want with the CBD industry is we want
that to be treated like a nutraceutical to where you go in GNC,
Vitamin World, places like that, and you buy nutraceuticals as
opposed to pharmaceutical, and you look on the label and it
says exactly what's in that bottle of CBD. We don't have that.
And the credible people in the CBD industry--and not
everyone is credible. And that's the problem. That's why we
need some type of regulatory certainty here.
The credible CBD producers, which there are probably three
dozen in my congressional district and in Kentucky, they want
some type of regulatory certainty so they can move forward.
Now, Mr. Chairman, here's a letter dated April 14 where I
requested a committee hearing with Chairwoman Maloney with the
FDA to talk about this specific issue, to try to get some
regulatory certainty in this industry, because you don't go in
a store where you don't see a bottle of CBD. But there's no
guarantee that that's CBD. That may be snake oil. That may be
something else.
I take CBD from labs that I have been to in Kentucky where
I know that they're producing a product that was grown on
Kentucky farms and that has gone through a very credible lab.
So can you elaborate on that, I've got 30 seconds here, as
to what FDA is going to do in the future? And let me say this.
I predict that there will be a hearing on CBD oil in the very
near future in this committee. But go ahead.
Mr. Freedman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
So my prediction is that so far all of that I have read
coming out of the FDA is that they're going to be turning it
back to Congress to solve these problems and people like you
for leadership here in that.
I think the problem is real, consumers don't know what
they're getting, that some bad actors have turned to
intoxicating cannabinoids.
Mr. Comer. And we saw that in the pods for the e-cigarettes
and things like that.
Mr. Freedman. And people need rules of the road to get this
right. And I believe it's not only critical for the hemp
industry, but the burgeoning cannabis industry as well. These
things are so interrelated at this point that you will end up
seeing bad actors escape the cannabis industry and go to the
hemp industry because the laws and regulations are looser and
they haven't created a clear path to market.
So I do believe this is a place where good actors and
Republicans and Democrats alike can all decide, hey, there
needs be to really clear rules of the road here.
Mr. Raskin. All right. The gentleman's time has expired.
Thank you very much for your questioning and for that strong
argument for government regulation, at least in the CBD market.
Just in CBD. Just the thing you know best.
I will come now to the distinguished gentlelady from
Illinois, Ms. Kelly, for her five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
From the testimony we received today, it is clear that to
achieve equity, marijuana should be descheduled and removed
from the Controlled Substance Act altogether. However, there
needs to be balance in the regulatory space between Federal and
state government, especially considering the existent systems
that many states already have in place.
Mr. Freedman, what should be the appropriate balance of
power between the states and Federal Government in regulating
marijuana?
Mr. Freedman. Thank you for your question, Representative.
I believe that, in essence, it should be that states lead
here and the Federal Government aids. And we are at a critical
point where that really can come true. If you look at things
like Representative Mace's States Reform Act, that's the exact
sort of framework put together.
And, by the way, congratulations on the one-year
anniversary of the Reform Act.
Really, what we're looking for here is one of the positives
about the very strange way cannabis legalization has grown is
that states have created very unique systems that meet the
character and complexities of their own communities. That
should not go away because legalization comes in.
And so the ability to add, to layer onto that some amount
of uniformity so that a consumer in one state knows they're
getting the same product in another state, the correct science
and data so if it turns out that having a history of mental
health illness goes poorly with some sort of potency limit we
can therefore start to roll back those products, having that
basic level of science and data from the Federal side can aid
the states in getting it right.
And I think even if you talk to the states--and I have
worked for dozens of them--even if you talk to them, they're
actually looking for that from the Federal Government. That
would not be an encroachment on how they want to do it. They
still want to control the time, place, and manner, but they are
looking to the Federal Government to add that basic level of
commonsense guardrails.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
Mr. Armentano, you've spent years creating effective state
and Federal policy. So what should Congress do to effectively
regulate the cannabis market?
Mr. Armentano. Again, I think our experience with alcohol
shows us the way. And when we look at the balance that
currently exists between the powers and regulatory authorities
states have with regard to the way they regulate the commerce
of alcohol within their state, and we balance that with the
role the Federal Government plays with regard to the interstate
commerce and production of alcohol, the way it's marketed
nationally, the way it's labeled is obviously uniform.
But the way individual states treat alcohol in many ways is
very unique. The way Texas, for instance, treats alcohol is
very different than the way California treats alcohol, the way
New York state treats alcohol.
