[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 58 (Friday, April 1, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H4078-H4110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MARIJUANA OPPORTUNITY REINVESTMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT ACT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3617) to decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to
provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the
War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses,
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1017, in lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
117-37, modified by the amendment printed in part A of House Report
117-285, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
[[Page H4079]]
H.R. 3617
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Marijuana Opportunity
Reinvestment and Expungement Act'' or the ``MORE Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The communities that have been most harmed by cannabis
prohibition are benefiting the least from the legal marijuana
marketplace.
(2) A legacy of racial and ethnic injustices, compounded by
the disproportionate collateral consequences of 80 years of
cannabis prohibition enforcement, now limits participation in
the industry.
(3) 37 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands have adopted laws allowing legal
access to cannabis, and 15 States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam
have adopted laws legalizing cannabis for adult recreational
use.
(4) A total of 47 States have reformed their laws
pertaining to cannabis despite the Schedule I status of
marijuana and its Federal criminalization.
(5) Legal cannabis sales totaled $20,000,000,000 in 2020
and are projected to reach $40,500,000,000 by 2025.
(6) According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
enforcing cannabis prohibition laws costs taxpayers
approximately $3.6 billion a year.
(7) The continued enforcement of cannabis prohibition laws
results in over 600,000 arrests annually, disproportionately
impacting people of color who are almost 4 times more likely
to be arrested for cannabis possession than their White
counterparts, despite equal rates of use across populations.
(8) People of color have been historically targeted by
discriminatory sentencing practices resulting in Black men
receiving drug sentences that are 13.1 percent longer than
sentences imposed for White men and Latinos being nearly 6.5
times more likely to receive a Federal sentence for cannabis
possession than non-Hispanic Whites.
(9) In 2013, simple cannabis possession was the fourth most
common cause of deportation for any offense and the most
common cause of deportation for drug law violations.
(10) Fewer than one-fifth of cannabis business owners
identify as minorities and only approximately 4 percent are
black.
(11) Applicants for cannabis licenses are limited by
numerous laws, regulations, and exorbitant permit
applications, licensing fees, and costs in these States,
which can require more than $700,000.
(12) Historically disproportionate arrest and conviction
rates make it particularly difficult for people of color to
enter the legal cannabis marketplace, as most States bar
these individuals from participating.
(13) Federal law severely limits access to loans and
capital for cannabis businesses, disproportionately impacting
minority small business owners.
(14) Some States and municipalities have taken proactive
steps to mitigate inequalities in the legal cannabis
marketplace and ensure equal participation in the industry.
SEC. 3. DECRIMINALIZATION OF CANNABIS.
(a) Cannabis Removed From Schedule of Controlled
Substances.--
(1) Removal in statute.--Subsection (c) of schedule I of
section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
812) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(10) Marihuana.''; and
(B) by striking ``(17) Tetrahydrocannabinols, except for
tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under section 297A
of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946).''.
(2) Removal from schedule.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General
shall finalize a rulemaking under section 201(a)(2) removing
marihuana and tetrahydrocannabinols from the schedules of
controlled substances. For the purposes of the Controlled
Substances Act, marihuana and tetrahydrocannabinols shall
each be deemed to be a drug or other substance that does not
meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule. A
rulemaking under this paragraph shall be considered to have
taken effect as of the date of enactment of this Act for
purposes of any offense committed, case pending, conviction
entered, and, in the case of a juvenile, any offense
committed, case pending, and adjudication of juvenile
delinquency entered before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Controlled Substances Act.--
The Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 102(44) (21 U.S.C. 802(44)), by striking
``marihuana,'';
(2) in section 401(b) (21 U.S.C. 841(b))--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) in clause (vi), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(II) by striking clause (vii); and
(III) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (vii);
(ii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) in clause (vi), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(II) by striking clause (vii); and
(III) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (vii);
(iii) in subparagraph (C), in the first sentence, by
striking ``subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D)'' and inserting
``subparagraphs (A) and (B)'';
(iv) by striking subparagraph (D);
(v) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (D);
and
(vi) in subparagraph (D)(i), as so redesignated, by
striking ``subparagraphs (C) and (D)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (C)'';
(B) by striking paragraph (4); and
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as
paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively;
(3) in section 402(c)(2)(B) (21 U.S.C. 842(c)(2)(B)), by
striking ``, marihuana,'';
(4) in section 403(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 843(d)(1)), by striking
``, marihuana,'';
(5) in section 418(a) (21 U.S.C. 859(a)), by striking the
last sentence;
(6) in section 419(a) (21 U.S.C. 860(a)), by striking the
last sentence;
(7) in section 422(d) (21 U.S.C. 863(d))--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``marijuana,''; and
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking ``, such as a marihuana
cigarette,''; and
(8) in section 516(d) (21 U.S.C. 886(d)), by striking
``section 401(b)(6)'' each place the term appears and
inserting ``section 401(b)(5)''.
(c) Other Conforming Amendments.--
(1) National forest system drug control act of 1986.--The
National Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C.
559b et seq.) is amended--
(A) in section 15002(a) (16 U.S.C. 559b(a)) by striking
``marijuana and other'';
(B) in section 15003(2) (16 U.S.C. 559c(2)) by striking
``marijuana and other''; and
(C) in section 15004(2) (16 U.S.C. 559d(2)) by striking
``marijuana and other''.
(2) Interception of communications.--Section 2516 of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (1)(e), by striking ``marihuana,''; and
(B) in subsection (2) by striking ``marihuana''.
(3) FMCSA provisions.--
(A) Conforming amendment.--Section 31301(5) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``section 31306,''
and inserting ``sections 31306, 31306a, and subsections (b)
and (c) of section 31310,''.
(B) Definition.--Section 31306(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(i) by striking ``means any substance'' and inserting the
following: ``means--
``(A) any substance''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and
``(B) any substance not covered under subparagraph (A) that
was a substance under such section as of December 1, 2018,
and specified by the Secretary of Transportation.''.
(C) Disqualifications.--Section 31310(b) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) In this subsection and subsection (c), the term
`controlled substance' has the meaning given such term in
section 31306(a).''.
(4) FAA provisions.--Section 45101 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``means any substance'' and inserting the
following: ``means--
``(A) any substance''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and
``(B) any substance not covered under subparagraph (A) that
was a substance under such section as of December 1, 2018,
and specified by the Secretary of Transportation.''.
(5) FRA provisions.--Section 20140(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``means any substance'' and inserting the
following: ``means--
``(A) any substance''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and
``(B) any substance not covered under subparagraph (A) that
was a substance under such section as of December 1, 2018,
and specified by the Secretary of Transportation.''.
(6) FTA provisions.--Section 5331(a)(1) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``means any substance'' and inserting the
following: ``means--
``(A) any substance''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and
``(B) any substance not covered under subparagraph (A) that
was a substance under such section as of December 1, 2018,
and whose use the Secretary of Transportation decides has a
risk to transportation safety.''.
(d) Retroactivity.--The amendments made by this section to
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) are
retroactive and shall apply to any offense committed, case
pending, conviction entered, and, in the case of a juvenile,
any offense committed, case pending, or adjudication of
juvenile delinquency entered before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(e) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this subtitle shall
affect or modify--
(1) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301
et seq.);
(2) section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
262); or
(3) the authority of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services--
(A) under--
(i) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S. 301
et seq.); or
(ii) section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 262); or
(B) to promulgate Federal regulations and guidelines that
relate to products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived
compounds under the Act described in subparagraph (A)(i) or
the section described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
(f) Public Meetings.--Not later than one year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs, shall hold not less than one public meeting to address
the regulation, safety, manufacturing,
[[Page H4080]]
product quality, marketing, labeling, and sale of products
containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds.
(g) Special Rule for Federal Employee Testing.--Section 503
of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1987 (5 U.S.C. 7301
note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Marijuana.--
``(1) Continued testing.--Notwithstanding the Marijuana
Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act and the
amendments made thereby, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services may continue to include marijuana for purposes of
drug testing of Federal employees subject to this section,
Executive Order 12564, or other applicable Federal laws and
orders.
``(2) Definition.--The term `marijuana' has the meaning
given to the term `marihuana' in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 6 U.S.C. 802) on the day before
the date of enactment of the Marijuana Opportunity
Reinvestment and Expungement Act.''.
(h) Special Rule for Certain Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section may
not be construed to abridge the authority of the Secretary of
Transportation, or the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating, to regulate and screen for the
use of a controlled substance.
(2) Controlled substance defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``controlled substance'' means--
(A) any substance covered under section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) on the day before
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) any substance not covered under subparagraph (A) that
was a substance covered under section 102 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) on December 1, 2018, and
specified by the Secretary of Transportation.
SEC. 4. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA OF CANNABIS BUSINESS OWNERS AND
EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--The Bureau of Labor Statistics shall
regularly compile, maintain, and make public data on the
demographics of--
(1) individuals who are business owners in the cannabis
industry; and
(2) individuals who are employed in the cannabis industry.
(b) Demographic Data.--The data collected under subsection
(a) shall include data regarding--
(1) age;
(2) certifications and licenses;
(3) disability status;
(4) educational attainment;
(5) family and marital status;
(6) nativity;
(7) race and Hispanic ethnicity;
(8) school enrollment;
(9) veteran status; and
(10) sex.
(c) Confidentiality.--The name, address, and other
identifying information of individuals employed in the
cannabis industry shall be kept confidential by the Bureau
and not be made available to the public.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Cannabis.--The term ``cannabis'' means either marijuana
or cannabis as defined under the State law authorizing the
sale or use of cannabis in which the individual or entity is
located.
(2) Cannabis industry.--The term ``cannabis industry''
means an individual or entity that is licensed or permitted
under a State or local law to engage in commercial cannabis-
related activity.
(3) Owner.--The term ``owner'' means an individual or
entity that is defined as an owner under the State or local
law where the individual or business is licensed or
permitted.
SEC. 5. CREATION OF OPPORTUNITY TRUST FUND AND IMPOSITION OF
TAXES WITH RESPECT TO CANNABIS PRODUCTS.
(a) Establishment of Opportunity Trust Fund.--Subchapter A
of chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 9512. ESTABLISHMENT OF OPPORTUNITY TRUST FUND.
``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
`Opportunity Trust Fund' (referred to in this section as the
`Trust Fund'), consisting of such amounts as may be
appropriated or credited to such fund as provided in this
section or section 9602(b).
``(b) Transfers to Trust Fund.--There are hereby
appropriated to the Trust Fund amounts equivalent to the net
revenues received in the Treasury from the taxes imposed
under chapter 56.
``(c) Expenditures.--Amounts in the Trust Fund shall be
available, without further appropriation, only as follows:
``(1) 50 percent to the Attorney General to carry out
section 3052(a) of part OO of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968.
``(2) 10 percent to the Attorney General to carry out
section 3052(b) of part OO of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968.
``(3) 20 percent to the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration to carry out section 6(b)(1) of the Marijuana
Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act.
``(4) 20 percent to the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration to carry out section 6(b)(2) of the Marijuana
Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act.''.
(b) Cannabis Revenue and Regulation Act.--Subtitle E of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new chapter:
``CHAPTER 56--CANNABIS PRODUCTS
``subchapter a. tax on cannabis products
``subchapter b. occupational tax
``subchapter c. bond and permits
``subchapter d. operations
``subchapter e. penalties
``Subchapter A--Tax on Cannabis Products
``Sec. 5901. Imposition of tax.
``Sec. 5902. Definitions.
``Sec. 5903. Liability and method of payment.
``Sec. 5904. Exemption from tax; transfers in bond.
``Sec. 5905. Credit, refund, or drawback of tax.
``SEC. 5901. IMPOSITION OF TAX.
``(a) Imposition of Tax.--There is hereby imposed on any
cannabis product produced in or imported into the United
States a tax equal to--
``(1) for any such product removed during the first 5
calendar years ending after the date on which this chapter
becomes effective, the applicable percentage of such
product's removal price, and
``(2) for any product removed during any calendar year
after the calendar years described in paragraph (1), the
applicable equivalent amount.
``(b) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of subsection
(a)(1), the applicable percentage shall be determined as
follows:
``(1) For any cannabis product removed during the first 2
calendar years ending after the date on which this chapter
becomes effective, 5 percent.
``(2) For any cannabis product removed during the calendar
year after the last calendar year to which paragraph (1)
applies, 6 percent.
``(3) For any cannabis product removed during the calendar
year after the calendar year to which paragraph (2) applies,
7 percent.
``(4) For any cannabis product removed during the calendar
year after the calendar year to which paragraph (3) applies,
8 percent.
``(c) Applicable Equivalent Amount.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2), the
term `applicable equivalent amount' means, with respect to
any cannabis product removed during any calendar year, an
amount equal to--
``(A) in the case of any cannabis product not described in
subparagraph (B), the product of the applicable rate per
ounce multiplied by the number of ounces of such product (and
a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts
of an ounce of such product), and
``(B) in the case of any THC-measurable cannabis product,
the product of the applicable rate per gram multiplied by the
number of grams of tetrahydrocannabinol in such product (and
a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts
of a gram of tetrahydrocannabinol in such product).
``(2) Applicable rates.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the
term `applicable rate per ounce' means, with respect to any
cannabis product removed during any calendar year, 8 percent
of the prevailing sales price of cannabis flowers sold in the
United States during the 12-month period ending one calendar
quarter before such calendar year, expressed on a per ounce
basis, as determined by the Secretary.
``(B) THC-measurable cannabis products.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)(B), the term `applicable rate per gram' means,
with respect to any cannabis product removed during any
calendar year, 8 percent of the prevailing sales price of
tetrahydrocannabinol sold in the United States during the 12-
month period ending one calendar quarter before such calendar
year, expressed on a per gram basis, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(d) Time of Attachment on Cannabis Products.--The tax
under this section shall attach to any cannabis product as
soon as such product is in existence as such, whether it be
subsequently separated or transferred into any other
substance, either in the process of original production or by
any subsequent process.
``SEC. 5902. DEFINITIONS.
``(a) Definitions Related to Cannabis Products.--For
purposes of this chapter--
``(1) Cannabis product.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term `cannabis product' means any article which contains
(or consists of) cannabis.
``(B) Exceptions.--The term `cannabis product' shall not
include an FDA-approved article or industrial hemp.
``(C) FDA-approved article.--The term `FDA-approved
article' means any article if the producer or importer
thereof demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary of
Health and Human Services that such article is--
``(i) a drug--
``(I) that is approved under section 505 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or licensed under section 351 of
the Public Health Service Act, or
``(II) for which an investigational use exemption has been
authorized under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act or under section 351(a) of the Public Health
Service Act, or
``(ii) a combination product (as described in section
503(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), the
constituent parts of which were approved or cleared under
section 505, 510(k), or 515 of such Act.
``(D) Industrial hemp.--The term `industrial hemp' means
the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant,
whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol
concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight
basis.
``(2) THC-measurable cannabis product.--The term `THC-
measurable cannabis product' means any cannabis product--
``(A) with respect to which the Secretary has made a
determination that the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol in such
product can be measured with a high degree of accuracy, or
``(B) which is not cannabis flower and the concentration of
tetrahydrocannabinol in which
[[Page H4081]]
is significantly higher than the average such concentration
in cannabis flower.
``(3) Cannabis.--The term `cannabis' has the meaning given
such term under section 102(16) of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)).
``(b) Definitions Related to Cannabis Enterprises.--For
purposes of this chapter--
``(1) Cannabis enterprise.--The term `cannabis enterprise'
means a producer, importer, or export warehouse proprietor.
``(2) Producer.--
``(A) In general.--The term `producer' means any person who
plants, cultivates, harvests, grows, manufactures, produces,
compounds, converts, processes, prepares, or packages any
cannabis product.
``(B) Personal use exception.--Subject to regulation
prescribed by the Secretary, the term `producer' shall not
include any individual otherwise described in subparagraph
(A) if the only cannabis product described in such
subparagraph with respect to such individual is for personal
or family use and not for sale.
``(3) Importer.--The term `importer' means any person who--
``(A) is in the United States and to whom non-tax-paid
cannabis products, produced in a foreign country or a
possession of the United States, are shipped or consigned,
``(B) removes cannabis products for sale or consumption in
the United States from a customs bonded warehouse, or
``(C) smuggles or otherwise unlawfully brings any cannabis
product into the United States.
``(4) Export warehouse proprietor.--
``(A) In general.--The term `export warehouse proprietor'
means any person who operates an export warehouse.
``(B) Export warehouse.--The term `export warehouse' means
a bonded internal revenue warehouse for the storage of
cannabis products, upon which the internal revenue tax has
not been paid--
``(i) for subsequent shipment to a foreign country or a
possession of the United States, or
``(ii) for consumption beyond the jurisdiction of the
internal revenue laws of the United States.
``(5) Cannabis production facility.--The term `cannabis
production facility' means an establishment which is
qualified under subchapter C to perform any operation for
which such qualification is required under such subchapter.
``(c) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this chapter--
``(1) Produce.--The term `produce' includes any activity
described in subsection (b)(2)(A).
``(2) Removal; remove.--The terms `removal' or `remove'
means--
``(A) the transfer of cannabis products from the premises
of a producer (or the transfer of such products from the
bonded premises of a producer to a non-bonded premises of
such producer),
``(B) release of such products from customs custody, or
``(C) smuggling or other unlawful importation of such
products into the United States.
``(3) Removal price.--The term `removal price' means--
``(A) except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the
price for which the cannabis product is sold in the sale
which occurs in connection with the removal of such product,
``(B) in the case of any such sale which is described in
section 5903(c), the price determined under such section, and
``(C) if there is no sale which occurs in connection with
such removal, the price which would be determined under
section 5903(c) if such product were sold at a price which
cannot be determined.
``SEC. 5903. LIABILITY AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
``(a) Liability for Tax.--
``(1) Original liability.--The producer or importer of any
cannabis product shall be liable for the taxes imposed
thereon by section 5901.
``(2) Transfer of liability.--
``(A) In general.--When cannabis products are transferred,
without payment of tax, pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of
section 5904--
``(i) except as provided in clause (ii), the transferee
shall become liable for the tax upon receipt by the
transferee of such articles, and the transferor shall
thereupon be relieved of their liability for such tax, and
``(ii) in the case of cannabis products which are released
in bond from customs custody for transfer to the bonded
premises of a producer, the transferee shall become liable
for the tax on such articles upon release from customs
custody, and the importer shall thereupon be relieved of
their liability for such tax.
``(B) Returned to bond.--All provisions of this chapter
applicable to cannabis products in bond shall be applicable
to such articles returned to bond upon withdrawal from the
market or returned to bond after previous removal for a tax-
exempt purpose.
``(b) Method of Payment of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Taxes paid on basis of return.--The taxes imposed by
section 5901 shall be paid on the basis of return. The
Secretary shall, by regulations, prescribe the period or the
event to be covered by such return and the information to be
furnished on such return.
``(B) Application to transferees.--In the case of any
transfer to which subsection (a)(2)(A) applies, the tax under
section 5901 on the transferee shall (if not otherwise
relieved by reason of a subsequent transfer to which such
subsection applies) be imposed with respect to the removal of
the cannabis product from the bonded premises of the
transferee.
``(C) Postponement.--Any postponement under this subsection
of the payment of taxes determined at the time of removal
shall be conditioned upon the filing of such additional
bonds, and upon compliance with such requirements, as the
Secretary may prescribe for the protection of the revenue.
The Secretary may, by regulations, require payment of tax on
the basis of a return prior to removal of the cannabis
products where a person defaults in the postponed payment of
tax on the basis of a return under this subsection or
regulations prescribed thereunder.
``(D) Administration and penalties.--All administrative and
penalty provisions of this title, insofar as applicable,
shall apply to any tax imposed by section 5901.
``(2) Time for payment of taxes.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, in the case of taxes on cannabis products removed
during any semimonthly period under bond for deferred payment
of tax, the last day for payment of such taxes shall be the
14th day after the last day of such semimonthly period.
``(B) Imported articles.--In the case of cannabis products
which are imported into the United States, the following
provisions shall apply:
``(i) In general.--The last day for payment of tax shall be
the 14th day after the last day of the semimonthly period
during which the article is entered into the customs
territory of the United States.
``(ii) Special rule for entry of warehousing.--Except as
provided in clause (iv), in the case of an entry for
warehousing, the last day for payment of tax shall not be
later than the 14th day after the last day of the semimonthly
period during which the article is removed from the first
such warehouse.
``(iii) Foreign trade zones.--Except as provided in clause
(iv) and in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, articles
brought into a foreign trade zone shall, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, be treated for purposes of this
subsection as if such zone were a single customs warehouse.
``(iv) Exception for articles destined for export.--Clauses
(ii) and (iii) shall not apply to any article which is shown
to the satisfaction of the Secretary to be destined for
export.
``(C) Cannabis products brought into the united states from
puerto rico.--In the case of cannabis products which are
brought into the United States from Puerto Rico and subject
to tax under section 7652, the last day for payment of tax
shall be the 14th day after the last day of the semimonthly
period during which the article is brought into the United
States.
``(D) Special rule where due date falls on saturday,
sunday, or holiday.--Notwithstanding section 7503, if, but
for this subparagraph, the due date under this paragraph
would fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday (as
defined in section 7503), such due date shall be the
immediately preceding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or
such a holiday.
``(E) Special rule for unlawfully produced cannabis
products.--In the case of any cannabis products produced in
the United States at any place other than the premises of a
producer that has filed the bond and obtained the permit
required under this chapter, tax shall be due and payable
immediately upon production.
``(3) Payment by electronic fund transfer.--Any person who
in any 12-month period, ending December 31, was liable for a
gross amount equal to or exceeding $5,000,000 in taxes
imposed on cannabis products by section 5901 (or section
7652) shall pay such taxes during the succeeding calendar
year by electronic fund transfer (as defined in section
5061(e)(2)) to a Federal Reserve Bank. Rules similar to the
rules of section 5061(e)(3) shall apply to the $5,000,000
amount specified in the preceding sentence.
``(c) Determination of Price.--
``(1) Constructive sale price.--
``(A) In general.--If an article is sold directly to
consumers, sold on consignment, or sold (otherwise than
through an arm's length transaction) at less than the fair
market price, or if the price for which the article sold
cannot be determined, the tax under section 5901(a) shall be
computed on the price for which such articles are sold, in
the ordinary course of trade, by producers thereof, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(B) Arm's length.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of this section, a sale is
considered to be made under circumstances otherwise than at
arm's length if--
``(I) the parties are members of the same controlled group,
whether or not such control is actually exercised to
influence the sale price,
``(II) the parties are members of a family, as defined in
section 267(c)(4), or
``(III) the sale is made pursuant to special arrangements
between a producer and a purchaser.
``(ii) Controlled groups.--
``(I) In general.--The term `controlled group' has the
meaning given to such term by subsection (a) of section 1563,
except that `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for
`at least 80 percent' each place it appears in such
subsection.
``(II) Controlled groups which include nonincorporated
persons.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary,
principles similar to the principles of subclause (I) shall
apply to a group of persons under common control where one or
more of such persons is not a corporation.
``(2) Containers, packing and transportation charges.--In
determining, for the purposes of this chapter, the price for
which an article is sold, there shall be included any charge
for coverings and containers of whatever nature, and any
charge incident to placing the article in condition packed
ready for shipment, but there shall be excluded the amount of
tax imposed by this chapter, whether or not stated as a
separate charge. A transportation, delivery, insurance,
installation, or other charge (not required by the preceding
sentence to be included) shall be excluded from the price
only if the amount thereof is established to the satisfaction
of the Secretary in accordance with regulations.
[[Page H4082]]
``(3) Determination of applicable equivalent amounts.--
Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply for purposes of section
5901(c) only to the extent that the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(d) Partial Payments and Installment Accounts.--
``(1) Partial payments.--In the case of--
``(A) a contract for the sale of an article wherein it is
provided that the price shall be paid by installments and
title to the article sold does not pass until a future date
notwithstanding partial payment by installments,
``(B) a conditional sale, or
``(C) a chattel mortgage arrangement wherein it is provided
that the sales price shall be paid in installments,
there shall be paid upon each payment with respect to the
article a percentage of such payment equal to the rate of tax
in effect on the date such payment is due.
``(2) Sales of installment accounts.--If installment
accounts, with respect to payments on which tax is being
computed as provided in paragraph (1), are sold or otherwise
disposed of, then paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect
to any subsequent payments on such accounts (other than
subsequent payments on returned accounts with respect to
which credit or refund is allowable by reason of section
6416(b)(5)), but instead--
``(A) there shall be paid an amount equal to the difference
between--
``(i) the tax previously paid on the payments on such
installment accounts, and
``(ii) the total tax which would be payable if such
installment accounts had not been sold or otherwise disposed
of (computed as provided in paragraph (1)), except that
``(B) if any such sale is pursuant to the order of, or
subject to the approval of, a court of competent jurisdiction
in a bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding, the amount computed
under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed the sum of the
amounts computed by multiplying--
``(i) the proportionate share of the amount for which such
accounts are sold which is allocable to each unpaid
installment payment, by
``(ii) the rate of tax under this chapter in effect on the
date such unpaid installment payment is or was due.
The sum of the amounts payable under this subsection in
respect of the sale of any article shall not exceed the total
tax.
``SEC. 5904. EXEMPTION FROM TAX; TRANSFERS IN BOND.
``(a) Exemption From Tax.--Cannabis products on which the
internal revenue tax has not been paid or determined may,
subject to such regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe,
be withdrawn from the bonded premises of any producer in
approved containers free of tax and not for resale for use--
``(1) exclusively in scientific research by a laboratory,
``(2) by a proprietor of a cannabis production facility in
research, development, or testing (other than consumer
testing or other market analysis) of processes, systems,
materials, or equipment, relating to cannabis or cannabis
operations, under such limitations and conditions as to
quantities, use, and accountability as the Secretary may by
regulations require for the protection of the revenue, or
``(3) by the United States or any governmental agency
thereof, any State, any political subdivision of a State, or
the District of Columbia, for nonconsumption purposes.
``(b) Cannabis Products Transferred or Removed in Bond From
Domestic Factories and Export Warehouses.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to such regulations and under
such bonds as the Secretary shall prescribe, a producer or
export warehouse proprietor may transfer cannabis products,
without payment of tax, to the bonded premises of another
producer or export warehouse proprietor, or remove such
articles, without payment of tax, for shipment to a foreign
country or a possession of the United States, or for
consumption beyond the jurisdiction of the internal revenue
laws of the United States.
``(2) Labeling.--Cannabis products may not be transferred
or removed under this subsection unless such products bear
such marks, labels, or notices as the Secretary shall by
regulations prescribe.
``(c) Cannabis Products Released in Bond From Customs
Custody.--Cannabis products imported or brought into the
United States may be released from customs custody, without
payment of tax, for delivery to a producer or export
warehouse proprietor if such articles are not put up in
packages, in accordance with such regulations and under such
bond as the Secretary shall prescribe.
``(d) Cannabis Products Exported and Returned.--Cannabis
products classifiable under item 9801.00.10 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to duty on
certain articles previously exported and returned), as in
effect on the date of the enactment of the Marijuana
Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, may be released
from customs custody, without payment of that part of the
duty attributable to the internal revenue tax for delivery to
the original producer of such cannabis products or to the
export warehouse proprietor authorized by such producer to
receive such products, in accordance with such regulations
and under such bond as the Secretary shall prescribe. Upon
such release such products shall be subject to this chapter
as if they had not been exported or otherwise removed from
internal revenue bond.
``SEC. 5905. CREDIT, REFUND, OR DRAWBACK OF TAX.
``(a) Credit or Refund.--
``(1) In general.--Credit or refund of any tax imposed by
this chapter or section 7652 shall be allowed or made
(without interest) to the cannabis enterprise on proof
satisfactory to the Secretary that the claimant cannabis
enterprise has paid the tax on--
``(A) cannabis products withdrawn from the market by the
claimant, or
``(B) such products lost (otherwise than by theft) or
destroyed, by fire, casualty, or act of God, while in the
possession or ownership of the claimant.
``(2) Cannabis products lost or destroyed in bond.--
``(A) Extent of loss allowance.--No tax shall be collected
in respect of cannabis products lost or destroyed while in
bond, except that such tax shall be collected--
``(i) in the case of loss by theft, unless the Secretary
finds that the theft occurred without connivance, collusion,
fraud, or negligence on the part of the proprietor of the
cannabis production facility, owner, consignor, consignee,
bailee, or carrier, or their employees or agents,
``(ii) in the case of voluntary destruction, unless such
destruction is carried out as provided in paragraph (3), and
``(iii) in the case of an unexplained shortage of cannabis
products.
``(B) Proof of loss.--In any case in which cannabis
products are lost or destroyed, whether by theft or
otherwise, the Secretary may require the proprietor of a
cannabis production facility or other person liable for the
tax to file a claim for relief from the tax and submit proof
as to the cause of such loss. In every case where it appears
that the loss was by theft, the burden shall be upon the
proprietor of the cannabis production facility or other
person responsible for the tax under section 5901 to
establish to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such loss
did not occur as the result of connivance, collusion, fraud,
or negligence on the part of the proprietor of the cannabis
production facility, owner, consignor, consignee, bailee, or
carrier, or their employees or agents.
``(C) Refund of tax.--In any case where the tax would not
be collectible by virtue of subparagraph (A), but such tax
has been paid, the Secretary shall refund such tax.
``(D) Limitations.--Except as provided in subparagraph (E),
no tax shall be abated, remitted, credited, or refunded under
this paragraph where the loss occurred after the tax was
determined. The abatement, remission, credit, or refund of
taxes provided for by subparagraphs (A) and (C) in the case
of loss of cannabis products by theft shall only be allowed
to the extent that the claimant is not indemnified against or
recompensed in respect of the tax for such loss.
``(E) Applicability.--The provisions of this paragraph
shall extend to and apply in respect of cannabis products
lost after the tax was determined and before completion of
the physical removal of the cannabis products from the bonded
premises.
``(3) Voluntary destruction.--The proprietor of a cannabis
production facility or other persons liable for the tax
imposed by this chapter or by section 7652 with respect to
any cannabis product in bond may voluntarily destroy such
products, but only if such destruction is under such
supervision and under such regulations as the Secretary may
prescribe.
``(4) Limitation.--Any claim for credit or refund of tax
under this subsection shall be filed within 6 months after
the date of the withdrawal from the market, loss, or
destruction of the products to which the claim relates, and
shall be in such form and contain such information as the
Secretary shall by regulations prescribe.
``(b) Drawback of Tax.--There shall be an allowance of
drawback of tax paid on cannabis products, when shipped from
the United States, in accordance with such regulations and
upon the filing of such bond as the Secretary shall
prescribe.
``Subchapter B--Occupational Tax
``Sec. 5911. Imposition and rate of tax.
``Sec. 5912. Payment of tax.
``Sec. 5913. Provisions relating to liability for occupational taxes.
``Sec. 5914. Application to State laws.
``SEC. 5911. IMPOSITION AND RATE OF TAX.
``(a) In General.--Any person engaged in business as a
producer or an export warehouse proprietor shall pay a tax of
$1,000 per year (referred to in this subchapter as an
`occupational tax') in respect of each premises at which such
business is carried on.
``(b) Penalty for Failure To Register.--Any person engaged
in business as a producer or an export warehouse proprietor
who willfully fails to pay the occupation tax shall be fined
not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or
both, for each such offense.
``SEC. 5912. PAYMENT OF TAX.
``(a) Condition Precedent to Carrying on Business.--No
person shall be engaged in or carry on any trade or business
subject to the occupational tax until such person has paid
such tax.
``(b) Computation.--
``(1) In general.--The occupational tax shall be imposed--
``(A) as of on the first day of July in each year, or
``(B) on commencing any trade or business on which such tax
is imposed.
``(2) Period.--In the case of a tax imposed under
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), the occupational tax shall
be reckoned for 1 year, and in the case of subparagraph (B)
of such paragraph, it shall be reckoned proportionately, from
the first day of the month in which the liability to such tax
commenced, to and including the 30th day of June following.
``(c) Method of Payment.--
``(1) Payment by return.--The occupational tax shall be
paid on the basis of a return under such regulations as the
Secretary shall prescribe.
``(2) Stamp denoting payment of tax.--After receiving a
properly executed return and remittance of any occupational
tax, the Secretary
[[Page H4083]]
shall issue to the taxpayer an appropriate stamp as a receipt
denoting payment of the tax. This paragraph shall not apply
in the case of a return covering liability for a past period.
``SEC. 5913. PROVISIONS RELATING TO LIABILITY FOR
OCCUPATIONAL TAXES.
``(a) Partners.--Any number of persons doing business in
partnership at any one place shall be required to pay a
single occupational tax.
``(b) Different Businesses of Same Ownership and
Location.--Whenever more than one of the pursuits or
occupations described in this subchapter are carried on in
the same place by the same person at the same time, except as
otherwise provided in this subchapter, the occupational tax
shall be paid for each according to the rates severally
prescribed.
``(c) Businesses in More Than One Location.--
``(1) Liability for tax.--The payment of the occupational
tax shall not exempt from an additional occupational tax the
person carrying on a trade or business in any other place
than that stated in the records of the Internal Revenue
Service.
``(2) Storage.--Nothing contained in paragraph (1) shall
require imposition of an occupational tax for the storage of
cannabis products at a location other than the place where
such products are sold or offered for sale.
``(3) Place.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`place' means the entire office, plant or area of the
business in any one location under the same proprietorship.
``(B) Divisions.--For purposes of this paragraph, any
passageways, streets, highways, rail crossings, waterways, or
partitions dividing the premises shall not be deemed
sufficient separation to require an additional occupational
tax, if the various divisions are otherwise contiguous.
``(d) Death or Change of Location.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to the person who has paid
the occupational tax for the carrying on of any business at
any place, any person described in paragraph (2) may secure
the right to carry on, without incurring any additional
occupational tax, the same business at the same place for the
remainder of the taxable period for which the occupational
tax was paid.
``(2) Eligible persons.--The persons described in this
paragraph are the following:
``(A) The surviving spouse or child, or executor or
administrator or other legal representative, of a deceased
taxpayer.
``(B) A husband or wife succeeding to the business of his
or her living spouse.
``(C) A receiver or trustee in bankruptcy, or an assignee
for benefit of creditors.
``(D) The partner or partners remaining after death or
withdrawal of a member of a partnership.
``(3) Change of location.--When any person moves to any
place other than the place for which occupational tax was
paid for the carrying on of any business, such person may
secure the right to carry on, without incurring additional
occupational tax, the same business at the new location for
the remainder of the taxable period for which the
occupational tax was paid. To secure the right to carry on
the business without incurring additional occupational tax,
the successor, or the person relocating their business, must
register the succession or relocation with the Secretary in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(e) Federal Agencies or Instrumentalities.--Any tax
imposed by this subchapter shall apply to any agency or
instrumentality of the United States unless such agency or
instrumentality is granted by statute a specific exemption
from such tax.
``SEC. 5914. APPLICATION TO STATE LAWS.
``The payment of any tax imposed by this subchapter for
carrying on any trade or business shall not be held to--
``(1) exempt any person from any penalty or punishment
provided by the laws of any State for carrying on such trade
or business within such State, or in any manner to authorize
the commencement or continuance of such trade or business
contrary to the laws of such State or in places prohibited by
municipal law, or
``(2) prohibit any State from placing a duty or tax on the
same trade or business, for State or other purposes.
``Subchapter C--Bond and Permits
``Sec. 5921. Establishment and bond.
``Sec. 5922. Application for permit.
``Sec. 5923. Permit.
``SEC. 5921. ESTABLISHMENT AND BOND.
``(a) Prohibition on Production Outside of Bonded Cannabis
Production Facility.--
``(1) In general.--Except as authorized by the Secretary or
on the bonded premises of a cannabis production facility duly
authorized to produce cannabis products according to law, no
cannabis product may planted, cultivated, harvested, grown,
manufactured, produced, compounded, converted, processed,
prepared, or packaged in any building or on any premises.
``(2) Authorized producers only.--No person other than a
producer which has filed the bond required under subsection
(b) and received a permit described in section 5923 may
produce any cannabis product.
``(3) Personal use exception.--This subsection shall not
apply with respect the activities of an individual who is not
treated as a producer by reason of section 5902(b)(2)(B).
``(b) Bond.--
``(1) When required.--Every person, before commencing
business as a producer or an export warehouse proprietor,
shall file such bond, conditioned upon compliance with this
chapter and regulations issued thereunder, in such form,
amount, and manner as the Secretary shall by regulation
prescribe. A new or additional bond may be required whenever
the Secretary considers such action necessary for the
protection of the revenue.
``(2) Approval or disapproval.--No person shall engage in
such business until he receives notice of approval of such
bond. A bond may be disapproved, upon notice to the principal
on the bond, if the Secretary determines that the bond is not
adequate to protect the revenue.
``(3) Cancellation.--Any bond filed hereunder may be
canceled, upon notice to the principal on the bond, whenever
the Secretary determines that the bond no longer adequately
protects the revenue.
``SEC. 5922. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT.
``(a) In General.--Every person, before commencing business
as a cannabis enterprise, and at such other time as the
Secretary shall by regulation prescribe, shall make
application for the permit provided for in section 5923. The
application shall be in such form as the Secretary shall
prescribe and shall set forth, truthfully and accurately, the
information called for on the form. Such application may be
rejected and the permit denied if the Secretary, after notice
and opportunity for hearing, finds that--
``(1) the premises on which it is proposed to conduct the
cannabis enterprise will not be adequate to protect the
revenue after commencing operations, or
``(2) such person (including, in the case of a corporation,
any officer, director, or principal stockholder and, in the
case of a partnership, any partner) has failed to disclose
any material information required or made any materially
false statement in the application therefor.
``SEC. 5923. PERMIT.
``(a) Issuance.--A person shall not engage in business as a
cannabis enterprise without a permit to engage in such
business. Such permit, conditioned upon compliance with this
chapter and regulations issued thereunder, shall be issued in
such form and in such manner as the Secretary shall by
regulation prescribe. A new permit may be required at such
other time as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe.
``(b) Suspension or Revocation.--
``(1) Show cause hearing.--If the Secretary has reason to
believe that any person holding a permit--
``(A) has not in good faith complied with this chapter, or
with any other provision of this title involving intent to
defraud,
``(B) has violated the conditions of such permit,
``(C) has failed to disclose any material information
required or made any material false statement in the
application for such permit, or
``(D) has failed to maintain their premises in such manner
as to protect the revenue,
the Secretary shall issue an order, stating the facts
charged, citing such person to show cause why their permit
should not be suspended or revoked.
``(2) Action following hearing.--If, after hearing, the
Secretary finds that such person has not shown cause why
their permit should not be suspended or revoked, such permit
shall be suspended for such period as the Secretary deems
proper or shall be revoked.
``(c) Information Reporting.--The Secretary may require--
``(1) information reporting by any person issued a permit
under this section, and
``(2) information reporting by such other persons as the
Secretary deems necessary to carry out this chapter.
``(d) Inspection or Disclosure of Information.--For rules
relating to inspection and disclosure of returns and return
information, see section 6103(o).
``Subchapter D--Operations
``Sec. 5931. Inventories, reports, and records.
``Sec. 5932. Packaging and labeling.
``Sec. 5933. Purchase, receipt, possession, or sale of cannabis
products after removal.
``Sec. 5934. Restrictions relating to marks, labels, notices, and
packages.
``Sec. 5935. Restriction on importation of previously exported cannabis
products.
``SEC. 5931. INVENTORIES, REPORTS, AND RECORDS.
``Every cannabis enterprise shall--
``(1) make a true and accurate inventory at the time of
commencing business, at the time of concluding business, and
at such other times, in such manner and form, and to include
such items, as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe,
with such inventories to be subject to verification by any
internal revenue officer,
``(2) make reports containing such information, in such
form, at such times, and for such periods as the Secretary
shall by regulation prescribe, and
``(3) keep such records in such manner as the Secretary
shall by regulation prescribe, with such records to be
available for inspection by any internal revenue officer
during business hours.
``SEC. 5932. PACKAGING AND LABELING.
``(a) Packages.--All cannabis products shall, before
removal, be put up in such packages as the Secretary shall by
regulation prescribe.
``(b) Marks, Labels, and Notices.--Every package of
cannabis products shall, before removal, bear the marks,
labels, and notices if any, that the Secretary by regulation
prescribes.
``(c) Lottery Features.--No certificate, coupon, or other
device purporting to be or to represent a ticket, chance,
share, or an interest in, or dependent on, the event of a
lottery shall be contained in, attached to, or stamped,
marked, written, or printed on any package of cannabis
products.
``(d) Indecent or Immoral Material Prohibited.--No indecent
or immoral picture, print, or representation shall be
contained in, attached to, or stamped, marked, written, or
printed on any package of cannabis products.
[[Page H4084]]
``(e) Exceptions.--Subject to regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, cannabis products may be exempted from subsections
(a) and (b) if such products are--
``(1) for experimental purposes, or
``(2) transferred to the bonded premises of another
producer or export warehouse proprietor or released in bond
from customs custody for delivery to a producer.
``SEC. 5933. PURCHASE, RECEIPT, POSSESSION, OR SALE OF
CANNABIS PRODUCTS AFTER REMOVAL.
``(a) Restriction.--No person shall--
``(1) with intent to defraud the United States, purchase,
receive, possess, offer for sale, or sell or otherwise
dispose of, after removal, any cannabis products--
``(A) upon which the tax has not been paid or determined in
the manner and at the time prescribed by this chapter or
regulations thereunder, or
``(B) which, after removal without payment of tax pursuant
to section 5904(a), have been diverted from the applicable
purpose or use specified in that section,
``(2) with intent to defraud the United States, purchase,
receive, possess, offer for sale, or sell or otherwise
dispose of, after removal, any cannabis products which are
not put up in packages as required under section 5932 or
which are put up in packages not bearing the marks, labels,
and notices, as required under such section, or
``(3) otherwise than with intent to defraud the United
States, purchase, receive, possess, offer for sale, or sell
or otherwise dispose of, after removal, any cannabis products
which are not put up in packages as required under section
5932 or which are put up in packages not bearing the marks,
labels, and notices, as required under such section.
``(b) Exception.--Paragraph (3) of subsection (a) shall not
prevent the sale or delivery of cannabis products directly to
consumers from proper packages, nor apply to such articles
when so sold or delivered.
``(c) Liability to Tax.--Any person who possesses cannabis
products in violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection
(a) shall be liable for a tax equal to the tax on such
articles.
``SEC. 5934. RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO MARKS, LABELS, NOTICES,
AND PACKAGES.
``No person shall, with intent to defraud the United
States, destroy, obliterate, or detach any mark, label, or
notice prescribed or authorized, by this chapter or
regulations thereunder, to appear on, or be affixed to, any
package of cannabis products before such package is emptied.
``SEC. 5935. RESTRICTION ON IMPORTATION OF PREVIOUSLY
EXPORTED CANNABIS PRODUCTS.
``(a) Export Labeled Cannabis Products.--
``(1) In general.--Cannabis products produced in the United
States and labeled for exportation under this chapter--
``(A) may be transferred to or removed from the premises of
a producer or an export warehouse proprietor only if such
articles are being transferred or removed without tax in
accordance with section 5904,
``(B) may be imported or brought into the United States,
after their exportation, only if such articles either are
eligible to be released from customs custody with the partial
duty exemption provided in section 5904(d) or are returned to
the original producer of such article as provided in section
5904(c), and
``(C) may not be sold or held for sale for domestic
consumption in the United States unless such articles are
removed from their export packaging and repackaged by the
original producer into new packaging that does not contain an
export label.
``(2) Alterations by persons other than original
producer.--This section shall apply to articles labeled for
export even if the packaging or the appearance of such
packaging to the consumer of such articles has been modified
or altered by a person other than the original producer so as
to remove or conceal or attempt to remove or conceal
(including by the placement of a sticker over) any export
label.
``(3) Exports include shipments to puerto rico.--For
purposes of this section, section 5904(d), section 5941, and
such other provisions as the Secretary may specify by
regulations, references to exportation shall be treated as
including a reference to shipment to the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
``(b) Export Label.--For purposes of this section, an
article is labeled for export or contains an export label if
it bears the mark, label, or notice required under section
5904(b).
``Subchapter E--Penalties
``Sec. 5941. Civil penalties.
``Sec. 5942. Criminal penalties.
``SEC. 5941. CIVIL PENALTIES.
``(a) Omitting Things Required or Doing Things Forbidden.--
Whoever willfully omits, neglects, or refuses to comply with
any duty imposed upon them by this chapter, or to do, or
cause to be done, any of the things required by this chapter,
or does anything prohibited by this chapter, shall in
addition to any other penalty provided in this title, be
liable to a penalty of $10,000, to be recovered, with costs
of suit, in a civil action, except where a penalty under
subsection (b) or (c) or under section 6651 or 6653 or part
II of subchapter A of chapter 68 may be collected from such
person by assessment.
``(b) Failure To Pay Tax.--Whoever fails to pay any tax
imposed by this chapter at the time prescribed by law or
regulations, shall, in addition to any other penalty provided
in this title, be liable to a penalty of 10 percent of the
tax due but unpaid.
``(c) Sale of Cannabis or Cannabis Products for Export.--
``(1) Every person who sells, relands, or receives within
the jurisdiction of the United States any cannabis products
which have been labeled or shipped for exportation under this
chapter,
``(2) every person who sells or receives such relanded
cannabis products, and
``(3) every person who aids or abets in such selling,
relanding, or receiving,
shall, in addition to the tax and any other penalty provided
in this title, be liable for a penalty equal to the greater
of $10,000 or 10 times the amount of the tax imposed by this
chapter. All cannabis products relanded within the
jurisdiction of the United States shall be forfeited to the
United States and destroyed. All vessels, vehicles, and
aircraft used in such relanding or in removing such cannabis
products from the place where relanded, shall be forfeited to
the United States.
``(d) Applicability of Section 6665.--The penalties imposed
by subsections (b) and (c) shall be assessed, collected, and
paid in the same manner as taxes, as provided in section
6665(a).
``(e) Cross References.--For penalty for failure to make
deposits or for overstatement of deposits, see section 6656.
``SEC. 5942. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
``(a) Fraudulent Offenses.--Whoever, with intent to defraud
the United States--
``(1) engages in business as a cannabis enterprise without
filing the application and obtaining the permit where
required by this chapter or regulations thereunder,
``(2) fails to keep or make any record, return, report, or
inventory, or keeps or makes any false or fraudulent record,
return, report, or inventory, required by this chapter or
regulations thereunder,
``(3) refuses to pay any tax imposed by this chapter, or
attempts in any manner to evade or defeat the tax or the
payment thereof,
``(4) sells or otherwise transfers, contrary to this
chapter or regulations thereunder, any cannabis products
subject to tax under this chapter, or
``(5) purchases, receives, or possesses, with intent to
redistribute or resell, any cannabis product--
``(A) upon which the tax has not been paid or determined in
the manner and at the time prescribed by this chapter or
regulations thereunder, or
``(B) which, without payment of tax pursuant to section
5904, have been diverted from the applicable purpose or use
specified in that section,
shall, for each such offense, be fined not more than $10,000,
or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
``(b) Liability to Tax.--Any person who possesses cannabis
products in violation of subsection (a) shall be liable for a
tax equal to the tax on such articles.''.
(c) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the
Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary's delegate,
shall--
(1) conduct a study concerning the characteristics of the
cannabis industry, including the number of persons operating
cannabis enterprises at each level of such industry, the
volume of sales, the amount of tax collected each year, and
the areas of evasion, and
(2) submit to Congress recommendations to improve the
regulation of the industry and the administration of the
related tax.
(d) Annual Reports Regarding Determination of Applicable
Rates.--Not later than 6 months before the beginning of each
calendar year to which section 5901(a)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) applies, the
Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary's delegate, shall
make publicly available a detailed description of the
methodology which the Secretary anticipates using to
determine the applicable rate per ounce and the applicable
rate per gram which will apply for such calendar year under
section 5901(c)(2) of such Code.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 6103(o)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking ``and firearms'' and inserting
``firearms, and cannabis products''.
(2) The table of chapters for subtitle E of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``Chapter 56. Cannabis Products''.
(3) The table of sections for subchapter A of chapter 98 of
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``Sec. 9512. Establishment of Opportunity Trust Fund.''.
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to removals, and applications for permits under section 5922
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by subsection
(b)), after 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(2) Establishment of opportunity trust fund.--The amendment
made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. OPPORTUNITY TRUST FUND PROGRAMS.
(a) Cannabis Justice Office; Community Reinvestment Grant
Program.--
(1) Cannabis justice office.--Part A of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 109 the
following:
``SEC. 110. CANNABIS JUSTICE OFFICE.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Office of Justice Programs a Cannabis Justice Office.
``(b) Director.--The Cannabis Justice Office shall be
headed by a Director who shall be appointed by the Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. The
Director shall report to the Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Justice Programs. The Director
[[Page H4085]]
shall award grants and may enter into compacts, cooperative
agreements, and contracts on behalf of the Cannabis Justice
Office. The Director may not engage in any employment other
than that of serving as the Director, nor may the Director
hold any office in, or act in any capacity for, any
organization, agency, or institution with which the Office
makes any contract or other arrangement.
``(c) Employees.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall employ as many full-
time employees as are needed to carry out the duties and
functions of the Cannabis Justice Office under subsection
(d). Such employees shall be exclusively assigned to the
Cannabis Justice Office.
``(2) Initial hires.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of enactment of this section, the Director shall--
``(A) hire no less than one-third of the total number of
employees of the Cannabis Justice Office; and
``(B) no more than one-half of the employees assigned to
the Cannabis Justice Office by term appointment that may
after 2 years be converted to career appointment.
``(3) Legal counsel.--At least one employee hired for the
Cannabis Justice Office shall serve as legal counsel to the
Director and shall provide counsel to the Cannabis Justice
Office.
``(d) Duties and Functions.--The Cannabis Justice Office is
authorized to--
``(1) administer the Community Reinvestment Grant Program;
and
``(2) perform such other functions as the Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs may
delegate, that are consistent with the statutory obligations
of this section.''.
(2) Community reinvestment grant program.--Title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART PP--COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT GRANT PROGRAM
``SEC. 3056. AUTHORIZATION.
``(a) In General.--The Director of the Cannabis Justice
Office shall establish and carry out a grant program, known
as the `Community Reinvestment Grant Program', to provide
eligible entities with funds to administer services for
individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs,
including--
``(1) job training;
``(2) reentry services;
``(3) legal aid for civil and criminal cases, including
expungement of cannabis convictions;
``(4) literacy programs;
``(5) youth recreation or mentoring programs; and
``(6) health education programs.
``(b) Substance Use Disorder Services.--The Director, in
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
shall provide eligible entities with funds to administer
substance use disorder services for individuals adversely
impacted by the War on Drugs or connect patients with
substance use disorder services. Also eligible for such
services are individuals who have been arrested for or
convicted of the sale, possession, use, manufacture, or
cultivation of a controlled substance other than cannabis
(except for a conviction involving distribution to a minor).
``SEC. 3057. FUNDING FROM OPPORTUNITY TRUST FUND.
``The Director shall carry out the program under this part
using funds made available under section 9512(c)(1) and (2)
of the Internal Revenue Code.
``SEC. 3058. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) The term `cannabis conviction' means a conviction, or
adjudication of juvenile delinquency, for a cannabis offense
(as such term is defined in section 13 of the Marijuana
Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act).
``(2) The term `eligible entity' means a nonprofit
organization, as defined in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code, that is representative of a community or a
significant segment of a community with experience in
providing relevant services to individuals adversely impacted
by the War on Drugs in that community.
``(3) The term `individuals adversely impacted by the War
on Drugs' has the meaning given that term in section 6 of the
Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act.''.
(b) Cannabis Restorative Opportunity Program; Equitable
Licensing Grant Program.--
(1) Cannabis restorative opportunity program.--The
Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall
establish and carry out a program, to be known as the
``Cannabis Restorative Opportunity Program'', to provide
loans and technical assistance under section 7(m) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)) to assist small
business concerns owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals that operate in
eligible States or localities.
(2) Equitable licensing grant program.--The Administrator
of the Small Business Administration shall establish and
carry out a grant program, to be known as the ``Equitable
Licensing Grant Program'', to provide any eligible State or
locality funds to develop and implement equitable cannabis
licensing programs that minimize barriers to cannabis
licensing and employment for individuals adversely impacted
by the War on Drugs, provided that each grantee includes in
its cannabis licensing program at least four of the following
elements:
(A) A waiver of cannabis license application fees for
individuals who report an income below 250 percent of the
Federal Poverty Level for at least 5 of the past 10 years and
who are first-time applicants for a cannabis license.
(B) A prohibition on the denial of a cannabis license based
on a conviction for a cannabis offense that took place prior
to State legalization of cannabis or the date of enactment of
this Act, as appropriate.
(C) A prohibition on restrictions for licensing relating to
criminal convictions except with respect to a criminal
conviction related to owning and operating a business.
(D) A prohibition on cannabis license holders engaging in
suspicionless cannabis drug testing of their prospective or
current employees, except with respect to drug testing for
safety-sensitive positions required under part 40 of title
49, Code of Federal Regulations.
(E) The establishment of a cannabis licensing board that is
reflective of the racial, ethnic, economic, and gender
composition of the eligible State or locality, to serve as an
oversight body of the equitable licensing program.
(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Eligible state or locality.--The term ``eligible State
or locality'' means a State or locality that has taken steps
to--
(i) create an automatic process, at no cost to the
individual, for the expungement, destruction, or sealing of
criminal records for cannabis offenses; and
(ii) eliminate violations or other penalties for persons
under parole, probation, pre-trial, or other State or local
criminal supervision for a cannabis offense.
(B) Individual adversely impacted by the war on drugs.--The
term ``individual adversely impacted by the War on Drugs''
means an individual--
(i) who reports an income below 250 percent of the Federal
Poverty Level for at least 5 of the past 10 years; and
(ii) who has been arrested for or convicted of the sale,
possession, use, manufacture, or cultivation of cannabis
(except for a conviction involving distribution to a minor),
or whose parent, sibling, spouse, or child has been arrested
for or convicted of such an offense.
(C) Small business concern owned and controlled by socially
and economically disadvantaged individuals.--The term ``small
business concern owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals'' has the meaning
given in section 8(d)(3)(C) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 637(d)(3)(C)).
(D) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, any territory
or possession of the United States, and any Indian Tribe (as
defined in section 201 of Public Law 90-294 (25 U.S.C. 1301)
(commonly known as the ``Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968'')).