Again, in many ways it's because the way the system worked
emerged out of a patchwork system. Because when the Federal
Government repealed its prohibition of alcohol it did not wave
a magic wand and tell states how to proceed. Some states
continued to criminalize the production and sale of alcohol for
many years post the Federal repeal. Other states, like New
York, had already began with their own regulatory policies even
prior to the lifting of alcohol prohibition at the Federal
level.
So, again, I think we have the roadmap. We have legislation
that's been introduced, like the MORE Act, like Representative
Mace's act that follows that model. And, again, I don't think
we need to reinvent the wheel here. I think we know what the
balance is and how to achieve it.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Ms. Littlejohn, in places like San Francisco and Washington
state with thriving cannabis industries there have been
disturbing patterns of violent robberies of cannabis companies.
Can you give us some detail on how the lack of banking
access and a need to hold large amounts of cash create
dangerous obstacles for cannabis businesses?
Ms. Littlejohn. Well, there are two factors in play.
One, again, Federal banking laws make it difficult,
especially for small businesses, to get access to banks,
because what happens is their threshold for risk is--when they
reach their threshold for risk with larger businesses that can
bring them more profits, they don't really have room for small
and minority-owned businesses. And so without access to a bank,
a lot of companies end up stocking their cash in their
facilities. And so, again, this becomes an attractive target to
folks.
The other challenge is that because of the continuing
Federal illegality of cannabis, there is also a lack of access
to insurance and a general risk environment that makes it
really hard for companies to fund their businesses or take even
adequate security measures to protect themselves and their
employees.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
My time is almost out, but there's still--we have to
conquer the difficulty that historically disempowered groups
have had in entering the cannabis business and how Congress can
help.
But thank you all so much.
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Kelly, thank you for your questioning.
We're now going to go to closing statements, and I will
begin with Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I first want to address Mayor Woodfin's comments earlier.
There is absolutely no justification for anybody up here today
in Congress to compare cannabis to slavery. And I condemn those
words by all means necessary. And I know that, Mr. Chairman,
that you do as well. It's a disgusting comparison and never
should have been stated up here today.
And more importantly is that prohibition of cannabis was
created out of racism. The Federal Government used the
prohibition of cannabis to investigate and raid communities of
Black and Brown and African Americans across the Nation. They
used it as justification to go after those individuals in those
communities. And, in fact, still today we know that if you are
Black or Brown or African American you are four times as likely
to be arrested for cannabis over Whites and Caucasians in this
country.
And it's wrong. And we see inequities all the time. I'm
from South Carolina where the difference between rich and poor
is often Black and White.
And cannabis is an area where we can work together on both
sides of the aisle to prohibit more of those inequities from
happening across our country and right the wrongs that have
been going on for decades now.
And I would encourage my colleagues, Republican and
Democrat, on both sides of the aisle to get on board with this
issue. The American people are asking for it. Seventy percent
of Americans support medical cannabis. Half or more than half
of Americans support adult and recreational use across the
country.
Whether they come from the red state of South Carolina or
the blue state of the California, East Coast to West Coast,
Americans from all communities, all colors, all ages support
this issue. And the only place it is controversial is here in
the Halls of the Capitol and it's wrong.
And I would encourage Senator Schumer, Senator Booker, my
colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle, with the
divisiveness in our Nation today, show the American people how
we can work together. We have so much opportunity. This is a
multi-billion-dollar industry. It is not going back in the
genie's bottle. It is here to stay. And we have got to work
together.
We heard today about the issue of drug overdose deaths.
There's no doubt that because of COVID and the mental health
crisis in our country the rate of addiction to opioids and the
opioid crisis is higher than it's ever been. But one dispensary
in one state anywhere in the country will reduce opioid
addiction, it'll reduce morbidity by upwards of 20 percent--
anywhere in the country.
We've got to use facts and data to back up the changes that
are needed in this country. I have talked to doctors from
Harvard University talking to the need for cannabis with
regards to Parkinson's patients, the way that it protects the
neurons in the brain and helps slow down the rate of
Parkinson's. I know this. I have a family member suffering from
Parkinson's right now. What it can do for cancer patients going
through chemotherapy. What it does for addiction. What it does
and can do for veterans with regards to PTSD.