(c) Study on Programs.--
(1) GAO study.--The Comptroller General of the United
States, in consultation with the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration, shall conduct an annual study on the
individuals and entities receiving assistance under the
Cannabis Restorative Opportunity and Equitable Licensing
Programs. This study shall include the types of assistance by
state, and a description of the efforts by the Small Business
Administration to increase access to capital for cannabis-
related small business concerns owned and controlled by
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,
individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, as well
as the racial, ethnic, economic and gender composition of the
eligible State or locality.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit a report on the results of the study
conducted under paragraph (1) to--
(A) the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives;
(B) the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of
the Senate;
(C) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives; and
(D) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.
SEC. 7. AVAILABILITY OF SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO CANNABIS-RELATED
LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS.
(a) Definitions Relating to Cannabis-Related Legitimate
Businesses and Service Providers.--Section 3 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(gg) Cannabis-Related Legitimate Businesses and Service
Providers.--In this Act:
``(1) Cannabis.--The term `cannabis'--
``(A) means--
``(i) all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether
growing or not;
``(ii) the seeds thereof;
``(iii) the resin extracted from any part of such plant;
and
``(iv) every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin;
and
``(B) does not include--
``(i) hemp, as defined in section 297A of the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946;
``(ii) the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from
such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant,
any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture,
or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin
extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized
seed of such plant which is incapable of germination; or
``(iii) any drug product approved under section 505 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or biological product
licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act.
``(2) Cannabis-related legitimate business.--The term
`cannabis-related legitimate business' means a manufacturer,
producer, or any person or company that is a small business
concern and that--
``(A) engages in any activity described in subparagraph (B)
pursuant to a law established by a State or a political
subdivision of a State, as
[[Page H4086]]
determined by such State or political subdivision; and
``(B) participates in any business or organized activity
that involves handling cannabis or cannabis products,
including cultivating, producing, manufacturing, selling,
transporting, displaying, dispensing, distributing, or
purchasing cannabis or cannabis products.
``(3) Service provider.--The term `service provider'--
``(A) means a business, organization, or other person
that--
``(i) sells goods or services to a cannabis-related
legitimate business; or
``(ii) provides any business services, including the sale
or lease of real or any other property, legal or other
licensed services, or any other ancillary service, relating
to cannabis; and
``(B) does not include a business, organization, or other
person that participates in any business or organized
activity that involves handling cannabis or cannabis
products, including cultivating, producing, manufacturing,
selling, transporting, displaying, dispensing, distributing,
or purchasing cannabis or cannabis products.''.
(b) Small Business Development Centers.--Section 21(c) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(c)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Services for cannabis-related legitimate businesses
and service providers.--A small business development center
may not decline to provide services to an otherwise eligible
small business concern under this section solely because such
concern is a cannabis-related legitimate business or service
provider.''.
(c) Women's Business Centers.--Section 29 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(p) Services for Cannabis-Related Legitimate Businesses
and Service Providers.--A women's business center may not
decline to provide services to an otherwise eligible small
business concern under this section solely because such
concern is a cannabis-related legitimate business or service
provider.''.
(d) Score.--Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 637(b)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``The head of the SCORE program
established under this subparagraph may not decline to
provide services to an otherwise eligible small business
concern solely because such concern is a cannabis-related
legitimate business or service provider.''.
(e) Veteran Business Outreach Centers.--Section 32 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657b) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Services for Cannabis-Related Legitimate Businesses
and Service Providers.--A Veteran Business Outreach Center
may not decline to provide services to an otherwise eligible
small business concern under this section solely because such
concern is a cannabis-related legitimate business or service
provider.''.
(f) Section 7(a) Loans.--Section 7(a) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(38) Loans to cannabis-related legitimate businesses and
service providers.--The Administrator may not decline to
provide a guarantee for a loan under this subsection, and a
lender may not decline to make a loan under this subsection,
to an otherwise eligible small business concern solely
because such concern is a cannabis-related legitimate
business or service provider.''.
(g) Disaster Loans.--Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended by inserting after paragraph
(15) the following new paragraph:
``(16) Assistance to cannabis-related legitimate businesses
and service providers.--The Administrator may not decline to
provide assistance under this subsection to an otherwise
eligible small business concern solely because such concern
is a cannabis-related legitimate business or service
provider.''.
(h) Microloans.--Section 7(m) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(m)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(14) Assistance to cannabis-related legitimate businesses
and service providers.--The Administrator may not decline to
make a loan or a grant under this subsection, and an eligible
intermediary may not decline to provide assistance under this
subsection to an otherwise eligible borrower, eligible
intermediary, or eligible nonprofit entity (as applicable)
solely because such borrower, intermediary, or nonprofit
entity is a cannabis-related legitimate business or service
provider.''.
(i) Small Business Investment Company Debentures to Finance
Cannabis-Related Legitimate Businesses and Service
Providers.--Part A of title III of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 681 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 321. DEBENTURES TO FINANCE CANNABIS-RELATED LEGITIMATE
BUSINESSES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS.
``(a) Guarantees.--The Administrator may not decline to
purchase or guarantee a debenture made under this title to an
otherwise eligible small business investment company solely
because such small business investment company provides
financing to an entity that is a cannabis-related legitimate
business or service provider (as defined in section 7(a)(38)
of the Small Business Act).
``(b) Other Assistance.--A small business investment
company may not decline to provide assistance under this
title to an otherwise eligible small business concern solely
because such small business concern is a cannabis-related
legitimate business or service provider (as defined in
section 7(a)(38) of the Small Business Act).''.
(j) State or Local Development Company Loans.--Title V of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 511. LOANS TO FINANCE CANNABIS-RELATED LEGITIMATE
BUSINESSES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS.
``(a) Loans and Loan Guarantees.--The Administrator may not
decline to make or provide a guarantee for a loan under this
title to an otherwise eligible qualified State or local
development company solely because such qualified State or
local development company provides financing to an entity
that is a cannabis-related legitimate business or service
provider (as defined in section 7(a)(38) of the Small
Business Act).
``(b) Other Assistance.--A qualified State or local
development company may not decline to provide assistance
under this title to an otherwise eligible small business
concern solely because such small business concern is a
cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider (as
defined in section 7(a)(38) of the Small Business Act).''.
SEC. 8. NO DISCRIMINATION IN THE PROVISION OF A FEDERAL
PUBLIC BENEFIT ON THE BASIS OF CANNABIS.
(a) In General.--No person may be denied any Federal public
benefit (as such term is defined in section 401(c) of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611(c))) on the basis of any use or
possession of cannabis, or on the basis of a conviction or
adjudication of juvenile delinquency for a cannabis offense,
by that person.
(b) Security Clearances.--Federal agencies may not use past
or present cannabis or marijuana use as criteria for
granting, denying, or rescinding a security clearance.
SEC. 9. NO ADVERSE EFFECT FOR PURPOSES OF THE IMMIGRATION
LAWS.
(a) In General.--For purposes of the immigration laws (as
such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act), cannabis may not be considered a controlled
substance, and an alien may not be denied any benefit or
protection under the immigration laws based on any event,
including conduct, a finding, an admission, addiction or
abuse, an arrest, a juvenile adjudication, or a conviction,
relating to the possession or use of cannabis that is no
longer prohibited pursuant to this Act or an amendment made
by this Act, regardless of whether the event occurred before,
on, or after the effective date of this Act.
(b) Cannabis Defined.--The term ``cannabis''--
(1) means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,
whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin
extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of
such plant, its seeds or resin; and
(2) does not include--
(A) hemp, as defined in section 297A of the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946;
(B) the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from
such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant,
any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture,
or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin
extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized
seed of such plant which is incapable of germination; or
(C) any drug product approved under section 505 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or biological product
licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act.
(c) Conforming Amendments to Immigration and Nationality
Act.--The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 212(h), by striking ``and subparagraph
(A)(i)(II) of such subsection insofar as it relates to a
single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of
marijuana'';
(2) in section 237(a)(2)(B)(i), by striking ``other than a
single offense involving possession for one's own use of 30
grams or less of marijuana'';
(3) in section 101(f)(3), by striking ``(except as such
paragraph relates to a single offense of simple possession of
30 grams or less of marihuana)'';
(4) in section 244(c)(2)(A)(iii)(II) by striking ``except
for so much of such paragraph as relates to a single offense
of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana'';
(5) in section 245(h)(2)(B) by striking ``(except for so
much of such paragraph as related to a single offense of
simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana)'';
(6) in section 210(c)(2)(B)(ii)(III) by striking ``, except
for so much of such paragraph as relates to a single offense
of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marihuana''; and
(7) in section 245A(d)(2)(B)(ii)(II) by striking ``, except
for so much of such paragraph as relates to a single offense
of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marihuana''.
SEC. 10. RESENTENCING AND EXPUNGEMENT.
(a) Expungement of Non-Violent Federal Cannabis Offense
Convictions for Individuals Not Under a Criminal Justice
Sentence.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, each Federal district shall
conduct a comprehensive review and issue an order expunging
each conviction or adjudication of juvenile delinquency for a
non-violent Federal cannabis offense entered by each Federal
court in the district before the date of enactment of this
Act and on or after May 1, 1971. Each Federal court shall
also issue an order expunging any arrests associated with
each expunged conviction or adjudication of juvenile
delinquency.
(2) Notification.--To the extent practicable, each Federal
district shall notify each individual whose arrest,
conviction, or adjudication
[[Page H4087]]
of delinquency has been expunged pursuant to this subsection
that their arrest, conviction, or adjudication of juvenile
delinquency has been expunged, and the effect of such
expungement.
(3) Right to petition court for expungement.--At any point
after the date of enactment of this Act, any individual with
a prior conviction or adjudication of juvenile delinquency
for a non-violent Federal cannabis offense, who is not under
a criminal justice sentence, may file a motion for
expungement. If the expungement of such a conviction or
adjudication of juvenile delinquency is required pursuant to
this Act, the court shall expunge the conviction or
adjudication, and any associated arrests. If the individual
is indigent, counsel shall be appointed to represent the
individual in any proceedings under this subsection.
(4) Sealed record.--The court shall seal all records
related to a conviction or adjudication of juvenile
delinquency that has been expunged under this subsection.
Such records may only be made available by further order of
the court.
(b) Sentencing Review for Individuals Under a Criminal
Justice Sentence.--
(1) In general.--For any individual who is under a criminal
justice sentence for a non-violent Federal cannabis offense,
the court that imposed the sentence shall, on motion of the
individual, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, the
attorney for the Government, or the court, conduct a
sentencing review hearing. If the individual is indigent,
counsel shall be appointed to represent the individual in any
sentencing review proceedings under this subsection.
(2) Potential reduced resentencing.--After a sentencing
hearing under paragraph (1), a court shall--
(A) expunge each conviction or adjudication of juvenile
delinquency for a non-violent Federal cannabis offense
entered by the court before the date of enactment of this
Act, and any associated arrest;
(B) vacate the existing sentence or disposition of juvenile
delinquency and, if applicable, impose any remaining sentence
or disposition of juvenile delinquency on the individual as
if this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, were in
effect at the time the offense was committed; and
(C) order that all records related to a conviction or
adjudication of juvenile delinquency that has been expunged
or a sentence or disposition of juvenile delinquency that has
been vacated under this Act be sealed and only be made
available by further order of the court.
(c) Effect of Expungement.--An individual who has had an
arrest, a conviction, or juvenile delinquency adjudication
expunged under this section--
(1) may treat the arrest, conviction, or adjudication as if
it never occurred; and
(2) shall be immune from any civil or criminal penalties
related to perjury, false swearing, or false statements, for
a failure to disclose such arrest, conviction, or
adjudication.
(d) Exception.--An individual who at sentencing received an
aggravating role adjustment pursuant to United States
Sentencing Guideline 3B1.1(a) in relation to a Federal
cannabis offense conviction shall not be eligible for
expungement of that Federal cannabis offense conviction under
this section.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Federal cannabis offense'' means an offense
that is no longer punishable pursuant to this Act or the
amendments made under this Act.
(2) The term ``expunge'' means, with respect to an arrest,
a conviction, or a juvenile delinquency adjudication, the
removal of the record of such arrest, conviction, or
adjudication from each official index or public record.
(3) The term ``under a criminal justice sentence'' means,
with respect to an individual, that the individual is serving
a term of probation, parole, supervised release,
imprisonment, official detention, pre-release custody, or
work release, pursuant to a sentence or disposition of
juvenile delinquency imposed on or after the effective date
of the Controlled Substances Act (May 1, 1971).
(f) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States,
in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, shall conduct a demographic study of individuals
convicted of a Federal cannabis offense. Such study shall
include information about the age, race, ethnicity, sex, and
gender identity of those individuals, the type of community
such users dwell in, and such other demographic information
as the Comptroller General determines should be included.
(g) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall report to Congress the results of the study
conducted under subsection (f).
SEC. 11. REFERENCES IN EXISTING LAW TO MARIJUANA OR
MARIHUANA.
Wherever, in the statutes of the United States or in the
rulings, regulations, or interpretations of various
administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States--
(1) there appears or may appear the term ``marihuana'' or
``marijuana'', that term shall be struck and the term
``cannabis'' shall be inserted; and
(2) there appears or may appear the term ``Marihuana'' or
``Marijuana'', that term shall be struck and the term
``Cannabis'' shall be inserted.
SEC. 12. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this
Act, or any application of such provision to any person or
circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder
of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the
application of this Act and the amendments made by this Act
to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.
SEC. 13. CANNABIS OFFENSE DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, the term ``cannabis offense''
means a criminal offense related to cannabis--
(1) that, under Federal law, is no longer punishable
pursuant to this Act or the amendments made under this Act;
or
(2) that, under State law, is no longer an offense or that
was designated a lesser offense or for which the penalty was
reduced under State law pursuant to or following the adoption
of a State law authorizing the sale or use of cannabis.
SEC. 14. RULEMAKING.
Unless otherwise provided in this Act, not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Department
of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and the Small
Business Administration shall issue or amend any rules,
standard operating procedures, and other legal or policy
guidance necessary to carry out implementation of this Act.
After the 1-year period, any publicly issued sub-regulatory
guidance, including any compliance guides, manuals,
advisories and notices, may not be issued without 60-day
notice to appropriate congressional committees. Notice shall
include a description and justification for additional
guidance.
SEC. 15. SOCIETAL IMPACT OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION STUDY.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall, not
later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act,
provide to Congress a study that addresses the societal
impact of the legalization of recreational cannabis by
States, including--
(1) sick days reported to employers;
(2) workers compensations claims;
(3) tax revenue remitted to States resulting from legal
marijuana sales;
(4) changes in government spending related to enforcement
actions and court proceedings;
(5) Federal welfare assistance applications;
(6) rate of arrests related to methamphetamine possession;
(7) hospitalization rates related to methamphetamine and
narcotics use;
(8) uses of marijuana and its byproducts for medical
purposes;
(9) uses of marijuana and its byproducts for purposes
relating to the health, including the mental health, of
veterans;
(10) arrest rates of individuals driving under the
influence or driving while intoxicated by marijuana;
(11) traffic-related deaths and injuries where the driver
is impaired by marijuana;
(12) arrest of minors for marijuana-related charges;
(13) violent crime rates;
(14) school suspensions, expulsions, and law enforcement
referrals that are marijuana-related;
(15) high school dropout rates;
(16) changes in district-wide and State-wide standardized
test scores;
(17) marijuana-related hospital admissions and poison
control calls;
(18) marijuana-related juvenile admittances into substance
rehabilitation facilities and mental health clinics;
(19) diversion of marijuana into neighboring States and
drug seizures in neighboring States;
(20) marijuana plants grown on public lands in
contravention to Federal and State laws; and
(21) court filings under a State's organized crime
statutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Bentz) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material on H.R. 3617.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3617, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and
Expungement Act, or the MORE Act, is long-overdue legislation that
would reverse decades of failed Federal policies based on the
criminalization of marijuana. It would also take steps to address the
heavy toll these policies have taken across the country, particularly
among communities of color.
{time} 0915
For far too long, we have treated marijuana as a criminal justice
problem, instead of as a matter of personal choice and public health.
Whatever one's views are on the use of marijuana for recreational or
medicinal use, the policy of arrests, prosecution, and incarceration at
the Federal level has proven both unwise and unjust.
That is why the MORE Act would set a new path forward and would begin
to correct some of the injustices of the last 50 years. The bill
decriminalizes
[[Page H4088]]
marijuana at the Federal level by removing it from the Controlled
Substances Act. This change applies retroactively to prior and pending
convictions. It does not, however, undermine the ability of States to
apply their criminal laws to marijuana or to legalize and regulate it
as they see fit.
The bill also eliminates barriers to medical research, allows the VA
to recommend medical marijuana to veterans living with PTSD, and it
allows financial institutions to service the marijuana industry. It
provides for expungement or resentencing of certain Federal marijuana
arrests and convictions and supports expungement programs at the State
and local levels.
In addition, the bill authorizes a sales tax on marijuana sales and
directs those revenues to an Opportunity Trust Fund to support
communities harmed by the war on drugs. It also establishes a wide
range of grant programs to support equal access to the benefits of
decriminalization.
When it comes to our immigration laws, the bill prospectively and
retroactively ensures that marijuana will not be considered a
controlled substance, directly mirroring the protection and relief
under the criminal justice provisions of the bill. This protects
individuals from the collateral consequences for marijuana activity and
ensures that immigrants can participate in their State's legal cannabis
industry.
In recent years, 36 States and the District of Columbia have
legalized medical cannabis. Nineteen States and the District of
Columbia have legalized cannabis for adult recreational use.
If States are the laboratories of democracy, it is long past time for
the Federal Government to recognize that legalization has been a
resounding success and that the conflict with Federal law has become
untenable.
While I am proud to be the sponsor of this legislation, there are
many people who are responsible for getting us to this point today. I
want to thank them for their efforts.
This includes Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the mother of this movement,
and Congressman Blumenauer, whose dogged persistence was critical to
moving this legislation forward. Congressman Cohen has also been a
long-time champion and an important voice in the movement for reform,
as has Congresswoman Jackson Lee, who helped shepherd this legislation
to the floor.
I also want to thank Chairman Neal, who has been a critical partner
in drafting the revenue provisions in this bill and in helping move
this legislation to the floor, as well as Chairman McGovern, who
structured a good debate on this bill.
Finally, Speaker Pelosi, Whip Clyburn, and Chairman Jeffries have all
been steadfast in their support of this legislation, and I want to
particularly thank Majority Leader Hoyer for everything he has done to
bring this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, criminal penalties for marijuana offenses, and the
resulting collateral consequences, are unjust and harmful to our
society. The MORE Act comprehensively addresses these injustices, and I
urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is a war raging in Ukraine, killing thousands and
thousands of innocent people.
Gasoline, diesel, and grocery prices are through the roof.
For all practical purposes, we don't have a southern border anymore,
so hundreds of thousands of immigrants continue to flood into the
United States, and the situation there is about to get much worse.
Rampant inflation is making short work of the hard-earned money of
all Americans, but the main priority for the Democrats this week isn't
Ukraine, skyrocketing gasoline prices, 8 percent inflation, or the
border crisis. No. Instead, it is marijuana.
It has been obvious for years that at some point, marijuana was going
to be formally legalized. What is deeply and truly disturbing, however,
about this bill is its failure to address the clear consequences of
legalization--such as what this drug does to children, to drivers on
our highways, to the mental health of up to 30 percent of those adults
who choose to use marijuana, to communities inundated with hundreds, if
not thousands, of foreign cartel-operated, unlicensed, and out-of-
control marijuana growers, and finally, to those who actually try to
produce cannabis, marijuana, legally.
Let's take a closer look at Oregon, my State, to see what really
happens when marijuana is legalized without careful and necessary
thought.
The picture behind me is a hoop house. It is about 100-feet long and
50-feet wide. At current retail, it will produce about $6 million worth
of marijuana a year.
The next picture is a picture of a grow consisting of 30 to 40 hoop
houses. By the way, these are all in my district in southern Oregon.
And if each of these hoop houses is in full production, 40 hoop houses
would generate $240 million, at retail, of marijuana each year.
To put this in perspective, there are currently 180 grows like this
in Jackson County, Oregon, alone, many of which are illegal. Hundreds
upon hundreds of hoop houses.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a video taken from a
helicopter of approximately 180 grows in Jackson County be entered into
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can't entertain that request.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I will move on.
These operations are, in large part, unlicensed, uncontrolled,
unregulated, operated on stolen water, ignoring building codes,
ignoring land use laws, ignoring labor laws, and importing thousands
upon thousands of immigrants to work in squalor and in fear.
Why? Because the Federal Government has refused to help the
overwhelmed local law enforcement officers meet the huge challenge
these cartels present.
In fact, months ago, I directly asked Attorney General Garland and
again, several weeks ago, for his assistance in getting the FBI,
Homeland Security, and the DEA to help us in southern Oregon, and I
have heard nothing, absolutely nothing, back from him.
This is why it is essential that any bill dealing with legalization
include significant money for law enforcement. We are certainly not
getting any help from the Attorney General.
This picture behind me is what the living conditions are like for the
immigrants working for the cartels.
We are experiencing one of the worst droughts in the history of the
western United States. Water is gold in my district. Cartels are
stealing water and using it to grow marijuana.
Water regulators in southern Oregon have been threatened with death
by cartel members when they have tried to stop water theft. Here is a
picture of some of the stolen water.
When the crop is harvested, hoop houses are abandoned, the migrant
laborers disappear, and the mess is left for someone else to clean up.
Here is what that looks like.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the record the Politico article labeled ``.
. . Why Legal Weed Didn't Kill Oregon's Black Market,'' dated January
14, 2022.
``Talk About Clusterf---': Why Legal Weed Didn't Kill Oregon's Black
Market
Cave Junction, Ore.--The first unlicensed cannabis grow
popped up near Gary Longnecker's remote Southern Oregon home
seven years ago. Now there are six farms surrounding the
densely-forested property. ``Last night I woke up at 12:30
with gunshots. [Then again] this morning, seven o'clock,''
Longnecker said as he and I walked his land in November.
``That's them intimidating all of us neighbors to keep out of
their face.'' A Vietnam veteran and former firefighter,
Longnecker retired to the woods of southern Oregon almost 30
years ago to get some peace and quiet, but that's not exactly
what he's found. Historically a logging community, the
residents of the Illinois Valley near Cave Junction are still
drastically outnumbered by trees--and they prefer it that
way. In most places, you could yell at the top of your lungs
from your front door without another soul hearing. Many
people in the county own a gun, and typically aim them at
deer or bears--not their neighbors. But since the cannabis
farmers moved in (none of whom appear to be licensed based on
state records), Longnecker says he's had bullets whiz by his
head when working outside, and regularly hears gunshots in
the middle of the night. Trash and toilet paper are littered
around the thin wire fence that separates his forested land
from each cannabis farm. As Longnecker gave me a tour of his
property, a few people could be seen moving around on the
property through the scattered pine trees and partially-
deconstructed hoop houses. Longnecker's partner called out to
them in broken Spanish, since she believed
[[Page H4089]]
most of the workers were Hispanic. No one answered. A few
moments later, shots rang out. ``So that's called
intimidation,'' Longnecker said as we hurried away. It's a
word that I heard often when I spoke with residents about
their marijuana-growing neighbors. Over the last two years,
there's been such an influx of outlaw farmers that southern
Oregon now rivals California's notorious Emerald Triangle as
a national center of illegal weed cultivation. Even though
marijuana cultivation has been legal in Oregon since 2014,
Jackson County Sheriff Nate Sickler says there could be up to
1,000 illegal operations in a region of more than 4,000
square miles. The Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission,
which oversees the state's $1.2 billion legal cannabis
industry, estimates the number of illicit operations is
double that. Local law enforcement officials believe that
people from every U.S. state and as many as 20 countries have
purchased property in Jackson or Josephine counties. Cartels
roll in and offer long-time residents as much as a million
dollars in cash for their property, and hoop houses follow
soon after the sale is complete. Residents have become
accustomed to hearing Bulgarian, Chinese, Russian and even
Hebrew spoken at the grocery store. ``Two weeks ago, we took
down a Bulgarian operation and in the same week an
Argentinian operation,'' said Josephine County Sheriff Dave
Daniel, adding that they've also recently dealt with Chinese-
and Mexican-run oufits. ``A lot of these organizations,
before the legal market came into effect, would grow in the
forest lands--they'd be up in the hills,'' explained Obie
Strickler, a licensed cannabis grower in Josephine County.
``Now they're . . . right out in the open.'' What is
happening in the woods of the southern Oregon represents one
of the most confounding paradoxes of the legalized marijuana
movement: States with some of the largest legal markets are
also dealing with rampant illegal production--and the problem
is getting worse. Oklahoma, where licenses to cultivate
medical marijuana are some of the easiest to get in the
nation, has conducted more than five dozen raids on illicit
grows since last April. In California, meanwhile, most of the
state continues to purchase cannabis from unlicensed
sources--straining legal operators already struggling with
the state's high taxes and fees. It wasn't supposed to be
this way. One of the underlying promises for legalizing
cannabis was that legalization would make the illegal drug
trade, with all its attendant problems of violent crime and
money laundering, disappear. But 25 years into the
legalization movement, as 36 states have adopted some form of
legalized marijuana, the black market is booming across the
country. Legal states such as Oregon and California--which
have been supplying the nation for nigh on 60 years--are
still furnishing the majority of America's illegal weed.
Oregon's weed is some of the cheapest in the nation, and
Oregonians predominantly purchase weed from licensed
dispensaries. Economist Beau Whitney estimates that 80-85
percent of the state's demand is met by the legal market. But
most of the illicit weed grown in southern Oregon is leaving
the state, heading to places where legal weed is still not
available for purchase `such as New York or Pennsylvania--or
where the legal price is still very high, like Chicago and
Los Angeles. In Illinois, which legalized medical marijuana
in 2013, only about a third of the demand for cannabis is
satisfied by legal dispensaries, according to Whitney.
Differences in tax rate and regulations plays the major role
in differences from state to state, Whitney explains.
Unlicensed growers aren't paying any fees or taxes, and they
can afford to keep their prices at least 20 percent lower
than legal weed--the benchmark Whitney says is the difference
in consumers purchasing legal versus illegal products.
``It all comes down to economics,'' said Whitney. ``If you
reduce the price, then there's no, or little, or less,
incentive [for consumers] to participate in [the] illicit
market because you're getting the price that you want . . .
that's the tipping point.'' The macro-economics of the
marijuana market are small consolation to residents of
Oregon, who say they are caught in a regulatory gap between
state law, which fully legalized cannabis in 2014, and
federal law, which still considers cannabis to be as illegal
as heroin. The one exception in federal law is for hemp, a
low-THC cannabis plant which looks virtually identical to the
naked eye. Officials say that some of Oregon's illegal farms
are masquerading as hemp producers to escape federal
oversight. There are just more than 1,000 licensed marijuana
and hemp farms in Jackson and Josephine counties, but a
recent test of the region's hemp farms found that more than
half were illegally growing marijuana--not the low-THC hemp.
``[They] easily danced into the hemp program and got
administrative protection,'' said Oregon Liquor and Cannabis
Commission Executive Director Steve Marks. ``They inundated
that program.'' On top of that, there could be a thousand or
more unlicensed grows that never bothered with a hemp
license. The impact of the booming illegal trade is being
felt by overburdened law enforcement that can't keep up with
the illegal operations that seem to sprout with abandon, but
it is also exhausting the patience of residents who were key
to making Oregon one of the first states to legalize medical
marijuana in the late 1990s. ``The danger of what's going on
and the fear and worry folks in southern Oregon are feeling
about their safety cannot be overstated,'' Sen. Ron Wyden (D-
Ore.), the influential chairman of the Finance Committee,
told POLITICO in December. ``And it's all the more reason why
federal cannabis prohibition is just not working.'' Nicole
Rensenbrink, a 62-year-old social worker, travels daily along
a curving two-lane road that weaves between groves of tall
trees and dozens of farms before finally passing the local
high school. Along her seven-minute commute to work, she
passes 14 marijuana cultivation or processing sites. She's
not an expert, but she can tell that many of them are illegal
by the lack of proper signs and the number of hoop houses
that exceed the legal limits. But it's the unforeseen
consequences--the damage to the environment, not to mention a
general fear for her safety--that most troubles her. ``I and
my husband both voted for cannabis legalization. I'm liberal,
[an] old hippie type. I don't want people to go to jail for
smoking pot or dealing a little weed.'' Rensenbrink said.
``But I regret it. At this point, I really regret it. People
have grown marijuana illegally in southern Oregon for at
least half a century. It was easy to conceal illicit activity
in private woods and national forests when the nearest human
could easily be a few miles away. But there's nothing hidden
about what's going on now. The Red Mountain Golf Course, a
24-acre plot of land just outside Grants Pass, the county
seat, sold for just over half a million dollars in June 2021.
Three months later, Josephine County Sheriffs and Oregon
State Troopers raided the former golf course and seized more
than 4,000 marijuana plants and arrested two people on
charges of felony marijuana manufacture. It wasn't an
isolated incident. Around the same time, law enforcement
seized 380 pounds of processed marijuana stuffed in a car
abandoned at the scene of a crash. Cops also seized 7,600
marijuana and hemp plants, 5,000 pounds of processed
marijuana and $210,000 in cash from two grow operations just
outside Cave Junction. Two men were arrested and held for
unlawful manufacture of a marijuana item and other
charges. While these eyepopping figures draw headlines,
the raids are just a cost of doing business for the
cartels, according to law enforcement officials. Many buy
or lease six or seven properties, knowing that some might
get shut down by the police. Like any smart entrepreneurs,
the cartels budget for those losses. ``They know that the
resources for law enforcement and our ability to combat
this issue [are such that] they can overwhelm us,'' Daniel
said. The proliferation of unlicensed cannabis farms is
scaring local residents and scarring the landscape.
Personal wells have run dry and rivers have been illegally
diverted. Piles of trash litter abandoned grow sites.
Locals report having knives pulled on them, and growers
showing up on their porches with guns to make demands
about local water use. Multiple women say they've been
followed long distances by strange vehicles. Locals
regularly end conversations with an ominous warning: ``Be
careful.'' Debbie, who retired from the Napa County
Sheriff's Department in California, has little faith in
Josephine County's law enforcement. Debbie, who requested
her last name not be used for fear of reprisal from the
drug dealers, says that officers didn't show up when ten
gun shots whizzed past her husband's head while he was
sitting on the porch, or when the neighbor's pit bulls
chased her from the mailbox back up to her own home. When
Debbie reported her neighbors to the sheriff's department,
they asked her to photograph the license plates of the
growers next door, but she was spotted taking pictures.
``[The growers] stalked me and chased me all the way down
Placer Road,'' she said.
The problem has gotten so bad that residents and local
officials have called for the Oregon National Guard to be
called in. Democratic Gov. Kate Brown hasn't taken that step
yet, but in December she called a special session in which
lawmakers approved $25 million to address Oregon's illicit
grows. $20 million of that funding is designated for law
enforcement to increase staff and resources, while $5 million
is dedicated for oversight of water use and water theft.
Earlier in the year, the legislature passed a bill, sponsored
by Republican state Rep. Lily Morgan, that increased
penalties for growing cannabis illegally and gave state
regulators the authority to investigate hemp growers. Jackson
County Sheriff Nate Sickler says the tougher rules for hemp
cultivation and the money lawmakers funneled to local
enforcement efforts are an excellent start.
``If we're able to get our positions funded, I really think
we can make a significant impact [on] illegal marijuana,''
said Sickler. ``Are they going to go away? It's probably
never going to happen.'' The illicit market isn't just a law
enforcement problem, however; it's actually having an effect
on the environmental health of the region.
Chris Hall has spent months surveilling cannabis farms in
Josephine County's Illinois River Valley from the air. The
community organizer with the Illinois Valley Soil & Water
Conservation District is compiling a map of illicit grows
checked against state licensing information.
On a weekday afternoon in November, Hall explored the
debris-filled Q Bar X Ranch site, taking photographs for his
records. In August, it took about 250 law enforcement
officers--called in from state and federal agencies--to raid
the ranch. Officials seized 200,000 marijuana plants and
found more than 130 workers at the site, according to the
Josephine County Sheriff's department. At the main site, a
new fence with ``no trespassing'' signs warned off curious
visitors.
[[Page H4090]]
Behind that fence were the ruins of a massive cannabis
operation: multiple white hoop houses, now in tatters;
ramshackle buildings where workers likely lived; PVC pipes,
tarps, buckets, and empty containers of fertilizer and
pesticides.
Down the road, the second site was in an even greater state
of disarray. Huge gashes had been cut into the earth, and a
crevice was filled with bottles of fertilizer and pesticides.
The banks of a stream were laden with what seemed like the
contents of an entire convenience store snack and soda
section. ``You want to talk about clusterf---, here it is,''
Hall said, shaking his head as he saw that the creek
bisecting the grow site was lined with plastic. ``The [creek]
bed is the most sensitive natural habitat that we have,''
Hall said. ``To line it with plastic, particularly black
plastic, is to kill everything underneath it.'' Hall was
hired because the soil and water district was inundated
with complaints from local residents about the negative
impacts on their water sources. The $5 million that
Morgan's bill recently allocated for water-resource issues
is meant to address this problem.
Reclaiming land and waterways after illicit growing occurs,
though, is an expensive and complex undertaking. A U.S. House
member proposed allocating $25 million in last year's federal
budget for shuttering and reclaiming grow sites on national
forest land, though it was removed from the final bill. Even
if that funding eventually gets approved, it could only be
used to target a small sliver of the illicit grows in
Josephine and Jackson counties, since most are on private
property.
``If this was going on [closer to Eugene or Portland], you
better believe the state of Oregon would stomp this out in a
hot second,'' Hall said--but added that many of the region's
residents are famously resistant to government intervention,
especially from the state capitol four hours north. ``You
know, sometimes you get what you asked for. . . . [Southern
Oregonians] have been telling [the state government] to leave
you alone, so we're gonna just leave you alone.''
There are as many suggested solutions to southern Oregon's
weed problem as there are factors creating it. Some say
tweaks to federal and state hemp regulations--and more money
for law enforcement--will get the illicit grows under
control. Others argue that only federal decriminalization
will solve the problem, because it would reduce the market
for illicit weed.
Anti-legalization advocates, meanwhile, point to Oregon's
woes as proof that legalization doesn't live up to its
promise of eliminating the illicit market.
``Legalization exacerbates the issue of illicit growing
operations because it increases the demand for the product,''
Kevin Sabet told POLITICO. ``With more users emerging
throughout the state, more sellers--both legal and illegal--
begin working to match the supply. The state has done little
to curb demand because it has little incentive to do so.''
On the last point, John Hudak of the Brookings Institute
says that the rampant illicit operations in Oregon aren't
likely to be replicated in more densely-populated states like
Connecticut or Rhode Island. ``I don't think there's a direct
connection between legalization and this situation
happening,'' said Hudak, an expert on cannabis policy who
also volunteers as part of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy,
Education, and Regulation--a think tank funded in part by
Molson Coors and Constellation Brands (which owns Corona).
Constellation Brands has already entered the cannabis
beverage market. ``There's sort of geographic aspects to why
it thrives in certain states,'' Hudak added. ``This is more
likely to happen on a large scale in larger states with rural
spaces than it would be in smaller, urban states.'' Instead,
Hudak argues that the illicit market will continue to thrive
in legal states as long as cannabis remains federally
illegal. It isn't clear when full legalization could happen,
though--if ever. A federal decriminalization bill proposed in
2021 by Wyden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen.
Cory Booker (D-NJ) has only been seen by the general public
in draft form, and it isn't clear when it will be formally
introduced in Congress. The draft version of that
decriminalization bill would levy high taxes against the
cannabis industry, which Whitney, the economist, argues would
push prices higher and give illicit growers continued market
access.
Cautionary tales like Oregon's won't move the federal
needle, either, Hudak cautions. The lawmakers who understand
the impact of the federal-state cannabis policy gap, he says,
are the ones who already support legalization. Moreover,
there have already been many other stories about the problems
created by the policy gap--such as the impact siloed markets
have on the environment or the inability of cannabis farmers
and store owners to get reliable insurance to cover looters
or forest fires--and federal policy has remained the same.
The problem, cannabis advocates say, is not that
legalization has failed. Rather it's that the country hasn't
legalized enough. Until many more states--and the federal
government--decide to legalize cannabis, those advocates say,
the illicit weed problem is going to continue, even in legal
states. The patchwork of still-illegal states--including some
of the country's most populous--creates tootempting a
market for illicit growers.
``We don't have a [moonshine] business in the country . . .
that is challenging Budweiser or Grey Goose,'' Hudak said.
``Alcohol is widespread legal. And until we get on that same
page with cannabis, this is going to be a continuing
problem.''
The OLCC's Marks, though, argues that blanket legalization
won't solve all of the problems because hemp and marijuana
will still be regulated separately at the federal level--hemp
through the Department of Agriculture and marijuana through
the FDA or the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
``Frankly, the federal government has plenty of
responsibility and accountability for the regulation of legal
hemp and THC,'' Marks said. ``Making regulators bifurcate the
plan under an old federal definition of marijuana and a newer
one of hemp is creating unaccountability, craziness and a bad
market.'' Oregon tweaked its hemp rules this year to make THC
testing more enforceable. Meanwhile, the 2023 farm bill is up
for discussion in Washington, D.C. this year, but there has
not been much chatter on Capitol Hill about making hemp
oversight more stringent.
Economist Beau Whitney argues that focusing on hemp
regulations is a misplaced solution because many cartels
don't bother to hide behind hemp licenses.
``They're focusing in on small hemp farmers instead of the
real problem, which is international cartels,'' Whitney said.
``Until there's some way in which to have a coordinated
enforcement against the illicit cartels, this is going to
perpetuate.''
While experts and lawmakers in Salem and Washington, D.C.
go back and forth over the solutions, southern Oregonians
will continue to live with the impact of divergent cannabis
laws. ``The people in Salem and the people in Grants Pass
don't understand that we're living under this intimidation,''
Gary Longnecker said, talking about the Oregon state capital
and his county's seat of government. ``To sit here and be
ignored by the people who are supposed to represent you, not
even get a staff member to call you back, is so, so
frustrating,'' he said. He's glad that Oregon's legislature
adopted tougher rules for hemp growers, but doesn't think
it's nearly enough to solve the problem. ``You can't just
keep throwing a little bit of money out [here], because . . .
it's like whack a mole. Take this one out, and four more pop
up over here.''
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that any bill
legalizing marijuana include significant funding for law enforcement
which will be absolutely and predictably necessary to control the
cartels that will flood into the farming areas such as southern Oregon.
Simply setting up a penalty, as this bill does, for failing to
register will not work without the concurrent means of enforcement. Do
not let the defunding-the-police thinking that currently is in this
bill lead the Nation into the same ecological human and social disaster
we now face in Oregon.
The bill fails to address impairment. It fails to address the ever-
increasing potency of the drug. It fails to address the age at which
marijuana could be legally used.
It fails to address the impact the bill's 5 percent and quickly
rising to 8 percent gross receipts tax, when added to the State and
local taxes, will have in driving the black market sources of
marijuana. The Federal tax, when added in, will make legal marijuana
almost 30 percent more expensive than that which is on the black
market.
The bill fails to correctly clarify the differences between marijuana
and hemp. This is essential if the hemp market is to be protected from
the policies and regulations associated with marijuana.
This bill is the wrong approach.
We should be addressing the crises created by the Biden
administration, not passing an incomplete, inadequate, and damaging to
our children and communities stimulus marijuana bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would command the attention of the
gentleman to the sections of the bill that deal with all the different
problems he raised.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Cohen), a member of the committee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for my time.
I rise in support of the MORE Act which would finally reform how we
deal with marijuana laws and how we should. Mr. Bentz said we should
put more money into law enforcement. That is the opposite of what we
should do.
Decriminalizing means cops spend less time busting people for
marijuana possession and more time looking for people committing
violent crime. That is a better use of law enforcement time.
[[Page H4091]]
Maurice Hinchey and Sam Farr on this side of the aisle knew it when
they were here. They sponsored bills, as did Don Young and Dana
Rohrabacher on the other side of the aisle, because it was a
Libertarian freedom issue.
It is no secret the war on drugs failed. Harry Anslinger started it
in the 1930s, and he vilified Hispanic Americans and said this was a
way to get them.
Then Richard Nixon even had a commission that said we should
decriminalize marijuana but then decided, because of Ehrlichman and
Haldeman, that, no, the Nixon strategy was better designed at going
after marijuana because Blacks and hippies who protested the war were
his opponents, and we needed to go after them.
So they turned it around, they never legalized it as the commission
said they should, and they made the war on drugs worse. It then went on
and on.
Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. People do not smoke
marijuana and beat up their wives or get angry and beat up others or
drive their cars in wildly dangerous conditions at fast speeds and kill
others.
Congress has been out of step on this issue. It is called cultural
lag. We are finally coming around to rescheduling it from Schedule I
where it is in a class with heroin and methamphetamines, which is
absurd. We should have research.
We must deschedule marijuana. We must decriminalize it at the Federal
level. Now is the time to do some remedies to our Federal marijuana
laws. This is an historic time.
I thank Mr. Nadler, Ms. Lee, and the others who have championed this
bill, Mr. Blumenauer, and let's move forward and do the right thing.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention that I have read the
bill very carefully, and there is nothing in the bill allocating money
to law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Good).
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon
for yielding.
Our country continues to suffer under the many crises created by the
Biden administration and Democrat policies; you know, the border
crisis, the crime crisis, the inflation crisis, the energy crisis. And
yet, the priority of this Congress now turns to expanding access to
addictive, behavior-altering, recreational drugs at a time when our
country is also experiencing increased addiction, depression, and
suicide.
What is worse, we want to target those individuals and communities
who are historically most impacted by the harm of illegal drugs and
provide Federal funding to help enable criminals to open and operate
now legal drug businesses.
We have rising violent crime in Democrat-run cities across the
country. More drug use won't help that.
We had 100,000 Americans die of overdoses last year, the leading
cause of death in Americans ages 18 to 45. More drug use won't help
that.
Our government, schools, and our education systems are failing us.
More drug use won't help that.
But, in fact, this legislation has no prohibitions on edible forms of
marijuana, flavored vape products, or other efforts to target,
specifically, teens and young people.
Meanwhile, we have surrendered operational control of our southern
border to the Mexican crime cartels, and we have got fentanyl and other
dangerous drugs streaming into our country at historic levels because
of this President's open border policies.
Of course, what is his solution? Let's end Title 42 which is
predicted to increase the daily crossings from the current 7,000 a day
to as much as 18,000 a day. That is over half a million a month.
How might this impact the illegal drug trade across our country? Law
enforcement tells me that legalizing marijuana will force the criminal
element to redouble their efforts into hard, more dangerous drugs to
replace the profit that has been lost from marijuana.
You can also look at the States that have already legalized it, and
you can see the increased addiction, dependency, and homelessness that
this has cost. We should be ashamed of ourselves for this legislation,
and I oppose this bill.
{time} 0930
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic
Caucus.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding and for his tremendous leadership, as well as all of my
colleagues who have worked on the MORE Act.
Richard Nixon began the failed war on drugs a little over 50 years
ago, in 1971. At the time, there were less than 300,000 Americans
incarcerated in this country. Today, there are 2.3 million,
disproportionately Black and Latino. Many of those individuals who have
been incarcerated are there because of nonviolent drug offenses, often
marijuana possession and use.
The United States of America incarcerates more people than any other
country in the world, including per capita China and Russia combined.
That is a stain on our democracy.
We have an overcriminalization problem in America. We have a mass
incarceration problem in America. We have a prison industrial complex
in America. It doesn't advance public safety, and it hurts economic
development. It has ruined individuals, ruined lives, ruined families,
and ruined communities, particularly in communities of color.
It is time to end the Federal cannabis prohibition. It is time to
deschedule it. It is time to decriminalize marijuana. It is time to
invest in communities in a way that makes sense, both from a public
safety standpoint as well as a fairness, equity, and justice
standpoint. It is time to pass the MORE Act.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention that there is about
$400 million that would have been raised last year under this bill had
this tax been in place, and none of that money goes to public safety.
It goes to rebuild community space but not public safety.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how is it that we here in
Congress, in the face of all the domestic and international crises that
we are facing right now, that we are here talking about decriminalizing
and descheduling marijuana?
Now, we are all going to go home this weekend, and what are our
constituents going to be talking about? They are going to be talking
about the price of gas. They are going to be talking about the price of
food. They are going to be talking about the price that they have to
pay to heat their homes.
They are going to turn on the TV. What are they going to see? They
are going to see in real time Ukrainians being bombed by Russia,
fleeing for their lives.
And what are we doing here in Congress? Talking about marijuana? You
have got to be kidding me.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a pharmacist. I know addiction. I know
and I have studied addiction. I can tell you, marijuana is nothing more
than a gateway drug. It leads to other harder drugs. Don't try to
justify this by saying, Oh, alcohol is a drug and it is legalized. That
is not what we do. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, we had a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
We had 10 parents before us whose children had died due to opioid
addiction. Not 8 out of 10, not 9 out of 10, but 10 out of 10 of those
parents said they smoked marijuana to begin with; 10 out of 10. It is a
gateway drug that leads to harder drugs.
This is not a Republican-Democrat situation here. This is an American
problem. You know that we had 100,000 Americans die of overdose last
year.
Mr. Speaker this is misguided. This is wrong. This is not what we
should be discussing.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the MORE Act,
legislation that takes an important step in rectifying some of the harm
caused by the failed war on drugs.
The enforcement of marijuana laws has been a major driver of mass
incarceration in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of people are
arrested each year for marijuana-related charges, very often just
possession.
[[Page H4092]]
This has, in turn, led to our Federal prison system operating at 103
percent of capacity, and too many of these offenders are serving time
for nonviolent drug-related crimes.
A drug-related conviction, even for possession, can be devastating
for the rest of a person's life, making it difficult or even impossible
to vote, get a job, be approved for a loan, or even qualify for a
government program. As we know, these consequences have had massively
disproportionate impact on communities of color, as Chairman Jeffries
just mentioned.
This current system, frankly, doesn't work. It doesn't make any
sense--not for community safety, not for the functioning of an
effective prison system, and not for successful rehabilitation.
By removing marijuana from the Federal controlled substances list,
allowing for the expungement of marijuana offenses, and providing
support to communities most impacted by the failed war on drugs, the
MORE Act is a long overdue step in restoring justice and reversing the
harms caused by the war on drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Nadler for his extraordinary
leadership on this issue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this
legislation and to support it here today. I urge my colleagues to join
me in voting ``yes'' in reversing the gross injustice that the war on
drugs has produced and bring sensible policy back into place.
I again want to end by thanking everyone who has worked on this for
so many years, but particularly our chairman for his passionate and
strong leadership.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here. I got a kick out of
the gentleman from Tennessee showing his age. He is talking about pot
when it was 2 percent THC. He is thinking pot is still this drug where
people get goofy and they eat Cheetos and nacho cheese Doritos.
He is not talking about the 99 percent THC pot that is being sold in
some of these States where they have legalized recreational pot. I
think that is really fun and anachronistic; very good to go back and
think about how things were in the late 1960s, early 1970s.
Let's talk about a Mother Jones article that I have before me where
they are analyzing the use of pot, and they are talking about, hey,
look, this is what happens, you start seeing paranoia and psychosis
come in. They are referring to New Zealand studies, long-term
longitudinal studies about the dangers of pot.
That is interesting. We are not going to even talk about that because
we don't have time to talk about that because we are focusing here on
descheduling marijuana. What that does is that incentivizes marijuana
use and distribution.
But this bill is also reckless in its approach. It provides no limits
on or requirements to clearly identify the potency of marijuana or its
extracts or concentrates. In 1995, for instance, the THC concentration
was about 4 percent on average. Today, it goes between 20 and 99
percent.
It also doesn't deal with what the Surgeon General says needs to be
the case, that the minimum age limit should be age 25. This doesn't get
into any age limit. It doesn't cover that, yet that is what the Surgeon
General says.
In fact, the Surgeon General's advisory says the human brain
continues to develop from birth into the mid 20s, vulnerable to the
effects of addictive substances, I don't know, like marijuana. In fact,
it goes on to say frequent marijuana use during adolescence is
associated with changes in the areas of the brain involving attention,
memory, decision-making, and motivation.
Adolescent marijuana use is associated with declines in IQ, school
performance and attendance, and life satisfaction, increased rates of
suicide attempts.
You know what this bill does? It is a lot of fun, folks. What it does
is, it says you can distribute this, under Federal law anyway, you can
distribute this to an 11-year-old kid. The 11-year-old kid is going to
have marijuana, be able to use it. You can't do anything to them here
for that, that is for sure.
What it does do is it creates a tax crime. It creates a tax crime.
You get rid of your marijuana crime, it creates some tax crimes. We all
know how great the Tax Code is for ease of use and understanding.
Section 3 of the bill removes marijuana from the schedule of the
Controlled Substances Act. It would no longer be a Federal crime to
possess or sell marijuana, including to 11 year olds. Section 5,
however, puts it into the Tax Code.
I think there is another fun aspect here. It talks about 600,000
arrests annually yet, the reality is that is for State and local
crimes. In fact, there were 1,100 marijuana convictions in 2020 under
Federal law. You know what those convictions were? Those were for
transport and distribution. Now you are not going to be able to get to
anybody for that.
Let's talk about how well this has worked in the L.A. Times pieces
that talk about this. The L.A. Times does a massive expose. What do
they find out? They say Prop 64 was going to solve all these problems,
solve the problems. Instead what you have are thousands of illegal grow
dispensaries. Why? Because they have a Byzantine code like what these
guys are setting up here today. So you have a crisis in L.A. County,
San Bernardino County and also in Riverside County.
Those grow farms use forced labor, as Mr. Bentz so eloquently talked
about, the Oregon grow farms. These are being run in southern
California by the cartels, who originate in Mexico, Ukraine, Russia,
Bulgaria, and China. Yeah, that is what you are going to do, you are
going to Federalize this. Well done. This is a piece of garbage. I
oppose this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the lead sponsor, Chairman
Nadler, for problem solving, along with Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Cohen,
Congresswoman Lee, and all of those who galvanized all of us. I was
pleased to be able to lead this through the Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security Subcommittee.
The war on drugs simply failed, and I am glad that one interpretation
that has just been evidenced by my good friend on the other side of the
aisle will have little weight and little basis because what we are
doing here is solving a problem.
Let me just indicate from the Health Affairs Culture of Health, a
Black person is still nearly four times more likely to be arrested for
cannabis possession than a White person.
To summarize this bill, it deals with Federal decriminalization,
taxation, and expungement. It does not stop the DA, the Department of
Justice, the FBI or anyone else from doing their job. The bill would
remove cannabis from the list or schedule of federally controlled
substances.
This means that, going forward, individuals can no longer be
prosecuted federally for marijuana offenses. This does not mean that
marijuana would now be legal throughout the United States. The bill
would simply remove the Federal Government from the business of
prosecuting marijuana cases, which would leave the question of legality
to individual States. Forty-seven States already have some form of
legal use of marijuana.
Let me share, my friends, the points that they are going to make. The
bill was designed to help individuals who have been caught up in the
criminal justice system for possessing more small amounts of marijuana
for personal use. It was not designed to help drug traffickers.
By the way, the President has given over a billion dollars to Ukraine
as one of the steadfast leaders and has galvanized NATO and our allies,
and not one of us needs to challenge the President or any one of us in
our fight to help Ukraine.
Let me make it very clear about crime. Read the President's budget.
He has a massive piece in there to reduce crime. It is everywhere,
including rural America, where Republicans say they are, but I don't
look at it that way. It is Americans, we stand together. This bill is
about America.
The expungement provisions are limited to nonviolent marijuana
possession convictions that have loaded up our Federal prisons. If an
individual has other criminal convictions in addition to a covered
nonviolent offense,
[[Page H4093]]
marijuana offense, the bill already includes a stated exemption for
drug kingpins, meaning anyone who received an increased sentence for
being a leader or organizer of drug trafficking will not qualify for
expungement.
Once this bill is passed, it would enable individuals to possess and
use marijuana for personal use. Marijuana will be regulated as a
commodity, but let me tell you what else will happen. We will be able
to research, the scientists will be able to study what is happening to
our young people, our juveniles if that is the case. We have a
definitive position in there about helping those who may become
addicted. We do not overlook those who might as well be using it, so
let us go forward with this bill. I ask support for the bill.
This bill was designed to help individuals who have been caught up in
the criminal justice system for possessing small amounts of marijuana
for personal use. It was not designed to help drug traffickers.
The expungement provisions are limited to nonviolent marijuana
possession convictions only. If an individual has other criminal
convictions in addition to a covered nonviolent marijuana offense,
those other convictions will not be expunged. The bill already includes
a stated exemption for ``drug kingpins,'' meaning anyone who received
an increased sentence for being a leader or organizer of drug
trafficking will not qualify for an expungement.
Once passed, this bill would enable individuals to possess and use
marijuana for a personal use. Marijuana will be a regulated commodity
like alcohol and the transportation, distribution, or selling of
marijuana without complying with federal regulations will continue to
be illegal. For example, an individual will not be able to transport
marijuana across the border without complying with import regulations
and appropriate tax requirements.
The bill already includes a requirement that a study be conducted to
understand the societal impacts of decriminalizing marijuana, including
the impact on juveniles, education, transportation, veterans,
employment, and many others.
Because marijuana will now be considered a commodity or good to be
sold and purchased, like alcohol and even cigarettes, the MORE Act
preserves the FDA's ability to issue regulations to address the
regulation, safety, manufacturing, product quality, marketing,
labeling, and sale of products containing cannabis or cannabis derived
compounds.
Cannabis will be regulated along the same lines as alcohol and
cigarettes, which have age requirements for consumption, sale, and
purchase.
Regulation of cannabis protects children and minors because the black
market and street dealers are not required to ask for the age or ID of
their customers, unlike permitted and regulated sellers.
Driving while impaired is illegal in the United States. The MORE Act
does not change this fact.
Impaired driving occurs when someone operates a vehicle while
impaired by a substance like marijuana, or any other drug, including
prescribed and over-the-counter medicines, or alcohol. Law enforcement
officers are trained to detect impairment of drivers by substances
other than alcohol through field sobriety tests.