And I have--this is a huge problem, but we have the
solution, the States Reform Act. I am going to say it over and
over again. And I am willing to work with anyone who is willing
to work with me. Finding common ground on this issue should not
be difficult. Shutting the cartels down on this issue should
not be difficult. Letting businesses be successful in the
market, giving certainty to the market for those businesses who
are operating today.
This is not difficult. We should be able to protect the
rights of states, protect our kids, protect veterans, look at
labeling, regulation, consistency through labeling.
The regulatory authority is here. It's turnkey. If we treat
cannabis like alcohol, we have all the regulation that we need.
We can do it overnight and have the greatest success in this
country today, but we only can do that if we work together.
So a message today to Republicans and Democrats alike on
this and any other issue is that if you're willing to work with
me, I am willing to work with you. It is past time that we get
it done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Mace.
And I would begin by associating myself entirely with your
remarks, beginning with your repudiation of the peculiar
analogy between slavery, which is the most horrific mass crime
in American history, with cannabis or cannabis use. So I think
we can all disavow that. And we apologize that the lectern was
used for that purpose at some moment today, and I hope there
was some confusion there.
I would also like to associate myself with your general
leadership on this whole question of reforming marijuana laws,
Ms. Mace. And I do think that this represents an extraordinary
opportunity for bipartisan, nonpartisan, multipartisan
convergence, because all of the major American values are
implicated by this problem: freedom, the right of people to
make their own decisions; public health; the interest of the
states in regulating in the interests of their own people; and
the use of science and reason in order to make the right public
policy decisions.
We've got 2.85 million Federal employees in America; in my
state, more than 100,000 people. And people have been
disqualified from Federal employment because they honestly
admit on a security clearance form that they have once used
marijuana, something that more than half of the country has
done.
And so I've had many constituents I've spoken to who have
been chosen for a significant Federal position after an
exacting process of interview who then are rejected in the
security clearance process because they have admitted to having
once used marijuana.
Now, the Biden administration issued guidance that the past
use of marijuana would not be an automatic disqualifier when
applying for Federal employment, but too often I'm hearing from
people who tell me that it operates just like that, as an
automatic instant disqualifier for their employment. And this
is obviously profoundly unfair to the individuals, but also
it's a tremendous waste of human talent and unnecessary
stigmatization and demoralization of our own people. This is
one small aspect of a whole regime of injustice that has grown
up around the war on marijuana.
And I'm very cheered by our hearing today, Ms. Mace,
because it shows that we've got the opportunity to advance a
lot of excellent legislation, including your bill, which has
been praised by a number of our witnesses and members today,
the security clearance bill that I am going to be advancing to
deal with that problem, other legislation that has come out of
the Judiciary Committee. I think we have a lot of momentum to
make progress on this.
As in so many other cases in American history, the states
and the people are leading the way before Congress. Congress
gets the memo last, but the states, as Mr. Freedman observed,
have really left prohibition behind and have established, as
Ms. Littlejohn has testified, whole new commercial
opportunities and endeavors that we want to make sure are
equally accessible to all of our people.
But the commerce has been leading the way. The states have
been leading the way by reforming their laws. The medical
profession, doctors and nurses and therapists, have been
leading the way by demanding medical marijuana laws that now
operate for the vast majority of American citizens. Congress
needs to catch up, and that's what this hearing is about, and
that's what I've learned today.
If we knew our history better, if we all took the time to
read into prohibition, we would see that America has been
through this before. And it's not that alcohol is like birthday
cake; it's not. We lose more than 100,000 people a year to
alcohol-related illnesses, to alcohol-related fatalities on the
highways. That needs to be regulated.
But the country had its experience with trying to
criminalize alcohol. It didn't work. And it caused much more
severe problems, and we know that is precisely the history
we're living through today again with marijuana. It needs to be
regulated. It needs to be carefully controlled, but we should
not be throwing people into prison for any period of time, for
one day, because they smoke marijuana. It makes no sense. We
should not be ruining people's lives over this. I think the
country has made its judgment. It's time for Congress to catch
up.
I want to thank all of our panelists for their insightful
remarks today.
I want to commend my colleagues for participating so
actively and intelligently in this dialog, all of our
colleagues across the aisle.
And, with that, without objection, all members will get
five legislative days within which to submit additional written
questions for the witnesses to the chair, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
Ms. Mace has announced that she will cosponsor the security
clearance bill that I'm announcing today, and I thank you very
much for that, and, again, salute you for your leadership, Ms.
Mace.
I ask our witnesses to please respond if we send you
further questions.
And the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]