Many states have supported the establishment of Drug Recognition and
Classification programs within their State and local police, and the
training of special Drug Recognition Experts, which are law enforcement
officers trained to identify drug-impaired driving using a 12-step,
standardized evaluation that includes behavioral tests and physical
assessments to determine impairment among seven categories of drug
classification.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
{time} 0945
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Our country is facing a national security crisis, an energy crisis, a
border crisis, and an economic crisis, but here we are, voting on
cannabis legislation.
How is this helping our constituents who are paying sky-high prices
at the gas pump? How does this strengthen our military and help secure
America? How does this address Biden's record-breaking surge of illegal
immigrants at our southern border? How does this help us to leave a
stronger, safer, more secure America for our children and our
children's children?
Simple answer: It doesn't.
We are here today to vote to get America high.
In States with legalized marijuana, there are more marijuana-related
emergency room visits and hospitalizations than any other category.
Patients in a study using marijuana to treat pain, anxiety, and
depression failed to report improved symptoms, and the continued use of
marijuana brought risk of addiction known as cannabis abuse disorder.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse found that about 30 percent of
marijuana users have some form of use disorder. In Colorado, the
Speaker's home State and the leading State for legalizing marijuana,
there was a 25 percent increase in CUD among 12- to 17-year-olds.
These are our children. Allowing children, who don't know how to
rationalize long-term effects of drugs, to use a gateway drug for
recreational or medicinal purposes is reckless, negligent, careless,
and irresponsible.
The MORE Act does not responsibly end Federal prohibition of
cannabis. The MORE Act does not end the war on drugs. All it does is
poison our children and weaken our society.
This flawed legislation is not time sensitive, does not require
consideration this week, and should not take priority over the various
serious issues our country currently faces.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and put our children
first, not the dope dealers.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the MORE Act.
This legislation is a very simple but very important piece of
legislation. It does three basic things.
Number one, it legalizes cannabis by removing it from the Controlled
Substance Act. Number two, it establishes a process to expunge
cannabis-related convictions. Number three, it taxes cannabis.
Mr. Speaker, it is time.
Thirty-seven States in our Nation have already legalized cannabis.
Even Canada has legalized cannabis, and other nations around the world
are legalizing cannabis. Even the Israelis are selling cannabis-related
medicine.
It is time, Mr. Speaker.
But this is just the start. Cannabis farmers can't enroll in crop
insurance. They can't receive the official organic designation. They
can't access USDA programs.
Mr. Speaker, it is well beyond time. Please vote for this
legislation. Vote for common sense. Let's vote for the MORE Act.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In response to this bill helping farmers, I just want to say it does
not. What it does is it puts a tax on top of their product. When added
to the Oregon tax, it would be almost 30 percent. That does not
encourage farmers to raise the crop because they can't compete against
the black market. There has to be far more thought given to what will
be an 8 percent additional cost.
By the way, it is a gross receipts tax. It is on top of the gross
receipts, not that net profit that you are supposed to get.
Secondly, the bill, as written, fails to distinguish between hemp and
marijuana. This must be done if the folks in each space are going to
grow properly.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Nadler, ranking members, this is an
important piece of legislation. How do I know that? Because the people
have told us that.
Every time they have had the opportunity to vote in America, they
have voted to do this. They know that filling our prisons and creating
criminal records for people who use marijuana--and knowing full well
that if they are people of color, the possibilities of adverse
consequences are geometrically greater.
I tell my colleagues, I am tired of hearing this argument that, ``Oh,
my goodness, we are doing this. We ought to be doing something else.''
We are all working on issues of great concern not only to us but to
the global community: on the war in Ukraine; on the criminal activities
that Putin is subjecting us to; on inflation, a critical problem for
all of our people. We are working on that. We are having trouble
getting some legislation in the Senate
[[Page H4094]]
that will bring down inflation and bring down costs for the American
people--not on our side of the aisle.
So, when I hear this argument, ``Oh, we ought to be doing this. We
ought to be doing that. We ought to be doing the other,'' this is an
important, fair piece of legislation, fair for the American people.
I thank Chairman Nadler. I thank the Judiciary Committee. I thank
Members on my side of the aisle. I thank Barbara Lee, who is walking
down the aisle right now, who has worked so hard on this.
Why did she work so hard on it? Because she knows the extraordinary
unfairness of the application of existing laws. You don't have to argue
that. Just look at the statistics, and you find that to be the case.
Chairman Nadler has long been a champion of decriminalizing marijuana
and addressing the systemic injustices and inequities resulting from
the war on drugs. I was a supporter of the war on drugs. I have been
here a long time.
The gentleman who spoke about this as a gateway drug, it is not a
gateway drug. I have been convinced of that.
Marijuana has been legalized in 19 States. That is 40 percent of our
States, save one, and the District of Columbia. Medical marijuana is
legal in 36 States. This is not out of the ordinary. This is what the
American people tell us they think is the appropriate thing to do.
Now, for some in this House, those who are treated with inequality,
particularly in this area, you are on your own. Make it out for
yourself. We are not going to address it because we have other issues.
Of course, we have other issues, and we pass bills on those--
unfortunately, not with much support from the other side of the aisle.
Despite the changes in State laws and social norms around the usage
of marijuana, its use remains illegal under Federal law. The gentleman
who is presiding over the House today comes from a State that has said
that is not good policy. Now, that is not some wacko coastal State. It
is Colorado.
Despite changes in State laws and social norms, as I have said, its
use remains illegal under Federal law, often resulting in devastating
consequences. Hear me, my colleagues: devastating consequences for
Black, Latino, and Native communities.
Now, I am not any of those. I would tell you, when I was in college
in the 1800s, it was alcohol. We were not the generation of drugs; it
was alcohol. It devastated the lives of literally hundreds of thousands
of young people. But nobody cried out to make it illegal. They tried
that, of course, in the twenties.
According to the Center for American Progress, Black Americans are
four times more likely than White Americans to be arrested for
marijuana possession, even though they use it at similar rates.
The gentleman who spoke asked why we are dealing with this. For the
same reason our Founders said that we believe in equality, that all
men--and they surely would add women today--are created equal and ought
to be treated fairly and equally. Four times more convictions and
prosecutions for people of color--that is why we are dealing with this,
because it is unfair in America.
Those criminal records can haunt people of color and impact the
trajectory of their lives and careers indefinitely. I regret that there
are some Members of our Congress who apparently think that is not
worthy of attention.
It can result in difficulty in finding employment, difficulty in
finding housing, denial of access to government benefits, denial of
financial aid at colleges and universities, and denial of the right to
vote. That is why we are dealing with this, because the adverse
consequences to people are substantial and negative, and negative not
only for them but for our country.
The legislation before us would remove marijuana from the list of
scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, allowing our
police departments--which we want to fund, by the way, so get off that
line that we want to defund the police--allow our police departments to
focus on serious crimes. The legislation before us would remove
marijuana from that list.
The bill already, by the way, includes a requirement that a study
will be conducted to understand the societal impacts of decriminalizing
marijuana, including the impact on juveniles, education,
transportation, veterans, employment, and many others.
This bill also expunges the records of individuals convicted of
nonviolent--let me repeat that--nonviolent cannabis offenses and
provides resources for job training, reentry services, and youth
recreation and mentoring programs.
Now, if you take the position that all of these people are on their
own and want no help from us or get no help from us, then perhaps you
don't care.
This bill also addresses the disproportionate economic impact of the
war on drugs by providing access to small-business grants, opening up
the legal marketplace to communities that have been largely excluded.
This bill is a matter of justice and equal opportunity. It is about
addressing systemic inequities and reforming our criminal justice
system so that Americans and America can become a better, stronger,
more fair, and more just America.
That is why we are spending time on this bill today.
I thank my friend one more time, Chairman Nadler, for his leadership
on this bill. I also thank Mr. Neal for helping us get this bill to the
floor. I also thank Barbara Lee, my dear friend.
Barbara Lee and I have been working for some years now on how to lift
people out of poverty into the middle class. We talk a lot about the
middle class, and the way you grow the middle class is to let people
who aren't in it in it so they can contribute to making a better,
stronger America.
{time} 1000
This bill will help that because it will take the stigma away from
four times as many people of color being stigmatized by our laws.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support
this bill. The people of Mississippi supported this bill when they went
to the polls and voted--not on this bill, that is not accurate--but on
the decriminalization of marijuana, because they knew that it was
neither necessary to be criminalized, and they knew the adverse
impacts.
I don't ask you to support something the people of California did or
the people of New York, or even Maryland, but think about supporting
the people of Mississippi, who voted on a policy that would make a fair
and more just America.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that it was noted that we
never asked the people if they would support legalization of marijuana.
That is not correct. North Dakota Measure 3 failed. Missouri
Proposition C to legalize marijuana failed. Ohio Issue 3 failed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Latta).
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a motion to recommit on behalf of
members of our communities who have tragically lost their lives to
substance use disorder, SUD.
Prior to the COVID-19 public health emergency, our country faced a
different kind of enemy that knew no bounds. This Chamber was once
united in the battle against addiction. And I was proud of the
legislative work we did to address this crisis most recently through
the SUPPORT Act. Unfortunately, all the progress we made seemed to
evaporate with the onset of the pandemic and the resulting lockdowns,
mandates, social isolation, and fear of an invisible enemy.
Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced
that 105,752 Americans died from drug overdoses from October 2020 to
October 2021.
Let me repeat that: 105,752 Americans died from drug overdoses in one
year's time.
Many of these deaths can be directly attributed to fentanyl, which is
now the leading cause of death in Americans aged 18 to 45. Down at our
southern border, Customs and Border Protection are confiscating record
amounts of fentanyl coming across the Mexican border.
The CBP seized over 11,201 pounds of fentanyl from October 2020 to
September 2021, which is a 41 percent increase from the year before.
That is
[[Page H4095]]
enough fentanyl to kill 2.5 billion people, or the entire U.S.
population, seven times over.
To address this crisis, I introduced the HALT Fentanyl Act with my
friend, the gentleman from the Ninth District of Virginia. This
legislation will permanently schedule fentanyl-related substances as
schedule I and enable researchers to continue to study schedule I
substances for possible medical benefits. We must do everything we can
to save lives, and I implore my colleagues to support this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, I will
instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to
H.R. 3617, to permanently place fentanyl-related substances in schedule
I of the Controlled Substances Act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation
because it is long overdue for our Federal laws to catch up with the
legal reality in almost every State in the Union, and because Federal
reform must place restorative justice as the top priority.
I thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and my fellow chairs for
once again bringing this legislation to the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, voters in States like New York have led the way in
changing their cannabis laws, emphasizing restorative justice for our
most marginalized communities. This bill takes a meaningful approach to
undo the wrongs of the failed war on drugs by removing cannabis as a
schedule I drug and encouraging States to expunge low-level possession
records.
Importantly, the MORE Act also helps entrepreneurs access affordable
capital to start a legitimate business, which too often is a barrier to
entrepreneurship for people of color regardless of industry.
As chair of the Committee on Small Business, I am proud the MORE Act
includes measures my colleagues and I championed to ensure SBA
programs, like the flagship 7(a) Loan Program, the disaster loan
program, and Small Business Development Center resources, are available
to legitimate cannabis businesses. The MORE Act is the best proposal to
ensure communities disproportionately impacted by the prohibition of
cannabis are best positioned to profit from its legalization.
Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Record crime, record inflation, record gas prices, record number of
illegal immigrants crossing our southern border.
And what are Democrats doing today? Legalizing drugs; legalizing
drugs and using American tax dollars to kick-start and prop up the
marijuana industry. Wow. Such a deal for the American people. Every
major urban area has increased crime, and Democrats are legalizing
drugs and propping up the marijuana industry.
Mr. Speaker, 40-year high inflation. It hasn't been this high since
1982. We have some Members not even born then. Record inflation, and
Democrats are focusing on legalizing drugs and kick-starting the
marijuana industry.
Record gas prices, $6 gas in California; $4 gas everywhere else, and
Democrats are legalizing drugs and helping the marijuana industry.
And, of course, 2 million illegal immigrants crossed our southern
border in the last 14 months, and Democrats are legalizing drugs and
helping the cannabis industry.
Oh, and by the way, we could be focused on this issue: We have a
Justice Department that is treating parents as domestic terrorists,
spying on moms and dads who simply show up at school board meetings. We
know that is going on, putting a threat tag label on parents, this
designation, this label, on moms and dads simply standing up for their
kids. And Democrats are focused on legalizing drugs and helping the
cannabis industry.
The Democrat majority leader said, Why are we dealing with this
today? You know why they are dealing with this today? Because they
can't deal with the real problems facing the American people. The left
won't let them. You think the left is going to let them do what needs
to be done to bring down gas prices?
We sat in a hearing a few months ago. One of our Democrat colleagues
in that hearing--we had the CEO of the oil and gas company--he went
down the line and said, Will you pledge today to decrease production?
They want less oil and gas. Literally, he went down the list. I said,
What do you want, $8 gas? And the truth is, they do.
The left will not let the Democrats do what needs to be done to the
help the inflation problem, the energy problem, the illegal immigration
problem on our southern border. So what do they do? They legalize
drugs.
Wow. Wow. This is wrong, and everybody knows it. Let's focus on the
thing that matters for--as the majority leader said--for middle-class
families who are having to drive to work, pick their kids up at school,
take their kids to Little League practice, spending four and five bucks
a gallon to get them there and back. Let's focus on the things that
matter.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill will greatly reduce crime by
redefining as not crimes things that are now considered crimes. And by
releasing people in jail who should not be in jail, it will produce
justice and it will reduce the expenses to the public.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), who has been such a great champion in the fight
for this legislation.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
3617, the MORE Act.
I thank Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer, and Chairman Neal. And let me
just thank Chairman Nadler for his persistence, his perseverance, and
really hanging in there and bringing this to the floor, because he
knows what the issues are, and he knows how important this is to repair
the damage of the lives of so many people.
Mr. Speaker, I also thank Congressman Blumenauer, my partner on so
many issues and, of course, our Speaker pro tempore, Mr. Perlmutter,
who is in the Chair today, and everyone who has helped to bring this to
the floor.
Mr. Speaker, my condolences today are with the family of our
colleague, the late Representative Don Young, a champion on this issue.
I honor his memory today as the founding member and co-chair of the
Cannabis Caucus, who voted for the MORE Act the first time it came to
the floor.
Also, let me thank our advocates for educating the public on this
issue, which, of course, helped our Members of Congress learn more
about the importance of this, that this is also a racial justice bill.
It is the product of the work of so many for a long time.
Mr. Speaker, of course, I salute our staff, Amy, Julie, Samira,
Gregory, Kayla--so many staff. As a former staff member, look, I know
how this was done, so I thank our staff for really doing the heavy
lifting on this.
Mr. Speaker, the MORE Act, yes, it includes my legislation, the
Marijuana Justice Act, and the REFER Act, which is the first marijuana
racial justice bill introduced in Congress many years ago. This bill
would end Federal prohibition and decriminalize cannabis by removing it
from the list of the Controlled Substances Act. That is what the MORE
Act does.
Make no mistake, yes, it is a racial justice bill. According to the
ACLU, Black Americans are nearly four times more likely to be arrested
for cannabis-related crimes than White Americans, despite equal rates
of use. These arrests can have a detrimental impact on a person's
quality of life and can lead to difficulty finding employment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California.
[[Page H4096]]
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, it is a multibillion-dollar
industry also that brings tax revenue of billions to our States. Over
950 are people arrested daily for marijuana-related offenses. This is
truly unjust. So we must end this failed policy of marijuana
prohibition, which has led to the shattering of so many lives,
primarily Black and Brown people. And yes, that is extremely important.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to repair the damage. It is time to provide
equal justice for those who have been unduly incarcerated. Public
opinion supports this.
In fact, over 50 years ago, the National Commission on Marijuana and
Drug Abuse, or the Shafer Commission, formally recommended to Congress
this be done. We are doing it today.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another great champion of this legislation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for his
courtesy and his leadership, and all the people that my friend, Barbara
Lee, just acknowledged.
Mr. Speaker, a century ago, we were in the midst of a prohibition
against alcohol. And the problems that my dear friend from Oregon
highlighted in terms of the prohibition against cannabis, I agree with
him about the horrific situation in southern Oregon, and I look forward
to working with him to try and remediate it. But the solution is to be
found in this legislation.
The problem of the cartels, the illegal activity, the black market,
is a result of the fact that the Federal Government does not have its
act together. People across the country have acted to take it into
their own hands and, as a result, we have a piecemeal approach.
Mr. Speaker, 48 States have some form of legalization. What Chairman
Nadler and the committee has done is provide a framework to be able to
harness the forces, to be able to do the research so we can deal with
impairment. The Federal Government interferes with that now. We have an
opportunity to solve the horrific problem of lack of access to banking
services, which makes dispensaries across the country sitting ducks.
It adds to expenses for minorities. It adds to the problems of law
enforcement. We face a situation now of great racial injustice in this
country that the legislation faces.
{time} 1015
We have an opportunity to unlock untold benefits for more medical
research and be able to channel the efforts into a legal matter, to be
able to have a taxing system federally, and to be able to strengthen
the legal cannabis market so that the profits flow to the people who
should do it rather than the cartels and the corner drug dealers that
are still cutting corners.
My friend is right about the problems in southern Oregon, but he is
wrong about the solution. The MORE Act is a solution to provide the
framework, provide the research, redirect the resources to be able to
solve the problem that has been created by the failed prohibition on
cannabis.
This is historic legislation, in part, because we will send this to
the Senate where there is a different mindset for the leadership. We
have opened the opportunity to solve these problems. I urge us to take
advantage of it and move forward.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to my friend and former law school classmate,
Representative Blumenauer--he was a few years ahead of me--I just want
to draw attention to the bill, page 15, where it calls out the
expenditures. It says: The amounts in the trust fund shall be
available, without further appropriation, only as follows. And then it
reflects section 3052(a) part 00 of the Omnibus Crime Control Safe
Streets Act of 1968, which I dug out and read through three times,
looking unsuccessfully for an allocation of money to local law
enforcement agencies, such as the ones in southern Oregon. It is not
there. That money is going for very limited and very narrow purposes.
How much money? Well, if this 8 percent tax had been applied to the
amount of marijuana sold last year in the United States, the total is
$400 million. That is not the total sold; it is the total tax, $400
million, half of which would go to this narrow piece of work. I am not
saying it is unimportant, but narrow.
There is 50 percent called out here, then 10 percent, then 25
percent, but none to police. What I am trying to say is, yes, you have
taken this up--do it right. Get it right. And you have a whole bunch of
work that needs to be done to get this bill right.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
support of the MORE Act and I applaud my colleagues, Chairman Nadler
and Barbara Lee, for their leadership on this critical legislation.
For years, public support for marijuana legalization has surged.
Thirty-seven States have voted to legalize marijuana. It is past time
that Congress answers the call for marijuana justice.
This sweeping legislation would finally decriminalize cannabis at the
Federal level by removing it from the Controlled Substance Act. The law
would apply this retroactively to prior and pending convictions that
have disproportionately harmed communities of color.
The MORE Act would also help those whose convictions are overturned
through the Opportunity Trust Fund that would provide job training,
reentry assistance, legal aid, and healthcare.
If we are serious about criminal justice, we need to get rid of the
antiquated cannabis laws. The MORE Act would do just that. I hope my
colleagues will join me in voting on this long overdue bill.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say again, I went down to southern Oregon
and I asked the law enforcement folks what we needed to do to try to
head off the cartels which are generating this huge sum of money for
themselves. What could we do? And the answer was, law enforcement. If
you don't have force, you can't control the cartels.
To get law enforcement it requires people and that requires money and
this bill doesn't allocate any for that purpose. Since we know this
bill is going to drive up the cost of legal marijuana, thus driving
more people into the black market, why isn't there more money for law
enforcement? Why isn't there any money for law enforcement?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I thank Mr.
Nadler, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Speaker, I rise because I see this as a bill that will benefit
some of the least, the last, and the lost; people who have been denied
access to housing, denied access to loans, denied access to things that
we need to succeed in the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I plan to support it. I ask that my colleagues support
it because it is tough being a Black man with a criminal record in the
United States of America. This bill will help a lot of Black men have
opportunities that they have been denied.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, the COVID pandemic has produced
a rise in drug abuse, violent crime, and other indicators of collective
trauma. These are pressing issues that urgently need resources devoted
to them. We must stop wasting precious resources on marijuana offenses.
Law enforcement simply cannot afford to chase small-time pot
offenders while violent and random crime continues to be on the rise
nationwide. The ACLU reports States are wasting billions annually
enforcing cannabis laws. This is money, time, and effort better spent
on investing in true community safety.
Further, Americans overwhelmingly want marijuana reform and 91
percent report that they believe that it should
[[Page H4097]]
be legalized. Congress is long overdue in marijuana reform and
decriminalizing this substance, but we have a long journey ahead to
achieve social justice and criminal justice reform.
The war on marijuana is a costly relic of the past. Let's vote
``yes'' today so we can build a safer and more equitable tomorrow.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure everyone that the police in Oregon
are not chasing those who are using marijuana. Oregon legalized
marijuana. What we are having trouble with are the consequences of that
legalization. That is what I am trying to bring to the attention of
folks today that if we are going to legalize on a national scale then,
for goodness' sake, don't make the mistakes we made in Oregon, get it
right.
Put into the bill appropriate funding for law enforcement. By the
way, we should put in a lot of other things that I previously
mentioned. One of the things that absolutely has to be there is funding
for local police because this bill is going to drive up the demand for
marijuana and up the cartels across the United States. It is bad and
local law enforcement can't take care of it.
The assertion that the FBI and Homeland Security and DEA are going to
do so is incorrect. I know because I have asked. We have nothing from
the Attorney General helping us in that space. So what I am saying is,
if you are going to do this, get it right.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bentz refers to the cartels. Of course there are
cartels. Of course they are making money because they have a monopoly
of supply of a substance that has a great demand. If you pass this bill
then those cartels will no longer have a monopoly and law enforcement
expenses will go down because they will not have to enforce the
marijuana laws and the marijuana prohibition laws. Nor will they have
to fight the cartels, which won't be there anymore because their
monopoly of supply will have been eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and I thank
everyone that my colleague, Barbara Lee, acknowledged earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the MORE Act and on behalf of
the countless families that have been disrupted and destroyed by our
Nation's failed drug policies and the devastating war on drugs.
As a result of the war on drugs, the United States has a higher rate
of incarceration than such human rights-abusing governments as Russia,
Belarus, and Iran. It also wastes more money than any other country
locking up its citizens for personal drug use.
Racial justice and cannabis decriminalization are inextricably
intertwined, and the former cannot be achieved without the latter. By
decriminalizing cannabis, we can reverse the trend of over-
incarceration and get one step closer to dismantling the systemic
racism so pervasive in our criminal justice system.
The MORE Act is an important step in rewriting our future, and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise the managers that Mr.
Nadler has 2\3/4\ minutes and Mr. Bentz has 6\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention in response to the assertion that
once this bill passes, if it does, that suddenly the cartels will
disappear. Sadly, that is not going to be true. That is because legal
marijuana will be 30 percent more expensive than that which is raised
on the black market. That is why one has to be aware when one puts this
kind of additional cost into this bill, 8 percent on a gross basis,
that people need to understand the difference between net profit and
gross.
What is going to happen is the cartels will have a 30 percent benefit
advantage over privately raised marijuana. What I am trying to say is:
Get this bill right. This isn't my thinking. This is people who looked
into this extremely carefully and those that are trying to do this
legally. I am saying this bill is incorrectly crafted on that level and
many others.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his
leadership, but I also want to recognize Representative Blumenauer for
his decades of work on this issue.
The MORE Act is the most comprehensive marijuana reform bill in
Congress, and it is rooted in social justice. The criminalization of
marijuana and this Nation's failed war on drugs has devastated our
communities of color. It has led to over-policing, mass incarceration,
and the destruction of families. This critical legislation takes steps
to undo these harms.
Today, I urge my colleagues to vote for criminal justice reform, to
vote for an equitable marijuana industry, and to vote for beginning to
repair the harms caused by decades of racist marijuana criminalization
and enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues today to vote ``yes'' on the
MORE Act.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of multiple
items:
First, a policy statement from the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry on Marijuana Legalization.
Second, Facts for Families from the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry on Marijuana and Teens.
Third, the Insurance Information Institute report on marijuana and
impaired driving.
Fourth, an article from verywellhealth.com titled, ``Is Marijuana
Addictive?'' by Ashley Olivine, Ph.D.
Fifth, an NBC News article titled, ``Legalized marijuana linked to a
sharp rise in car crashes.''
Sixth, the Denver Post article titled, ``Are you high? The science of
testing for marijuana impairment is hazy, and evolving.''
Seventh, a Bloomberg article titled, ``U.S. Grapples With How to
Gauge Just How High Cannabis Users Are.''
[From the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry]
Marijuana Legalization
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
(AACAP) advocates for careful consideration of potential
immediate and downstream effects of marijuana policy changes
on children and adolescents. Marijuana legalization, even if
restricted to adults, may be associated with (a) decreased
adolescent perception of marijuana's harmful effects, (b)
increased marijuana use among parents and caretakers, and (c)
increased adolescent access to marijuana, all of which
reliably predict increased rates of adolescent marijuana use
and associated problems. Marijuana use during pregnancy,
occurring at increasing rates, raises additional concerns
regarding future infant, child, and adolescent development.
AACAP is aware that, among hundreds of chemical
constituents, marijuana contains select individual compounds
that, if safely administered in reliable doses, may
potentially convey therapeutic effects for specific
conditions in specific populations. Advocacy regarding
potential cannabinoid therapeutics, alongside social justice,
public policy, and economic concerns, have contributed to
marijuana policy changes. Amid these factors, AACAP remains
focused on concerns regarding adolescent marijuana use.
Adolescents are especially vulnerable to marijuana's many
known adverse effects. One in six adolescent marijuana users
develops cannabis use disorder, a well characterized syndrome
involving tolerance, withdrawal, and continued use despite
significant associated impairments. Selective breeding has
increased marijuana's addictive potency and potential harm to
adolescents. Heavy use during adolescence is associated with
increased incidence and worsened course of psychotic, mood,
anxiety, and substance use disorders. Furthermore,
marijuana's deleterious effects on adolescent cognition,
behavior, and brain development may have immediate and long-
term implications, including increased risk of motor vehicle
accidents, sexual victimization, academic failure, lasting
decline in intelligence measures, psychopathology, addiction,
and psychosocial and occupational impairment.
Marijuana-related policy changes, including legalization,
may have significant unintended consequences for children and
adolescents. AACAP supports (a) initiatives to increase
awareness of marijuana's harmful effects on adolescents, (b)
improved access to evidence-based treatment for adolescents
with marijuana-related problems, and (c) careful monitoring
of the effects of marijuana-related policy changes on child
and adolescent mental health. Finally, AACAP strongly
advocates for the involvement of
[[Page H4098]]
the medical and research community in these critical and
highly impactful policy-related discussions.
____
Marijuana and Teens
Many teenagers try marijuana and some use it regularly.
Teenage marijuana use is at its highest level in 30 years,
and today's teens are more likely to use marijuana than
tobacco. Many states allow recreational use of marijuana in
adults ages 21 and over. Recreational marijuana use by
children and teenagers is not legal in anywhere in the United
States. Today's marijuana plants are grown differently than
in the past and can contain two to three times more
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the ingredient that makes people
high. The ingredient of the marijuana plant thought to have
most medical benefits, cannabidiol (CBD), has not increased
and remains at about 1 percent.
There are many ways people can use marijuana. This can make
it harder for parents to watch for use in their child. These
include:
Smoking the dried plant (buds and flowers) in a rolled
cigarette (joint), pipe, or bong
Smoking liquid or wax marijuana in an electronic cigarette,
also known as vaping
Eating ``edibles'' which are baked goods and candies
containing marijuana products
Drinking beverages containing marijuana products
Using oils and tinctures that can be applied to the skin
Other names used to describe marijuana include weed, pot,
spliffs, or the name of the strain of the plant. There are
also synthetic (man-made) marijuana-like drugs such as ``K2''
and ``Spice.'' These drugs are different from marijuana and
are more dangerous. Additionally, the products being sold in
dispensaries currently are not subject to Food and Drug
Administration standards and are not purely isolated
cannabinoids; they are therefore not reliable in their
potency/concentration of CBD or THC, or the inclusion of
other ingredients.
Parents and Prevention
Parents can help their children learn about the harmful
effects of marijuana use. Talking to your children about
marijuana at an early age can help them make better choices
and may prevent them from developing a problem with marijuana
use later. Begin talking with your child in an honest and
open way when they are in late elementary and early middle
school. Youth are less likely to try marijuana if they can
ask parents for help and know exactly how their parents feel
about drug use.
Tips on discussing marijuana with your child:
Ask what they have heard about using marijuana. Listen
carefully, pay attention, and try not to interrupt. Avoid
making negative or angry comments.
Offer your child facts about the risks and consequences of
smoking marijuana.
Ask your child to give examples of the effects of
marijuana. This will help you make sure that your child
understands what you talked about.
If you choose to talk to your child about your own
experiences with drugs, be honest about why you used and the
pressures that contributed to your use. Be careful not to
minimize the dangers of marijuana or other drugs, and be open
about any negative experiences you may have had. Given how
much stronger marijuana is today, its effect on your child
would likely be much different than what you experienced.
Explain that research tells us that the brain continues to
mature into the 20s. While it is developing, there is greater
risk of harm from marijuana use.
Sometimes parents may suspect that their child is already
using marijuana. The following are common signs of marijuana
use:
Acting very silly and out of character for no reason
Using new words and phrases like ``sparking up,'' ``420,''
``dabbing,'' and ``shatter''
Having increased irritability
Losing interest in and motivation to do usual activities
Spending time with peers that use marijuana
Having trouble remembering things that just happened
Carrying pipes, lighters, vape pens, or rolling papers
Coming home with red eyes and/or urges to eat outside of
usual mealtimes
Stealing money or having money that cannot be accounted for
Effects of Marijuana
Many teenagers believe that marijuana is safer than alcohol
or other drugs. When talking about marijuana with your child,
it is helpful to know the myths and the facts. For example,
teenagers may say, ``it is harmless because it is natural,''
``it is not addictive,'' or ``it does not affect my thinking
or my grades.''
However, research shows that marijuana can cause serious
problems with learning, feelings, and health.
Short-term use of marijuana can lead to:
School difficulties
Problems with memory and concentration
Increased aggression
Car accidents
Use of other drugs or alcohol
Risky sexual behaviors
Worsening of underlying mental health conditions including
mood changes and suicidal thinking
Increased risk of psychosis
Interference with prescribed medication
Regular use of marijuana can lead to significant problems
including Cannabis Use Disorder. Signs that your child has
developed Cannabis Use Disorder include using marijuana more
often than intended, having cravings, or when using
interferes with other activities. If someone with Cannabis
Use Disorder stops using suddenly, they may suffer withdrawal
symptoms that, while not dangerous, can cause irritability,
anxiety, and changes in mood, sleep, and appetite.
Long-term use of marijuana can lead to:
Cannabis Use Disorder
The same breathing problems as smoking cigarettes
(coughing, wheezing, trouble with physical activity, and lung
cancer)
Decreased motivation or interest which can lead to decline
in academic or occupational performance
Lower intelligence
Mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, depression,
anxiety, anger, irritability, moodiness, and risk of suicide
Medical Marijuana
Some teens justify use of marijuana because it is used for
medical purposes. Marijuana use with a prescription for a
medical reason is called ``medical marijuana.'' Laws for
medical marijuana are rapidly changing and are different from
state to state. In some states, children of any age can get
medical marijuana if they have a ``qualifying medical
condition.'' There is very limited research supporting use of
medical marijuana in children or teens for most conditions.
In most states that allow medical marijuana, the marijuana is
not regulated and therefore is not checked for ingredients,
purity, strength or safety. There is no evidence that medical
marijuana is any safer than other marijuana.
Cannabidiol (CBD)
Many parents have questions about CBD and how it may be
helpful for their child. There is ongoing research on the use
of CBD-containing products for conditions such as epilepsy,
PTSD, Tourette's disorder, pain, and other diagnoses. For
now, the use of CBD is only FDA-approved in children for
specific forms of epilepsy and in adults for chemotherapy
induced nausea and vomiting. At this time, there is not
enough evidence to recommend CBD for other uses, in children
and adolescents including the treatment of autism and other
developmental disorders. The approved CBD requires a
prescription. Many stores sell CBD products. However, there
are no safety and quality requirements for non-prescription
CBD. They may have harmful additives or interfere with
prescription medication. If you are considering using CBD for
your child, please discuss this with their physician prior to
starting to prevent harmful effects.
Conclusion
Marijuana use in teens can lead to long-term consequences.
Teens rarely think they will end up with problems related to
marijuana use, so it is important to begin talking about the
risks with your child early and continue this discussion over
time. Talking with your child about marijuana can help delay
the age of first use and help protect their brain. If your
child is already using marijuana, try asking questions in an
open and curious way as your teen will talk more freely if
not feeling judged. If you have concerns about your child's
drug use, talk with your child's pediatrician or a qualified
mental health professional.
____
[From the Insurance Information Institute, June 24, 2021]
Background On: Marijuana and Impaired Driving
overview
More states are passing legislation permitting medical and/
or recreational marijuana use, which raises concerns about
users driving under the influence of marijuana. This piece
will discuss:
Marijuana consumption and characteristics of marijuana
impairment; Marijuana legalization's impact on auto
accidents; Difficulties related to measuring user impairment;
and Insurance impacts.
historical perspective
Marijuana is a type of hemp plant of the species Cannabis
sativa L., part of the genus Cannabis L. Unlike industrial
hemp, however, marijuana contains appreciable arnounts of
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a psychoactive
cannabinoid--it's the active chemical that induces user
intoxication. The plant also contains several other, non-
psychoactive cannabinoids such as ``cannabidiol'' (CBD).
There is evidence that cannabis has been consumed for
thousands of years, often for medicinal purposes. The plant
was used as a patent medicine in the U.S. since at least
1850, when the United States Pharmacopoeia described the
plant for the first time. Cannabis was first regulated under
federal law under the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
Marijuana was subsequently subjected to countrywide
prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970
(CSA), which established a schedule for substances regulated
under federal law. Marijuana is currently a Schedule I drug
under the CSA, which defines Schedule I drugs as substances
that have ``no currently accepted medical use in the United
States, a lack of accepted safety for use under medical
supervision, and a high potential for abuse.'' Other
substances under Schedule I include heroin, LSD, and peyote.
Despite the treatment of marijuana under federal law, in
1996 California became the first state in the U.S. to pass
legislation permitting a medical marijuana program. By
[[Page H4099]]
April 2021, 36 states and the District of Columbia have
passed legislation permitting so-called ``comprehensive''
medical marijuana programs, which typically allow qualifying
patients to access marijuana and marijuana-related products.
Since 2012, 18 states and the District of Columbia have
passed legislation permitting anyone over the age of 21 to
possess and use marijuana, subject to certain limitations.
Most of those states also have or are developing regulations
for a commercial market to support recreational marijuana
sales.
marijuana impairment
The THC in marijuana plants causes intoxication in a user.
(THC levels in other hemp plants are typically so low that
they cannot induce intoxication.)
Effects of marijuana consumption can vary. Marijuana can
affect users differently, depending on a variety of factors,
including user tolerance. Common experiences intoxicated
include feelings of euphoria and relaxation; some may also
experience heightened sensory perceptions and altered
perceptions of time.
Marijuana cannot cause overdose, but can potentially cause
temporary psychosis. There are no documented instances of an
adult dying from an overdose of marijuana alone. However in
rare instances a user may experience a psychotic reaction to
the drug or high levels of anxiety--in some cases, these side
effects could lead a user to seek medical treatment. Such
negative effects are often experienced after consuming edible
marijuana products, which are often more potent and take
longer to induce intoxication.
Method of consumption alters impairment profile. Several
factors influence intoxication onset, intensity, and
duration, including method of consumption, type of marijuana
product consumed, product potency, and user characteristics.
Marijuana and related products can be consumed in several
ways, including inhalation (either by smoking or vaporizing)
of dried plant matter or concentrates (such as hashish or
kief), oral ingestion (edibles, capsules, infusible oils),
sublingual ingestion (lozenges), or topical application
(lotions, salves, oils).
Smoking often causes almost immediate intoxication, with
impairment typically lasting 2 to 4 hours. Intoxication onset
is more delayed for other methods, sometimes up to two hours
for edibles--and impairment may last much longer.
Product potency is dependent on THC levels. Potency varies
considerably across marijuana products and can influence the
degree of impairment. Smokable marijuana plant matter can
range anywhere from 8 percent to 30 percent THC, whereas
high-quality hash oil up to 80 percent THC. There is evidence
that marijuana products have become more potent over time.
User characteristics will also influence impairment. For
example, chronic users may experience less acute impairment
than non-chronic users.
marijuana and impaired driving
Marijuana intoxication can cause impaired driving, thereby
increasing the risks of accidents. Marijuana legalization is
associated with an increase in impaired driving.
Marijuana impairment degrades cognition and motor skills.
Marijuana alters a user's perception. As such, most studies
agree that marijuana use results in impaired coordination,
memory, associative learning, attention, cognitive
flexibility, and reaction time. Driving ability is thereby
degraded to some degree--but by how much remains a matter of
study and is subject to several factors, including the level
of impairment and user characteristics.
For example, there is some evidence that user impairment
may also result in limited ``compensatory defensive''
driving, in which a user drives more carefully to compensate
for a degradation in motor functioning--but this may only
mitigate degradation for some skills and may not apply to
non-chronic users.
Marijuana impairment increases the risk of accidents.
Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that acute impairment
increases the risk of traffic accidents--though the magnitude
of the increased risk is still a matter of study and can vary
widely, depending on the study.
One literature review found evidence that 20 to 30 percent
of crashes involving marijuana occurred because of the
marijuana use. (This compares to roughly 85 percent of
crashes involving alcohol that occurred because of alcohol
use.) The review estimated that the crash risk increased 22
percent while under the influence of marijuana, controlling
for concurrent alcohol use.
Another review found that someone driving under the
influence of marijuana is 1.65 times more likely to be
culpable in a fatal accident.
The greater the impairment, the worse the driving
abilities. As noted above, level of impairment can influence
the degree to which driving ability degrades. Indeed, there
is evidence that the more impaired the driver, the worse
their driving abilities.
Mixing marijuana and alcohol produces additive effects.
There is evidence that mixing marijuana and alcohol increases
impairment greater than the net effects of each individual
substance. There also may exist the possibility for alcohol
to increase THC levels. Potential compensatory defensive
driving is nullified when a user mixes alcohol and marijuana.
The number of crash rates could increase after
legalization. Researchers at the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) and the Highway Loss Data Institute
(HLDI) since 2014 have been examining how legalization has
affected crash rates and insurance claims, and evidence is
emerging that crash rates go up when states legalize
recreational use and retail sales of marijuana. The most
recent of these studies released in June 2021 by the IIHS,
shows that injury and fatal crash rates in California,
Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington jumped in the months
following relaxation of marijuana laws in each state. The
five states experienced a 6 percent increase in injury crash
rates and a 4 percent increase in fatal crash rates, compared
with other Western states where recreational marijuana use
was illegal during the study period.
However, only the increase in injury crash rates was
statistically significant. These findings are consistent with
a 2018 IIHS study of police-reported crashes, most of which
did not involve injuries or fatalities. This study found that
legalization of retail sales in Colorado, Oregon
andWashington was associated with a 5 percent higher crash
rate compared with the neighboring control states.
Fatal crashes involving drivers who tested positive for THC
have increased. Some studies indicate that more people with
``detectible'' levels of THC in their bloodstreams were
involved in fatal accidents after legalization. However, as
discussed below, the mere presence of THC does not
necessarily indicate marijuana impairment. Furthermore,
regarding fatal crash rates overall, at least one study found
no significant annual changes in crash fatality rates
forColorado and Washington when compared to 8 control states.
A 2020 study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety shows
that the percentage of drivers in Washington involved in
fatal crashes who tested positive for marijuana increased 100
percent after the state made the drug legal for recreational
use. The study considered the presence of detectable THC in
the blood of fatal-crash-involved drIvers. In general, the
presence of detectable THC in blood suggests, but does not
conclusively prove, that a person has recently used cannabis.
Collision claim frequency appears to have increased.
Insurance records show an increase in claims under collision
coverage, which pays for damage to an at-fault, insured
driver's own vehicle, according to HLDI's latest analysis,
The legalization of retail sales in Colorado, Nevada, Oregon,
and Washington was associated with a 4 percent increase in
collision claim frequency compared with the other Western
states from 2012 to 2019. The 4 percent decline is down
slightly from the 6 percent increase HLDI identified in a
previous study, which covered 2012 to 2018.
Higher risk demographics also have higher rates of
marijuana-impaired driving. Younger drivers are at greater
risk of traffic accidents than older drivers. Younger male
drivers are at high risk of traffic accidents. Early evidence
suggests that younger male drivers are most likely to drive
under the influence of marijuana.
Use of recreational marijuana impairs driving even when the
driver is not high. A study published in the journal Drug and
Alcohol Dependence suggests that chronic, heavy use of
recreational marijuana impairs driving skills even when the
driver is not high. The researchers used a driving simulator
to evaluate the potential impact of cannabis use on driving
performance. The study concluded that driving impairment was
significantly worse among the study participants who began
using marijuana regularly before age 16. The study, by
researchers at Harvard Medical School's McLean Hospital,
found that cannabis users hit more pedestrians, exceeded the
speed limit more often, and drove through more red lights
compared with non-users. At the time of the study, the
marijuana users had not used for at least 12 hours and were
not intoxicated.
Determining intoxication: ``THC persistence''
A key issue raised in many studies examining the effects of
marijuana-impaired driving and its risks is ``THC
persistence.'' Unlike alcohol, THC levels in a user's body
may not be an accurate indication of impairment.
Compared with marijuana, determining alcohol intoxication
is relatively straightforward. The human body processes
alcohol at a rate that allows blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) to closely correlate with intoxication, making it an
effective and accurate benchmark for measuring impairment.
____
[Feb. 17, 2022]
Is Marijuana Addictive?
(By Ashley Olivine, Ph.D., MPH)
(Medically reviewed by Isaac O. Opole, MD, PhD)
In light of the legalization of marijuana, many people have
wondered about the substance, its safety, and whether it's
addictive. Marijuana--also called weed, cannabis, and other
names--is a species of plant that is used as a medical and
recreational drug.
People can become addicted to marijuana. While it is
possible to try and use the substance without becoming
addicted, that is not the case for everyone. There are risks
of use, even medicinally, and addiction is one of them.
Like any drug used medicinally, the potential risks of use
are weighed against the potential benefits when deciding what
should
[[Page H4100]]
and should not be tried. Learn more about marijuana
addiction, risk factors, effects on the brain, and more.
Is marijuana addictive?
While some people can try and use marijuana without
becoming addicted, it can also be addictive for some people.
Marijuana use disorder, also known as cannabis use disorder,
is when the use of marijuana negatively impacts a person's
health or life but they continue to use it anyway.
Although the numbers are not entirely known, it is
estimated that 6.3 percent of adults have experienced
marijuana use disorder, and that percentage is increasing. As
many as 30 percent of people who use marijuana may experience
marijuana use disorder. Marijuana use can also be associated
with addiction and dependency.
Addiction vs. Dependency
Addiction and dependency are two terms that are often used
interchangeably. There are differences between the two.
Addiction happens when a person uses a substance such as
alcohol, marijuana, or another drug in excess. It is usually
marked by a change in behavior, where the person becomes
consistently focused on using that substance regardless of
potential negative outcomes. Addiction can be physical,
psychological, or both at the same time.
Substance dependence, also called chemical dependence, is
when a person experiences physical dependence on a substance
but is not addicted to it. One example is when a person who
has taken a prescription medication for a long time stops
taking that medication and experiences physical or mental
withdrawal symptoms. Dependence symptoms can be cognitive,
behavioral, and physical. Dependence presents as a pattern. A
person first uses a substance such as marijuana repeatedly.
After regular use over time, they build a tolerance, where
the effects of the substance are not noticed as much or at
all. The person experiences symptoms when they stop using the
substance, which makes them feel the need to use it again.
Symptoms of Cannabis Use Disorder
Cannabis use disorder, or marijuana use disorder, is when a
person continues to use the substance even though they
experience negative health or life effects from use. Symptoms
include excessive focus on marijuana use; ignoring school,
work, or relationships; other problems caused by marijuana
use such as an inability to resist cravings; and more. These
can range from mild to severe depending on the person.
Symptoms may include
Changes in sleep, appetite, or mood.
Cravings to use marijuana.
Decreased control of marijuana use.
Decreased fulfillment of responsibilities.
Decline in school, work, or athletic performance.
Headache, abdominal pain, chills, or sweating when not
using.
Needing to use more to get the same effect.
Negative feelings associated with use.
Overuse of marijuana and using more than intended.
Risk-taking behaviors.
Social withdrawal related to marijuana use.
Risk Factors
One of the biggest risk factors of marijuana addiction may
be age. People are up to seven times as likely to experience
marijuana use disorder when they start using before the age
of 18. Additionally, men are twice as likely as women to
experience marijuana use disorder.
Other risk factors include
Family history of substance use disorder.
Friends and peers who use marijuana.
Adverse childhood experiences such as sexual abuse.
Use of cigarettes.
Teenage Drug Addiction: A Complete Guide.
Effect on the Brain.
Marijuana use has a negative impact on the brain. THC,
which stands for tetrahydrocannabinol, is the part of the
cannabis plant that causes the mental effect. THC can cause
changes to the brain that impact the structure and ability to
function, including learning, memory, cognitive ability, and
behavior--including future substance use. This is an
increased concern for younger people exposed to THC,
including babies during pregnancy.
The use of marijuana has also been found to be connected
with lower IQ scores, compromised memory and cognitive
ability, and decreased performance on tests. The negative
effects of use appear to be more of an issue for those who
use more often and over a longer period of time. However,
research is limited and the details of the negative effects
on the brain are not fully understood.
Is recreational marijuana to blame?
The negative effects of marijuana are not limited to
recreational marijuana. Medicinal marijuana use comes with
risks too. Like other medicinal treatments for medical
conditions, medicinal marijuana can have negative effects
even though it is used to treat medical conditions.
Additionally, over 80 percent of people who use medicinal
marijuana also use it recreationally. This can lead to more
use and an increased risk of marijuana use disorder.
Medicinal Use of Marijuana.
Medicinal marijuana is used to treat and manage a variety
of medical concerns, including physical and mental health
challenges. Despite the risks, studies of medicinal marijuana
use have shown effectiveness. Nearly 90 percent of people who
use medicinal marijuana claim that it helps them to manage
their disease and symptoms, and many find that they are able
to decrease their use of other medications.
The Debate Over the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Use
Conditions commonly treated with medical marijuana include:
Alzheimer's disease, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, (ALS),
Anxiety, Cancer chemotherapy side effects, Crohn's disease,
Depression, Glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, Inflammation, Multiple
sclerosis muscle symptoms, Nausea and vomiting, Pain, Post-
traumatic stress disorder or PTSD, Seizures and epilepsy,
Marijuana Addiction Criteria.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health
Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) classifies the diagnostic
criteria for cannabis use disorder. Use of the substance must
be associated with impairment or distress. Diagnosis of this
condition requires at least two of the 11 criteria within one
year.
Cannabis Use Disorder DSM-5 Criteria
More use than intended.
Unable to decrease use despite desire or effort.
Excessive time spent on activities related to use,
including getting access and recovering.
Urges or cravings.
Work, school, or home obligations not fulfilled due to use.
A problem of social or interpersonal problems associated
with use and continued use.
Withdrawal from social, work, or recreational activities
due to use despite importance.
Physically hazardous use.
Knowingly experiencing problems associated with use and
continued use.
Tolerance, defined by either needing more to get the effect
or decreased effect with the same amount.
Withdrawal, defined by either DSM-5 cannabis withdrawal
symptoms or use of a substance to address symptoms of
withdrawal.
Help for Cannabis Use Disorder
Cannabis use disorder is treatable. This condition can be
diagnosed by a healthcare professional such as a medical
doctor or psychologist. Treatment methods include
psychotherapy (talk therapy) and medications. More
specifically, motivational interviewing, contingency
management, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) may be
used. Medications to control cravings may be used alongside
nonmedicinal interventions.
Substance Use Helpline
If you or a loved one are struggling with substance use or
addiction, contact the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) National Helpline for
information on support and treatment facilities in your area.
For more mental health resources, see our National Helpline
Database.
____
[From NBC News, Oct. 18, 2018]
Legalized Marijuana Linked to a Sharp Rise in Car Crashes
(By Paul A. Eisenstein)
There has been an increase by up to 6 percent in the number
of highway crashes in four of the states where the
recreational use of marijuana has been legalized, according
to a pair of new studies.
The new reports do not prove there's a direct risk caused
by the use of marijuana among motorists, but they raise
caution flags, especially since there is no easy way to test
drivers to be sure if they are, in fact, under the influence
of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, said David
Harkey, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety's Highway Loss Data Institute.
``It's certainly early in the game,'' Harkey told NBC News.
But, he warned, ``We're seeing a trend in the wrong
direction.''
There are now 30 states that have legalized the use of
marijuana for medical purposes, with Oklahoma the most recent
to join the list. Nine states and the District of Columbia
now have legalized recreational use. With a Gallup poll
showing 64 percent public support, more states are set to
follow, including Michigan, where recreational use is on the
November ballot.
Since the legalization wave began, safety and health
experts have been trying to measure the potential influence
on highway safety, though the results so far have been
inconsistent and, in some cases, contradictory.
But this is the second year in a row where the IIHS found a
troubling trend. A year ago, the non-profit group looked at
three states, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. This year, it
added Nevada to the list. Harkey said the IIHS also looked at
highway crash data in surrounding states to try to control
for factors like weather and the economy.
The studies looked at police reports and insurance claims,
finding crashes rose between 5.2 percent and 6 percent in
states with legalized recreational marijuana compared to
neighboring states where such use remained illegal.
The IIHS also conducted a street-side study of marijuana
use and found something Harkey said he saw as particularly
concerning. While those under the influence of alcohol tend
to either be driving alone or with other adults, about 14
percent of those confirmed to be using pot had a child in
their vehicle. That reflects the fact, he added, that
marijuana use isn't confined to evenings and other times when
adults are more likely to drink--and abuse--alcohol.
[[Page H4101]]
What is unclear is whether that reflects the increasing use
of recreational pot or the consumption of medical marijuana
to deal with issues like pain or glaucoma, something a
patient may time to need.
Harkey cautioned there are limits to what the studies show.
There is a ``correlation,'' reflecting the fact that crashes
rose once pot became legal, but that is not the same as
``causation,'' he added, meaning other, unseen factors could
be at work.
That could help explain why earlier studies have often
conflicted over the effects of marijuana on highway safety.
One, released by the University of Colorado in 2014, showed a
surge in fatalities involving stoned drivers. But a study
conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration in Virginia a year later found no clear
increase in risk.
Part of the problem is that it is difficult to accurately
measure how pot impacts drivers. ``Many studies, using a
variety of methods, have attempted to estimate the risk of
driving after use of marijuana,'' a NHTSA report advised
Congress last year. ``While useful in identifying how
marijuana affects the performance of driving tasks,
experimental and observational studies do not lend themselves
to predicting real-world crash risk.''
Police have a particularly difficult challenge because of
the way marijuana works in the body. Blood alcohol levels
provide a direct correlation showing how much a motorist has
had to drink, with those levels dropping rapidly as someone
sobers up. But while THC levels spike after smoking weed or
eating a consumable, the psychoactive ingredient remains in
the body for weeks, long after it has stopped having any
impact.
With so many more states set to permit the use of the drug,
Harkey said regulators, law enforcement, and medical
authorities need to address ``the challenge'' and come up
with better ways of determining when a driver might be
operating under the influence of marijuana.
____
[From the Denver Post, Aug. 25, 2017]
Are You High? The Science of Testing for Marijuana Impairment Is Hazy,
and Evolving. Lawmakers, Police, Prosecutors Grapple With How To Define
Marijuana Impairment.
(By David Migoya)
There was a time when marijuana was illegal everywhere and
testing for it was as easy as could be.
It didn't matter the level of cannabinoids found in a
person's body. If it was there, they were breaking the law.
It's different now.
The tests have changed from depositing a urine sample into
a cup to drawing blood or offering oral fluids. Also
different is the particular type of cannabinoid--the chemical
compound that reacts in the brain--detected by any of those
tests.
The evolving science of testing for marijuana, and the lack
of consensus over how to measure impairment, is a defining
feature of the drug. It separates marijuana from alcohol and
creates challenges for lawmakers, police and prosecutors, not
to mention users.
The issue is critical as the state moves forward in
determining how to handle driving under the influence of pot.
A Denver Post investigation found that the numbers of drivers
in fatal crashes testing positive for marijuana--though not
necessarily high--is rising sharply, and coroners are finding
higher levels of potency in their tests.
The cannabinoid most widely tested for in the past--known
as carboxy THC--is actually an inactive metabolite that only
indicates prior marijuana use, sometimes as long as a month
ago. In time, other metabolites of THC--short for
tetrahydrocannabinal, the psychoactive ingredient in
marijuana--were found to be better indicators of recent use
and, some say, impairment.
``Urine testing was established many years ago, and, at the
time, a test was developed to look for carboxy THC since it's
what's there in the highest amount,'' said Sarah Urfer,
president and owner of ChemaTox, a Boulder lab that handles
DUI screening for about three quarters of the law enforcement
agencies in Colorado. ``Nobody thought it mattered what you
were looking for . . . . Early on, scientists didn't know for
sure which of the cannabinoids were responsible for
impairment. They'd measure carboxy and try to correlate it to
impairment.''
But THC is not the same as alcohol. It reacts differently
in the body, it metabolizes differently and its impairing
impact is different. Unlike the 0.08 blood-alcohol level
that's widely accepted as indicative of drunken driving,
establishing a credible level for THC has been elusive.
It is generally accepted that two standard drinks--about 1/
2 ounce of alcohol--in an hour will raise someone's blood-
alcohol level to 0.05, approaching the legal limit. One drink
is a 12-ounce beer, a 1.5-ounce shot of distilled spirit, or
a 6-ounce glass of wine.
For pot, the differences are striking since it depends on
the manner ingested--smoked, edible, concentrate--and how
much. A Johns Hopkins University study from 1995 found that
four puffs of smokable marijuana with 1.75 percent THC
content translates to 57 nanograms per milliliter, and 10
puffs as much as 99 ng/mL. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration says levels of 100-200 ng/mL are
``routinely encountered'' after smoking but quickly
dissipate. Concentrate levels for vapor ingestion are
typically higher, as well as for edibles, although the rate
of distribution into the blood varies considerably.
feds question tests
NHTSA last month acknowledged these gray areas in a report
to Congress that not only called into question the
reliability of tests to find THC but also noted the problem
with determining whether a driver is too stoned to be behind
the wheel.
In fact, the NHTSA report notes that even though ``research
has demonstrated the potential of marijuana to impair
driving-related skills,'' it lays out a number of other
studies that show pot might not be as bad as the better-
understood effects of alcohol on driving.
``Many studies, using a variety of methods, have attempted
to estimate the risk of driving after use of marijuana,'' the
NHTSA report noted. ``While useful in identifying how
marijuana affects the performance of driving tasks,
experimental and observational studies do not lend themselves
to predicting real-world crash risk.''
Finding THC isn't so difficult. Making any kind of
universally accepted determination from the results, however,
seems to freeze the legal world in its tracks.
``Testing for THC in whole blood isn't actually that
hard,'' Urfer said. ``Where the issue comes is with
interpretation and roadside testing.''
Some widely cited studies have offered differing
information about the impact of marijuana on driving. And not
all sides agree which studies are right and which are not.
In 2012, a medical study published in Clinical Chemistry
journal found ``cannabis smoking increases lane weaving and
impaired cognitive functions,'' and that certain THC
concentration levels ``are associated with substantial
driving impairment, particularly in occasional smokers.''
Then came a University of Colorado study--released in 2014,
the year recreational sales of the drug were launched in the
state--that found the proportion of drivers involved in fatal
crashes who tested positive for marijuana use had risen to 10
percent in 2011, up from 5.9 percent in 2009.
But in 2015, NHTSA released a study it conducted in
Virginia that concluded marijuana users had the same chance
of crashing as sober drivers. At nearly the same time, the
Washington Traffic Safety Commission said it believed
marijuana doubles the risk of being in a fatal crash.
Where experts say impairment becomes most noted and is most
alarming to law enforcement because of its prevalence is the
use of alcohol with marijuana, apparently heightening the
effects of each.
In Colorado last year, nearly 36 percent of all drivers
involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for marijuana
use also had consumed alcohol, according to the Colorado
Department of Transportation.
``We're in the infancy with this, and it's very much an
unknown since we don't have the data.'' Greenwood Village
Police Chief John Jackson said. ``We spent 25 or 30 years
figuring out where we were are with alcohol, and finally got
to breathalyzers. There is no field test for marijuana yet.
You will not convince those who believe it's safer that it's
not. It becomes so emotional to the point of irrational.''
differing approaches
Colorado has established that a THC level of 5 ng/mL is
enough to charge someone with DUI. Unlike alcohol, where a
reading of 0.08 is enough to convict someone of drunken
driving--known as per se evidence that a driver is impaired--
THC levels are only considered as ``permissible inference''
of impairment.
That means that despite the level of Delta-9 THC found in a
driver's blood, a Colorado jury or judge decides whether the
driver was impaired or not.
Washington and Montana, unlike Colorado, treat the same 5
ng/mL level of THC as if it were alcohol, where no other
proof of impairment is needed to convict a driver charged
with DUI. However, 12 states--including Arizona and Utah--
have zero-tolerance policies, so any detectable amount of THC
can lead to a conviction.
In its recent report to Congress, NHTSA questioned the THC
levels states use to charge someone with impaired driving,
calling them ``artificial.''
``A number of states have set a THC limit . . . indicating
that if a suspect's THC concentration is above that level, .
. . then the suspect is to be considered impaired,'' the
agency said in its report. ``This per se limit appears to
have been based on something other than scientific
evidence.''
Urfer agreed.
``Permissible inference is a government-derived number that
was part of the discussion around legalization.'' said Urfer,
who spoke before the committees that prepared for Amendment
64, the voter initiative that legalized recreational
marijuana use in Colorado. ``I've always said 5 (ng/mL) was a
bad number.''
That's because of how THC works its way through a person's
system, Urfer said, noting that if a single number had to be
used, then using none at all makes the best sense ``since
it's already illegal to drive when under the influence of a
drug.''
``Impairment drops off over the next two to four hours,''
she said of marijuana use. ``The levels of THC drop off
astronomically fast. But that drop-off in blood is
distributing into the brain and the muscles of the body. And
impairment comes from the brain.''
That means blood levels of THC are probably far lower at
the time a test is done than
[[Page H4102]]
at the time of a crash or other traffic infraction. Yet, the
THC is still in the driver's system--just not in their blood.
That's led lawyers and others to contend that someone isn't
actually impaired if their THC level is below 5 ng/mL.
``The public is misinterpreting the statement that you
can't tell if someone's high because of the THC level,''
Urfer said. ``You can't directly correlate a number to
impairment. The blood level for THC does not represent the
same as alcohol does.''
THC levels hit their peak nearly instantaneously at the
time someone uses marijuana and dissipate very quickly.
What's detected in the blood is typically much lower than it
had been at the time of use, especially when a sample is
taken long after a crash occurs.
``The level in the blood is dropping, but the level in the
brain is not,'' Urfer said. ``The high is caused by the level
in the brain, not in the blood. And no one has published a
study that says it's safe to drive high.''
As expected, there has been strong push-back from the
marijuana industry, which says the only thing understood
about THC levels is that very little is understood.
``There needs to be better understanding about what
constitutes impairment,'' said Kristi Kelly, executive
director of the Marijuana Industry Group, a Colorado trade
organization. ``The science on cannabis metabolism doesn't
support the legal 5 ng/mL limit in Colorado, which can be
present for days and weeks after consumption.''
Roadside testing could be improving, with the advent of a
saliva test that could bring more immediate and reliable
information about the level of active THC in a person's
system. The Colorado State Patrol has been using it in
preliminary tests to determine its reliability.
``The inference is that at or above 5 (ng/ml.), you're
high, but there should be no inference that below 5 you're
sober,'' Urfer said. ``But people genuinely believe they can
use an impairing substance, feel high and still think they
can be safe to drive. They rationalize: `Marijuana is legal.
Why can't I drive on it?' They say it all the time. It's
odd.''
____
[From Bloomberg News, Jan. 24, 2022]
U.S. Grapples With How To Gauge Just How High Cannabis Users Are
(By Tiffany Kary)
Impairment tests are becoming big business
``Walk a straight line'' isn't going to cut it anymore as
police and employers grapple with growing use of marijuana.
Earlier this month, a study in a peer-reviewed journal
became the latest sign that there's a paradigm shift going on
in the nascent business of detecting impairment levels. The
article, which appeared Neuropsychopharmacology, showed that
an imaging technique can detect cannabis impairment with 76%
accuracy. That's better than the 68% accuracy of field tests
that employ traditional law enforcement protocols such as
walking a straight line and examining a subject's pupils.
The technique, called functional near-infrared
spectroscopy, measures changes in the prefrontal cortex of
the brain. It shows that impaired brains look different than
non-impaired brains in a way that doesn't necessarily
correlate with the amount of THC in a person's system. THC
detection in saliva or on the breath has so far been the main
focus of tests. The study was carried out on 169 people at
Massachusetts General Hospital, which is part of Harvard
Medical School.
The study is a big deal for the cannabis industry, since
the lack of a clear test to gauge intoxication has become a
stumbling block for federal legalization. Though links
between marijuana and accidents have been hard to draw due to
factors such as the frequent mixing of alcohol with drugs,
the study estimates that THC, which is the psychoactive
ingredient in cannabis, at least doubles the risk of fatal
motor vehicle crashes.
The research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice has
acknowledged that field sobriety tests and THC levels are
unreliable measures of marijuana intoxication. Methods like
the ``one-leg stand'' and ``walk 11d turn'' weren't affected
by marijuana highs, and some people had poor functions even
when their THC levels were low.
states' efforts
States have forged ahead nevertheless. According to New
Frontier Data, at least five opted protocols that set a legal
limit for driving based on the level of THC in the body. That
has sparked a lot of interest in tests that can actually
measure that level--a scientific challenge unto itself.
``Everybody wants a cannabis breathalyzer--something like
what we have for alcohol where you breathe into a device and
it tells a THC level and whether that means you're impaired
or not,'' said Jodi Gilman, an associate professor in
psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and lead author of the
imaging study. ``But that's not how it works for cannabis, we
need a new paradigm.''
Companies have been trying to crack the stoned-test for a
while. Hound Labs, which makes a marijuana breathalyzer, said
in September it had raised $20 million to scale its product.
Cannabix Technologies, Inc. recently reported it had made
headway creating a more portable device, while Lifeloc
Techtologies Inc. said it was finalizing the platform for a
rapid marijuana breathalyzer that could be used for roadside
testing.
There are concerns, however, that tests based on THC levels
may be unfair to those their system but aren't actually
impaired. This can be the case for some who consumed cannabis
days ago, or with frequent users who've built up a
tolerance--who may use it for medical reasons.
``You wouldn't want to penalize that person,'' Gilman told
me. ``What this technology will do is differentiate impaired
from not-impaired, which is different than distinguishing
cannabis from no-cannabis.''
Impairment app
One company that uses a similar approach is Cambridge,
Massachusetts-based Impairment Science, which has an app
called Druid to measure response times and motor skills
through a series of tests on a screen. The methods let the
app gauge impairment, regardless of whether the cause was
alcohol, marijuana, or something else. The company aims to
raise as much as $1.2 million in seed funding, according to
Chief Executive Officer Robert Schiller.
Druid is being pitched to construction companies, and
Impairment Science recently struck a deal with Anheuser-Busch
InBev SA's Grupo Modelo, which will promote the app in an
effort to reduce drunk driving in the Mexican state of
Zacatecas. Schiller said the company plans to announce more
corporate partnerships in the near future.
Still, there are no easy solutions. Druid's app requires
that people take the test more that once in order to gauge
impairment compared to a baseline score. The company is
researching a product where tests could be one-offs, which
would appeal to law enforcement.
The method used by Gilman also has its limitations. It
relies on an imaging device from NirX Medical Technologies,
which still costs around $40,000.
For better or worse, the techniques used by Gilman's study
and Druid's app will also pick up forms of impairment that
arise from issues other than marijuana, such as fatigue,
illness or chronic medical conditions. That could be a good
thing for public safety--especially at a time where
perception-altering drugs like psilocybin are on the rise,
and other drugs like opiates also create risks in driving and
high-risk industries--but it could create other problems.
It's not hard to envision a future where people could be
taken aside and wired up for a quick scan that checks their
brain for telltale signs of impairment. Then comes the real
work: Employers, insurers and police will have to figure out
what to do with the information.
Number of the week
The number of U.S. states that have zero-tolerance laws
prohibiting driving with any amount of THC or its metabolites
in the body, according to New Frontier Data.
Quote of the week
``Cannabis definitely impacts areas of the brain that
affect decision making and impulse control. And that's very
much what driving is,'' said Rebecca Siegel, a clinical
psychiatrist and author of the book ``The Brain on Cannabis:
What You Should Know About Recreational and Medical
Marijuana.''
What you need to know
Eleusis, a health-care company focused on using psychedelic
drugs as medicines, is going public through a merger with a
blank-check firm.
Thailand plans to remove marijuana from its list of
controlled substances, paving the way to decriminalization.
Mississippi could be the next state to put a cannabis law
on the books.
A New Hampshire court found that a worker who was fired
after he told his employer he started using cannabis when his
doctor prescribed it for PTSD may have a viable claim under
state disability bias law.
____
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, the MORE Act is a historic piece of
legislation, no question about it. It removes criminal convictions for
marijuana use that have stigmatized the lives of thousands of
individuals in our country, particularly those of color. In addition,
tragically, our veterans have been denied access to medical marijuana
for treatment of pain management and also post-traumatic stress
syndrome after they have offered their lives and put their lives in
danger for us.
Supported by public vote, Nevada legalized medical marijuana in 2001,
decriminalized marijuana use in 2017, and has shown that regulating
marijuana works. Most of the other States have done the same, so it is
time for the Nation to follow suit.
{time} 1030
With the passage of the MORE Act, the marijuana industry can become a
key element of growing and diversifying our economy, creating more good
jobs, and putting more folks back to work as we recover from the
pandemic.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
[[Page H4103]]
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3617, the
Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021, or the
MORE Act of 2021.
I am pleased to support this long-overdue measure and encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the MORE Act, which is an
important step in our continuing efforts to reform the criminal justice
system, and I commend our Chairman for introducing this bill once
again.
To summarize, the provisions of the MORE Act fall into three main
categories--federal decriminalization, taxation, and expungement.
First, the bill would remove marijuana, or cannabis, from the list--
or schedule--of Federally controlled substances. This means that, going
forward, individuals could no longer be prosecuted, federally, for
marijuana offenses. This does not mean that marijuana would now be
legal throughout the United States--the bill would simply remove the
Federal government from the business of prosecuting marijuana cases and
would leave the question of legality to the individual States.
Those states choosing to decriminalize can do so, without ongoing
interference from the Federal government, and those states that choose
to continue to make marijuana illegal can continue to do so, as well.
Second, the bill would establish a taxation structure to collect a
sales tax on marijuana, which, over the course of five years would
increase from five to eight percent. The funds collected from this tax
would be used to establish a trust fund to reinvest in communities
ravaged by the War on Drugs, particularly communities of color.
The trust fund would be used for rehabilitation and reentry programs
in the Department of Justice and for programs in the Small Business
Administration to ensure that participants in the burgeoning marijuana
market are diverse and provide opportunities for entrepreneurship in
communities that have been adversely impacted by the War on Drugs.
Finally, the bill would expunge and seal Federal marijuana arrests
and convictions and resentence offenders, as appropriate--a much-needed
measure of this bill to attempt to undo some of the damage done to
black and brown communities by decades of unjust enforcement.
Thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the federal
criminalization of marijuana, particularly in communities of color, and
have borne the burden of collateral consequences that have damaged our
society across generations, such as the denial of affordable housing,
educational opportunities, and employment.
The laws enacted for the purpose of perpetuating the ``War on Drugs''
have led America to imprison more people than any other country.
Expunging and sealing the arrest and conviction records of people
affected by the cannabis laws would remove barriers that helped create
a permanent second-class status for millions of Americans.
Our outdated federal laws and policies unwisely require scarce law
enforcement resources to be expended on cannabis offenses while
conflicting with many states' laws regarding cannabis.
Cannabis does not fit the definition of a Schedule One drug and
federal law must be updated to reflect this reality--just as most
states have already begun to do.
Public support for legalization has surged.
Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam
have adopted laws allowing legal access to cannabis. And eighteen
states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have
adopted laws for legalizing cannabis for adult recreational use.
A total of 47 States have reformed their laws in one form or another
pertaining to cannabis, despite its continued Federal criminalization.
The State legal-cannabis industry already employs almost a quarter of
a million people, and the federal government needs to get out of the
way of state-level decision making.
We need to open the door to research, therapeutic treatment for
veterans, better banking and tax laws, and we need to help fuel
economic growth within the industry.
We need to do all of this without continuing to spend federal
resources on criminalization and unjust incarceration for marijuana
offenses. Congress needs to pass the MORE Act.
That is why I support passage of this bill today and ask my
colleagues to do so, as well.
I thank our Chairman Jerry Nadler, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and
Congressman Earl Blumenauer for their commitment to this potentially
life-changing bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record Health Affairs'
``Culture of Health,'' which shows the importance of cannabis
liberalization policy, and a letter from all of these individuals,
religious groups, and the Center for American Progress.
[From HealthAffairs, July 2021]
Cannabis Liberalization in the US: The Policy Landscape
The cannabis--or marijuana--policy landscape has shifted
rapidly in past decades, with increasing numbers of states
decriminalizing cannabis possession and legalizing its
medical and recreational uses. Yet under federal law,
cannabis remains prohibited because of the potential for drug
misuse and negative health consequences. This disconnect
between federal and state law has allowed a for-profit
commercial industry to flourish in many states, absent
consistent regulation to ensure product safety. Increasing
cannabis accessibility in the states thus raises important
public health concerns while expanding certain therapeutic
opportunities. A second Health Affairs Health Policy Brief
accompanying this one explores the health effects of cannabis
legalization. It is also important to understand the
framework of policies governing legal cannabis markets, as
each policy category likely has differential impacts on
health benefits and harms associated with canna-bis use and
inconsistencies across jurisdictions have important
population health implications.
Federal Cannabis Policy
The US federal government began taxing cannabis production
and sales by enacting the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 only
after most states had prohibited the substance. In 1970, this
law was replaced by the Controlled Substances Act, which
designates marijuana as a Schedule I substance considered to
have high abuse potential and no accepted medical use. Under
federal law, the production, sale. possession. and
distribution of cannabis can carry fines and prison time.
During the Obama administration, the federal government
relaxed its enforcement of cannabis-related crimes. In a
series of executive actions, culminating in the 2013 Cole
memorandum, the Department of Justice deprioritized
prosecution of federal cannabis crimes in states where these
activities were legal and robustly regulated. First passed in
2014, the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment prohibited the use of
federal funds to prosecute medical cannabis-related
activities permissible under state law.
Other recent federal actions have further facilitated
access to cannabis plant derivatives. although these differ
from the botanical products and simple extracts that tend to
dominate state cannabis markets. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approved several synthetic
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products in 1985 and 2016. each of
which was placed on a higher controlled substance schedule
than cannabis. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp, a substance
extracted from the cannabis plant that contains only 0.3
percent THC. Also in 2018. the Drug Enforcement
Administration designated FDA-approved cannabis-derived
cannabidiol (CBD) products containing no more than 0.1
percent THC as Schedule V substances.
Under this authority, the FDA approved the first CBD
product, Epidiolex, to treat childhood seizures.
Evolution of the State Policy Landscape
Public support for the legalization of cannabis use in the
US rose from 12 percent to 66 percent between 1969 and 2019.
Concurrently, states liberalized their approaches to cannabis
markets. Four central policy categories have evolved:
prohibition, decriminalization, medical legalization, and
recreational (also known as adult use) legalization.
Decriminalization regimes were generally adopted first (in
the 1970s-1980s, with a resurgence in the 2010s).
Decriminalization laws were later complemented by medical
legalization or replaced by recreational legalization.
Exhibit 1 shows the current status of these four policies,
and exhibit 2 depicts state adoption of legalization policies
for medical and recreational cannabis since 1996.
Prohibition
States began prohibiting cannabis cultivation,
distribution, and possession in the early twentieth century.
By 1937, every state had some form of cannabis legislation,
often motivated by concerns (largely unsubstantiated by
scientific evidence at the time) that cannabis products were
psychologically addictive, produced insanity, and motivated
crime. Although liberalization policies have largely replaced
prohibitions, two states--Idaho and Kansas--still ban
cannabis in all forms and assign criminal penalties for the
possession of even small amounts. Another ten states permit
the use of ``low-THC, high-CBD'' products but maintain
prohibitions and criminal penalties for all other cannabis
activities (included in the ``prohibition'' category in
exhibit 1).
Decriminalization
Decriminalization is the repeal of criminal penalties
associated with cannabis possession for personal use and
casual exchange (that is, not sales). ``Depenalization''
policies that lower these penalties without removing them do
not qualify as decriminalization regimes. Decriminalization
also differs from the nonenforcement policies adopted in
several US cities, where enforcement of low-level cannabis-
involved offenses is deprioritized. Decriminalization falls
short
[[Page H4104]]
of legalization because it still prohibits and criminally
penalizes cannabis cultivation, production, and sales and
maintains civil penalties for possessing cannabis. Since the
1970s, states have increasingly adopted decriminalization
policies. By 2020, sixteen states had such a policy (exhibit
1). The laws vary along several dimensions, including the
levels of civil fines, penalties for repeat offenses, and
threshold amounts of cannabis that are exempt from criminal
penalties.
Medical Cannabis Legalization
Medical cannabis laws typically permit patients with
``qualifying conditions'' certified by a medical professional
to purchase cannabis at dispensaries operating within the
state. Medical cannabis laws differ from low-THC and high-CBD
laws, which only legalize the supply and use of cannabis
products with low THC content. The most common qualifying
condition for which medical users can be certified is chronic
pain, although states regularly add conditions to their
lists. Since California passed the first medical cannabis law
in 1996, the number of jurisdictions adopting such programs
has grown steadily (exhibit 2). Today, more than two-thirds
of Americans live in one of the thirty-six states and four
territories that have approved medical cannabis use (exhibit
1).
The first medical cannabis laws passed (1996-2000) were
vague and defined medical use broadly. Although laws passed
between 2000 and 2009 offered more regulatory guidance over
the legal supply chain, laws passed or modified in more
recent years (2009-17) feature more comprehensive regulatory
programs that prioritize product safety. Still, the vast
majority of participants in medical cannabis programs are in
what are considered ``nonmedicalized programs,'' which lack
components consistent with evidence-based medicine and
pharmaceutical regulation (for example, testing and labeling)
and are largely divorced from medical practice. Ways in which
current laws differ from each other include the qualifying
conditions approved, channels of access {dispensaries,
collective versus home cultivation, and so on), registration
card renewal requirements, and use by patients from other
states.
Recreational Cannabis Legalization
Recreational cannabis laws remove the criminal and civil
penalties associated with supply or possession of the
substance by adults ages twenty-one and older. These laws
typically allow individuals to grow four to six cannabis
plants and limit possession and purchase to one to two
ounces; most also impose at least a 10 percent retail excise
tax on sales. Most states with recreational laws prohibit the
use of cannabis while operating a motor vehicle, although
four states have specific per se THC limits while driving.
Legalization of recreational use is a relatively new
phenomenon. In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first
jurisdictions globally to allow adult cultivation and
possession of cannabis. In 2020, fifteen states and
Washington, DC, had laws that legalize adult cannabis supply
and possession in some form (exhibit 1), resulting in more
than one-third of the US population having legal access to
the substance. With the exception of Illinois and Vermont,
all laws passed through 2020 have advanced via ballot
measures rather than through the legislature.
States have choices in their recreational cannabis
regulatory regimes. Most states have opted for a commercial
model, wherein private industry is allowed to produce,
supply, and sell cannabis subject to regulation at the state
and sometimes local levels. Washington, D.C., uniquely does
not allow for commercial production or retail sale but,
rather, permits only small amounts of cannabis for personal
possession, use, and cultivation. Although Vermont originally
prohibited commercial sale, the state authorized the
establishment of a commercial retail market in October 2020.
Factors that can vary within commercial regimes include how
producers and suppliers are regulated, the types of products
that may be distributed, taxes, prices, marketing
restrictions, and ways in which products can be used or
personally cultivated.
States that enacted recreational legalization laws saw
declines in adult cannabis-related arrests, although racial
disparities in those arrests persist. Some cannabis
policies, including the 2021 New Mexico, New York, and
Virginia legalization initiatives, incorporate reforms to
address harms experienced by communities
disproportionately affected by cannabis criminalization.
Some laws include provisions to expunge or pardon
cannabis-related minor offenses Other states have
initiated programs to increase minority participation in
the legal market. Some jurisdictions have earmarked tax
revenue generated from cannabis sales to support
socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.
Policy Challenges And Opportunities
Limited national regulation of cannabis, the persistent
divide between national and state policy, and the growth of
state cannabis markets present numerous challenges for
population health, in part because the safety of many
cannabis products is uncertain and varies from state to
state. A dearth of federal regulation around cannabis
products has resulted in an unevenly regulated for-profit
industry that generates high profits and maintains
substantial control over marketing, promotion, and products
supplied.
Cannabis's Schedule I designation under federal law poses
additional challenges. It hinders the research into the
safety and adverse effects of cannabis-based products that
would be required for FDA approval. It also restricts
cannabis supplied for clinical trials to that which comes
from federal sources, which fails to reflect the potency and
type of products actually marketed in the states, although
the Drug Enforcement Administration is poised to approve
several manufacturers' applications to cultivate marijuana
for research needs. Institutions for higher education may be
reluctant to allow cannabis to be used in research on their
campuses for fear of losing federal funding. Cannabis
consumers remain uncertain over the stability of their supply
chain and risks that they may be prosecuted under federal law
or become ineligible for federal benefits. Finally, cannabis
cultivators and distributors face barriers accessing
financial services, given that the banking industry is
subject to federal laws, resulting in an inability to design
investment and growth strategies that could enhance the
legitimacy of the industry and safety of the products.
The lack of comprehensive, consistent oversight of cannabis
products and the disconnect between federal and state policy
suggest a number of important considerations for policy
makers.
Enhanced Federal Oversight of Product Safety and Development
Several options exist to improve federal oversight of
cannabis markets and products and to better align national
and state policies. Modifying cannabis's classification in
the Controlled Substances Act would facilitate enhanced
product safety research at the federal and state levels,
relax consumer and industry fears of criminal prosecution,
and facilitate legitimate financial transactions for cannabis
companies. It also would provide federal policy makers with
additional regulatory controls, such as premarketing
approval, which is currently unavailable for substances
designated as Schedule I, and would acknowledge cannabis's
medical benefits This modification could be accomplished by
amending the Controlled Substances Act to remove cannabis
from Schedule I and moving it to a higher schedule;
descheduling cannabis altogether, but having it meet the
threshold for FDA oversight, similar to nicotine and tobacco
products; or creating a new schedule for cannabis that
distinguishes it from other Schedule I substances. The
Medical Marijuana Research Act recently approved by the US
House of Representatives promotes cannabis research by
allowing scientists to access cannabis from state-level
dispensaries. Federal policy makers could also further
facilitate state regulation of cannabis supply by passing
legislation that restricts federal prosecutorial interference
with state cannabis markets.
Notwithstanding the above changes, the FDA already
possesses some regulatory powers to enhance the safety of
cannabis products. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of
1938 and Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act as
affirmed in the 2018 Farm Bill, the FDA can regulate
cannabis-containing and cannabis-derived compounds. Under
this authority, the FDA has taken particular interest in
overseeing the science and safety of CBD products. Of concern
are health claims made by some cannabis product manufacturers
and the introduction of foods containing THC or CBD into
interstate commerce--both of which are areas under FDA
jurisdiction. The agency could take more aggressive action
than issuing warning letters to questionable (CBD-related
commercial practices and could extend the rigor of its
investigations into THC products. For example, it could limit
the allowable THC content, which is concerningly high in many
cannabis products and is capable of inducing dependence or
cannabis use disorder.
State Strategies for Overseeing Cannabis Product Safety
Without changes in the federal regulatory architecture or
enhanced FDA oversight, states that move forward with
legalization must carefully consider how to safely oversee
cannabis markets.
Medical and recreational legalization have encouraged a
proliferation of product forms. Data from early
recreationally legalized states suggest that although the
flower of the plant still accounts for the largest proportion
of the market, heterogeneous extracts for inhalation are the
fastest-growing market segment. Cannabis products vary not
only in form but also in the potency of THC, CBD, and other
cannabinoids, as well as in the types and amounts of
pesticides and other impurities. Cannabis food and drink
products pose unique regulatory challenges. The health risks
associated with edibles, including for minors, likely result
from minimal consistency across products relating to potency,
inaccurate labeling, and the fact that many edibles contain
multiple servings of the advised THC dose. Further, users may
fail to appreciate the delayed effects of ingestion compared
with inhalation.
State legalization provides an opportunity for enhanced
regulatory oversight that can improve the safety of legal
cannabis products and limit the health risks and other risks
associated with the illegal marketplace. Policy makers can
consider ways to align legal cannabis markets with public
health strategies gleaned from tobacco and alcohol, such as
minimizing youth advertising exposure, restricting sale and
marketing locations, and requiring childproof packaging.
Frameworks could also consider medical and recreational
legalization regimes that adopt safety standards, for
instance, by limiting the concentration of THC
[[Page H4105]]
in products to levels not associated with dependence.
Standards for Medical Training
Despite the increasing prevalence of cannabis use in states
with and without legalization, many physicians do not receive
training on the potential health benefits and harms of
medical and recreational cannabis. To address this gap,
states could mandate that state-licensed physicians complete
continuing medical education credits on medical cannabis use
before certifying patients for medical cannabis registration.
Medical schools and residency programs could also design
coursework on the biochemical effects, clinical relevance,
and legal evolution of cannabis policy. These education
activities could be regularly updated with emerging evidence
on the health effects of cannabis. Outreach could extend to
patients and the public to inform them of the evidence-based
therapeutic uses of cannabis. All such training would be
better informed by enhanced research, as discussed above.
Considerations for Criminal Justice and Racial Equity
As cannabis liberalization progresses throughout the
country, states must address the collateral consequences of
cannabis-related criminal justice contact. Although states
with legalization and, to a lesser degree, decriminalization
regimes have experienced overall declines in arrests for
cannabis across racial groups, disparities in arrests across
races remain notable. Although cannabis-related arrests
decreased by 18 percent during the past decade, a Black
person is still nearly four times more likely to be arrested
for cannabis possession than a White person.
Cannabis policy reforms that aim to address criminal
justice and social disparities warrant consideration.
Cumbersome and expensive expungement processes, significant
entry obstacles associated with the legal market, and
declines in price that in turn reduce funds earmarked for
community programs threaten initiatives that address harms
produced by cannabis criminalization. As states begin to
implement social equity measures, they should carefully
assess which communities have been disproportionately harmed
by cannabis prohibition; how to encourage equitable,
sustainable participation in the cannabis industry--including
training and business support; and how earmarked cannabis
revenue will be disseminated to equity-enhancing initiatives.
Conclusion
Cannabis policy liberalization provides opportunities for
therapeutic benefit but also presents the potential for
health harms, the full consequences of which remain unknown,
given the nascency of the research and inconsistency in
findings (see the accompanying Health Affairs Health Policy
Brief) For policy makers considering reforms, policy choices
extend beyond blunt categories of prohibition,
decriminalization, medical legalization, and recreational
legalization and involve decisions related to the panoply of
regulatory provisions that govern legal and illegal cannabis.
The specifics of how to implement and enforce cannabis policy
and regulation are important to health, and researchers
should endeavor to evaluate these nuances as well as the
broader policy categories. Some states have included within
their legalization initiatives provisions requiring policy
evaluation. For example, Washington State earmarked cannabis
tax revenue to fund a continuous cannabis research program.
Other states, including Vermont and New York, reviewed the
potential impacts of regulating a recreational cannabis
supply chain before policy reform. More efforts such as these
will help to unpack the independent and comparative health
harms and benefits of various cannabis policy regimes and
regulatory approaches.
____
March 1, 2022.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
Washington, DC.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer,
Washington, DC.
Re Bring the MORE Act to the House Floor for a Vote
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer: We, the
undersigned criminal justice, civil rights, drug policy,
labor and advocacy organizations who make up the Marijuana
Justice Coalition, write today to urge you to swiftly bring
to the House floor the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and
Expungement (MORE) Act of 2021 (H.R. 3617). This legislation
would end federal marijuana prohibition, address the
collateral consequences of federal marijuana criminalization,
and take steps to ensure the legal marketplace is diverse and
inclusive.
This historic legislation first passed the House in
December of 2020 with a bipartisan vote of 228-164 but was
not considered by the Senate prior to the close of the 116th
Congress. Given that nearly every minute one person in this
country is arrested for a minor marijuana crime, the public
deserves to know if members of the 117th Congress stand on
the side of justice and against the outdated and cruel policy
of prohibition and criminalization of marijuana.
Mass criminalization and over-enforcement of drug law
violations have devastated the social and economic fabrics of
entire communities, while also tearing apart the lives of
millions of individuals and families. And while Black,
Latino, and Indigenous people have carried the brunt of
marijuana criminalization, they have been shut out of the
regulated marijuana marketplace due to these very same
criminal records in addition to financial barriers to entry.
The MORE Act seeks to solve these problems through a
comprehensive approach. The bill would declassify marijuana
as a controlled substance under federal law, expunge
marijuana convictions, and reduce marijuana sentences. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the MORE Act would
have reduced time served by 73,000 person-years, over the
2021-2030 period, among existing and future incarcerated
individuals. The bill, after solving the industry's 280E tax
issue, would also place a minor initial five percent federal
excise tax on marijuana sales at the manufacturer level in
order to fund services in communities adversely impacted by
drug prohibition and to build up Small Business
Administration programming to support a more diverse and
inclusive marketplace with local ownership.
The previous House vote on the MORE Act came on the heels
of an election where five states--Montana, Arizona, South
Dakota, Mississippi, and New Jersey--had marijuana reform on
the ballot and each voted to loosen their marijuana laws.
Since then, even more states have chosen to reform their
marijuana laws. More recently, Connecticut, New York, New
Mexico, and Virginia passed marijuana legalization bills
rooted in social justice bringing the total number of states
that have legalized adult-use of marijuana to 18, in addition
to the District of Columbia, while 37 states and the District
of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, most recently
Mississippi earlier this year.
A recent Pew Research poll shows that a record number of
U.S. adults--91 percent--now support marijuana legalization
for medical or adult use, a policy that is only achievable by
removing the substance from the Controlled Substances Act as
the MORE Act does. In short, the resounding shift in favor of
marijuana reform demonstrates what we have been saying:
marijuana justice is a winning issue and it is long past time
for the federal government to catch up.
The time to end federal prohibition is long overdue. We
urge you bring the MORE Act to the House floor in March. For
more information or to address any questions you may have,
please contact Maritza Perez, Director of the Office of
National Affairs of the Drug Policy Alliance and convener of
the Marijuana Justice Coalition.
Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union; The BOWL PAC; Center for
American Progress; The Center for Law and Social Policy
(CLASP); Clergy for a New Drug Policy; Doctors for Cannabis
Regulation; Drug Policy Alliance; Human Rights Watch;
Immigrant Defense Project; Immigrant Legal Resource Center
JustLeadershipUSA; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law; The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights;
Minorities for Medical Marijuana, Inc.; MoveOn; National
Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild; National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws; National Urban
League; Students for Sensible Drug Policy; United Food and
Commercial Workers International Union; Veterans Cannabis
Coalition.
Mr. BENTZ. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my
time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, as I mentioned previously, fails to
appropriately fund the police in all the States that will be facing the
challenges that we face in Oregon.
This is not a question of money. The bill, as drawn, will be raising
literally billions of dollars at 8 percent tax over the next how many
years--billions. Somehow, some of that money has to make its way into
law enforcement.
Without law enforcement, Mr. Speaker, you will see situations like we
have in southern Oregon replicated across the Nation, regardless of the
optimistic thought that somehow the cartels no longer have the monopoly
and, therefore, will go away. That is not going to be the case as long
as there is a higher price. In many cases, it is going to be a much
higher price for legally produced marijuana.
The bill fails to address impairment. My friends, many of them in the
law enforcement space, including my brother, a former county sheriff,
have said this is a huge problem where we don't know when people are
driving impaired. Studies are ongoing.
Why are we broadening this problem when we don't know how to charge
those who are driving under the influence?
Of course, as we have heard, it fails to address the ever-increasing
potency of the drug. It fails to address the age at which marijuana can
be legally used.
What is that about? We know this drug adversely affects particularly
young men's brain development all the
[[Page H4106]]
way up to age 26, yet this bill says nothing about it.
It fails to address the differences between marijuana and hemp. Some
would say, well, that is such a small issue. It is a huge issue. It is
a huge issue, and it needs to be addressed.
This bill is the proper vehicle to address these issues. I see that
there are some amendments being brought which perhaps will at least go
partially in that direction. But the bill itself and the legalization
are premature, given the nature of those amendments.
This is an untimely and incomplete bill. Its greatest failure is in
not recognizing and addressing the damage the drug will do to our kids
and our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, last Congress, the House voted, on a bipartisan basis,
to address this issue. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act, so I am
pleased that we are moving forward again today.
Over the past two decades, public support for legalizing marijuana
has surged. States have led the way and continue to lead the way on
marijuana reform, but our Federal laws have not kept pace with the
obvious need for change. It is time for the Federal Government to catch
up, to do what is right.
The MORE Act would treat marijuana as a public health issue rather
than a criminal matter and would begin to rectify the heavy toll that
criminalization has taken, particularly on communities of color and
low-income communities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the MORE Act,
and urge my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to support this
important and comprehensive cannabis reform legislation. It tackles
inequities and historic criminalization associated with cannabis.
The MORE Act will begin the long-overdue effort to undo the damage to
families and communities across our nation that has been caused by
misguided and ineffective federal drug polices related to cannabis. It
will finally establish a safe and well-regulated interstate marketplace
for cannabis.
It is vitally important that at the federal level we finally
recognize and invite this economic engine of job creation into the
mainstream of our economy and workforce development. The vast majority
of Americans support this long overdue change, and voters in many
states including my home state of California have already taken action
to legalize cannabis at the state level. It is time that we end this
senseless and impactful disconnect between state and federal law.
I also want to bring my colleagues' attention to one outstanding
issue as this legislation moves forward. California's farmers are among
the most productive and innovative in the world. Not surprisingly, that
is the case with our cannabis farmers too, including those in my
congressional district. Unfortunately, cannabis farmers are in the same
legal limbo as everyone else in the industry because there are grey
areas in the law that need to be resolved: they can't enroll in crop
insurance programs, they can't receive an official ``organic''
designation, and they can't access USDA programs and support. Yet
cannabis cultivation is not significantly different from farming
strawberries, wine grapes, cut flowers, vegetables, and other crops
grown in my district and state. I am hopeful that as we work with the
Senate on comprehensive cannabis reform, we can provide clear statutory
direction to bring USDA into this conversation as well and eliminate
this remaining area of ambiguity for the farmers in my state.
Once again, I urge a yes vote on this bill.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise safety concerns that
remain unaddressed in H.R. 3617, the Marijuana Reinvestment and
Expungement Act--known as the MORE Act. I believe there are serious
safety concerns to be addressed prior to this chamber advancing this
legislation.
According to recent data, the safety impacts of cannabis legalization
for adult recreational use should not be ignored.
A 2020 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study analyzed the impacts
of legal adult recreational use of cannabis in Washington state. The
AAA study concluded that the proportion of fatal-crash-involved drivers
who were THC-positive approximately doubled from the level observed
before the law went into effect.
Moreover, a series of studies conducted by the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that crash rates increased in some of
my neighboring states and others after they legalized marijuana.
California, Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon, specifically, were the
subjects of the IIHS evaluation.
Marijuana use impacts the psycho-motor skills of the people who use
it, often resulting in slowed responses. As seen by these earlier data,
this impacts how we drive, overall safety on our roadways, and may have
other safety impacts as we relax the laws around cannabis. I have
serious safety concerns, and I would like to see these issues addressed
more directly before I can consider supporting such legislation. To
this end, I am developing my own legislation to look at this issue in
workplaces to ensure safe, impairment free operations, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues to see it enacted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Each further amendment printed in part B of House Report 117-285
shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be
withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to
a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gottheimer
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
1 printed in part B of House Report 117-285.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 16. STUDY ON MARIJUANA IMPAIRMENT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
conduct a study on technologies and methods that law
enforcement may use to determine whether a driver is impaired
by marijuana.
(b) Requirements.--The study conducted under subsection (a)
shall be carried out by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, in consultation with any other agency the
Secretary determines appropriate.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1017, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today about an amendment that I
think is critically important to this legislation. It addresses a topic
that I am concerned about, and I know many are as well, to make sure
that law enforcement has the tools they need to ensure that our roads
are safe and that when they pull someone over for whatever purpose,
they are able to actually have the tools they need to assess the
situation.
My amendment would make sure the Secretary of Transportation can
conduct a study on technology and methods that law enforcement can use
to determine whether a driver is impaired by marijuana. The study will
give the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the resources
they need to conduct this study.
I think it is important and will make this legislation even stronger.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would authorize $10 million to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct a study
on how certain technologies can help law enforcement officers detect
whether a driver is impaired by marijuana.
Impaired driving is a serious issue that takes thousands of lives
every year. Unfortunately, the Democrats only want to address this
problem after they create it. Legalizing marijuana will undoubtedly
lead to more drivers being impaired by marijuana.
Democrats want to legalize marijuana and then provide law enforcement
with a study on how they might be able to detect drivers impaired by
[[Page H4107]]
marijuana. Why wouldn't we start with giving law enforcement the
resources they need?
This doesn't make any sense, and the lack of support for law
enforcement from Democrats in this bill shouldn't surprise us. Nowhere
in this bill is there any funding for law enforcement related to
marijuana. Let's fix the existing problems before making more.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
thoughtful amendment, and I thank him for helping to further enhance
this bill.
For clarity's sake, let me be very clear. This bill decriminalizes
possession on the Federal level. All State laws and all State law
enforcement are able to do their job. But let me remind you, Mr.
Speaker, the President has put in an enormous amount of money for
reducing crime in his budget.
This legislation is extremely important for those of us who recognize
the key responsibilities on the Nation's highways. That is a Federal
responsibility, and the gentleman has offered an important amendment to
give $10 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
to find the technology to enhance safety on highways.
The bill also includes a requirement that a study should be conducted
to understand the societal impacts of decriminalizing marijuana,
including the impact on juveniles, education, transportation, veterans,
employment, and many others.
The gentleman's amendment, Mr. Gottheimer's, enhances this bill and
makes it a direct response to the concerns that Americans may have.
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment and the underlying bill, and I
thank the gentleman for clarifying this important responsibility.
Mr. BENTZ. I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce what Ms. Jackson Lee
said, the importance of making sure we invest in safety, which is
always my top priority, and making sure that law enforcement has the
tools they need.
We invest in law enforcement and ensure we have their backs. They
take care of us every single day. I stand by law enforcement, and we
will make sure they have the resources they need. This legislation
helps in that effort to protect our families and our roads.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1017, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).
The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Lamb
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
2 printed in part B of House Report 117-285.
Mr. LAMB. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of the bill the following:
SEC. 16. WORKPLACE IMPACT OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION STUDY.
Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health shall--
(1) conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the
impact of the legalization of recreational cannabis by States
on the workplace; and
(2) develop best practices for use by employers that are
transitioning their policies related to the use of
recreational cannabis, prioritizing the development of best
practices for employers engaged in Federal infrastructure
projects, transportation, public safety, and national
security.
Add at the end of the bill the following:
SEC. 17. SCHOOL IMPACT OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION STUDY.
Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Education shall--
(1) conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the
impact of the legalization of recreational cannabis by States
on schools and school-aged children; and
(2) develop best practices for use by educators and
administrators to protect school-aged children from any
negative impacts of such legalization.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1017, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. LAMB. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress, I was a Federal prosecutor in
my hometown of Pittsburgh, and the biggest law enforcement challenges
that we had then, and really still have today, are opioids and gun
violence. Marijuana just didn't register in terms of the risks that it
posed to people on a day-to-day basis compared to those two things.
Yet, because of the way the Federal criminal laws are written and the
way that cannabis is placed in schedule I, it is very easy for a
marijuana offense to actually get someone a worse sentence than an
opioid offense like overprescribing Oxycontin, selling fentanyl, or a
firearms offense like possession of a firearm or shooting at someone.
Our Federal laws are out of place.
It is in the spirit of wanting to make sure that our law enforcement
priorities are focused on the most serious crimes and the most violent
crimes that I can support the removal of cannabis from schedule I.
This bill came up once before in the previous Congress under a closed
rule in which there were not opportunities for amendment, so I want to
thank the leadership and the chairman this time around for allowing
Members under an open rule to make some amendments.
While I do support the removal of cannabis from schedule I, I think,
as we have heard in the debate today, there are many questions about
what happens the day after that and are we being careful enough to
ensure that the public gets the best possible balance of the benefits
of taxing and regulating cannabis while still protecting children and
making sure that we have safe and efficient workplaces.
The amendment that I am offering here today aims to answer a couple
of questions. Essential workers--firefighters, people who operate heavy
equipment on infrastructure projects, people who work in public safety
and national security--what are we willing to tolerate as far as those
workers on the job site potentially with cannabis in their system?
We need to know how to test for it. We need to know what the rules
are to keep people safe on that job site and, most importantly, keep
the public safe so these people can continue working.
The same question for schools: What are the best practices for
schools in a world where cannabis is no longer in schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act; in a world where cannabis could be in corner
stores that children walk past on their way home; in a world where
school bus drivers or teachers may be legally authorized to use
cannabis in their off time?
All we are trying to do is answer these questions.
There are some who see problems with a change in the law. They see
challenges, and they shrink from them. They say: Let's keep the status
quo the same. Let's not tackle problems.
What we are trying to do here is do the public one better than that.
There is an ironclad case for removing cannabis from schedule I and
focusing our law enforcement priorities where they should be, but we
have to take steps to make sure that we do this in a careful, cautious,
and correct manner.
That is what my amendment offers, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
{time} 1045
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for
5 minutes.
[[Page H4108]]
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is a great example of how Democrats legislate: Make a
bunch of drastic changes and then consider the consequences.
The amendment calls for two studies to be conducted, after the
enactment of the bill, to evaluate how State legislation on marijuana
has impacted those States.
The first study will be conducted by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health on the impact of State legalization of
recreational marijuana on the workplace. The second study will be
conducted by the Department of Education on the impact of legalization
to schools and school-aged children.
The amendment also requires the Department of Education to develop
best practices for educators and administrators to protect children
from negative impacts.
This amendment recognizes the fact that the majority is blindly
leading us down the path of marijuana legalization. The information to
be provided by these studies would better serve this body and the
children of America if we had it before legalization.
Last year, the percentage of American employees testing positive for
drugs hit a two-decade high. This jump was driven by an increase in
positive marijuana tests.
This amendment is merely window dressing on a bad and incomplete
bill. Rather than tackle the actual problem of marijuana abuse at the
workplace, which could have disastrous consequences, Democrats simply
want to study the issue.
This amendment is a tacit admission that they know this bill is
flawed, and it is a ploy by the majority to say they addressed one of
the flaws.
I fear the information that the studies will reveal may come too late
for many if this bill were to become law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMB. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oregon has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LAMB. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is incredulous when good ideas come
to the floor that should draw bipartisan support--one cannot look, in
the old country, they say, a gift horse in the mouth.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for recognizing that what we
do in Washington, what we do for the people of this Nation, is to make
sure we give them good facts. It will be good facts if his amendment is
assessing a very important place in our lives, the workplace, or
another very important place in our lives, schools.
This legislation, as I indicated, the underlying legislation just
decriminalizes possession. It gives people another lifeline. It takes
the criminalization away from this mounting incarceration of people of
color.
I support the gentleman's amendment and say it is reasonable and good
law. Let us support that amendment and the underlying bill.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMB. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
closing.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address one point from my colleague from
Oregon's side of the debate.
Today, after the passage of this bill--hopefully, with my amendment--
we will be sending a letter to both departments addressed by this
amendment to ask them to begin these studies right away. I agree that
it is important that the public needs this information and knowledge.
Employers, workplaces, and schools need it as quickly as possible.
What I am not sure our colleagues on the other side really realize at
this moment is that people are already using cannabis. It is very
common in all segments of society and all people with all different
types of jobs. The place that the public has been left in is an overly
harsh criminal penalty, with very little specific guidance to
workplaces, employers, and schools of what they are supposed to do in
this new world.
What many of them do is react as harshly as possible, matching the
criminal sanction of our Federal Government. They do drug tests and
have strict bans, basically, on this substance that many Americans feel
is actually safe and part of the lifestyle that they want to live.
Our study will allow a better answer than that. In a world where
people are going to be using this drug, this substance, and where it
is, in fact, much less harsh than prescription drugs that are regulated
lower on the scale than that, we need to get the answer out there to
these workplaces and schools as quickly as possible. That is all that
we are aiming to do here.
We are making policy for the real world with this amendment, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that I agree there has to be the
proper determination of when you are impaired after you have used
marijuana. I made that argument in my discussion of the bill.
The issue is one of timing. It is not just impairment. There are many
other things in the bill that need to be addressed that aren't.
In this rush to legalize, what we have is a lot of assuming, as was
just suggested, that everybody is already using it, so why bother?
Well, a lot of people are. But after it becomes federally legalized,
more will be using it. Thus, the danger level will increase.
We can't sit here and say there are no consequences of legalization.
By that, I mean the same number of people using it. The questions
become: When are we going to do this? Why wasn't it done earlier? Why
wasn't it done yet? One of the reasons is that it is really hard to
make this determination.
What I am saying is, it is a matter of timing. But it is not just
this issue; there are many others.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1017, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.
amendment no. 3 offered by mr. raskin
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
3 printed in part B of House Report 117-285.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 78, after line 20 insert the following:
(c) Review and Reassessment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, each Federal agency shall review
and reassess each decision, made on or after May 1, 1971, to
deny or rescind the security clearance of an individual
described.
(2) Reason for denial.--A review and reassessment conducted
under paragraph (1) shall not use past or present cannabis or
marijuana use as a reason to deny or rescind a security
clearance.
(3) Notice.--A Federal agency conducting a review and
reassessment under paragraph (1) shall notify each individual
described of such review and reassessment and provide such
individual an opportunity to decline the review and
reassessment. As applicable, an individual described shall be
notified of the outcome of any review and reassessment
conducted as soon as practicable.
(4) Individual described.--In this subsection, the term
``individual described'' means any individual who has had a
security clearance denied or rescinded for past or present
cannabis or marijuana use.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1017, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H4109]]
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to stand for this legislation with
the party of democracy and freedom for the people, rather than the
party of Big Brother and failed drug authoritarianism.
Do you know that 150 million Americans have used marijuana? Half of
the country. That is just the people who are being honest about it.
Half of the country has used marijuana, but you can still be denied a
security clearance and government employment for having once used
marijuana. That is plainly stupid, wrong, and unfair.
We are disqualifying tens of millions of qualified and excellent job
applicants for Federal Government employment, our fellow citizens, our
constituents. In Democratic districts and Republican districts, we are
disqualifying those people from being Federal Government employees
solely because they have used marijuana.
My amendment is one that every Member of the House should support. It
says that Americans should not be denied a security clearance simply
because they have used marijuana.
The longer I spend time in Congress, Mr. Speaker, the more I realize
that in America, change comes from the States. It comes from the
people. That is how we got child labor laws. That is how we got women's
suffrage. That is how we got direct election of U.S. Senators, and now,
so too with our draconian, obsolete, and failed marijuana laws.
Look at what is happening out in America. Eighteen States, plus
Washington, D.C., have now passed laws allowing adult use of marijuana.
In other words, they have accepted the antiprohibition principle that
is in our Constitution. It is not that alcohol is so great for
everybody in every circumstance, or marijuana is so great for everybody
in every circumstance. It is that criminal prohibition and
criminalization of large parts of our own population don't work.
It is legal in 18 States. In 27 States, it has been decriminalized.
In a majority of the States, it is no longer criminal. In 36 States,
the vast majority of America, more than two-thirds of the States,
medical use of marijuana has been approved. In other words, it is legal
in the vast majority of States of the country to use marijuana for
medicinal purposes.
What a massive outbreak of common sense in America against the GOP's
failed authoritarian war on marijuana that depends on paranoid tropes
from the 1970s. It is like they saw ``Reefer Madness'' in middle school
and never got over it.
I concede our party is not for the kind of cocaine-fueled orgies that
a freshman Republican Representative bragged about this week, but we do
understand that their marijuana prohibition laws don't work for our
people.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that we should not be
denying our constituents the opportunity to serve in Federal office by
denying them a security clearance simply because they have used
marijuana.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is April Fools' Day, so maybe this is a joke.
This amendment would require Federal agencies to review every
decision to rescind or deny a security clearance since 1971 to
determine if it was based on marijuana usage. Then, the agency would
have to track down every person who was denied a clearance due to
marijuana use. The agency would then let them know that the decision
will be reassessed unless the person objects.
This is crazy. It creates a huge burden on Federal agencies for what?
Even if this bill were to become law, the denial of these security
clearances was based on a person's willful violation of a law at the
time.
When agencies are assessing whether these people should have access
to national security sensitive information, the consideration isn't
whether the person uses marijuana. It is whether the person is willing
to undermine the rule of law.
If they can't follow this Nation's laws, then we can't expect them to
follow the processes to protect our most sensitive information.
Further, this amendment reaches back more than 50 years. How many of
these people still need, want, or are even eligible for security
clearances?
No one gets a security clearance just because you want one. You can't
just walk up off the street and apply for it. You need to be employed
with the Federal Government or a government contractor, and your
employer must need you to have access to the information.
Very few people who were denied a security clearance in 1980 are
still employed in or even qualify for positions that would require
security clearances. Some of the people we are talking about may be
retirees in their eighties or nineties. Many of them may have
representative payees who are their children or grandchildren. Why
would we want to expose the fact that their father, mother,
grandfather, or grandmother was a marijuana abuser?
The gentleman from Maryland wants the Federal Government to re-create
the security clearance backlog that the Trump administration just
cleared up for unneeded reviews and to resurface private information.
This amendment makes little sense.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think the distinguished gentleman seems to concede the general
principle that we should not be denying the opportunity of Federal
employment to half of the country because they have used marijuana
before.
So, his argument seems to be: We have denied so many people that this
would be an imposition on Federal bureaucrats to go back and tell
people when they have been wronged in the past simply by telling the
truth and saying that they have once used marijuana.
In fact, most of these agencies don't even require that there was any
kind of criminal prosecution or conviction. They ask you, ``Have you
used marijuana?'' If people say, ``Yes, I used it once in college,'' or
whatever, they can't get a job. That makes no sense. We are doing that
to our constituents.
Yes, let's go back and see how many people we have denied the
opportunity of Federal employment to because they have used marijuana,
which is lawful in most of the country now, either on a medicinal basis
or on a recreational basis for adult consenting individuals who decide
that is a decision they want to make.
Let's grow up as a country about this, and let's stop discriminating
against our own people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I just point out that I didn't concede
anything that I recognize. If you thought I did, please rethink it.
I want to point out that the security clearance isn't just for
Federal employees. It is for private contractors and people seeking
security clearances. All I am saying is, one can refer to our
``bureaucrats'' as though they don't have other things to do. They do
lots of very important things. I would suggest this falls pretty low on
that list.
It is an interesting amendment, but I urge opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for pointing out that
my amendment would apply not only to people who have sought public
employment in the past and been denied because they have been honest
enough to admit that they have once used marijuana but to private
contractors. We are denying people the opportunity to do business with
the government if they tell the truth about that.
I am urging all of my colleagues, wherever you are in terms of your
particular State, let's stop discriminating.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
{time} 1100
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1017, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
[[Page H4110]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The
SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8,
the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.
____________________