Developments in State Cannabis Laws and Bipartisan Cannabis Reforms at the Federal Level (U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties)

Hearing	Developments in State Cannabis Laws and Bipartisan Cannabis Reforms at the Federal Level
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Date	November 15, 2022

Hearing Takeaways:

• The U.S. Cannabis Policy Landscape: The hearing examined the U.S. cannabis policy landscape and how the federal government and states have differing approaches to the substance. At the federal level, cannabis is considered a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, which makes it illegal. However, almost half of all states permit the sale and use of cannabis for adult recreational use and most states permit the sale and use of cannabis for medicinal uses. The hearing focused on the problems that arise because of these differences and on ways to address these differences. 
  • President Biden’s Recent Executive Actions on Cannabis: Subcommittee Democrats, Subcommittee Ranking Member Nancy Mace (R-SC), and the hearing’s witnesses applauded President Biden for his recent announcement that he would issue a blanket pardon to people that have been convicted of simple possession of marijuana under federal and District of Columbia law. They also expressed support for President Biden’s announcement that his administration would review the scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. Some Subcommittee Democrats lamented however that people that were not citizens or permanent residents at the time of their cannabis convictions were not eligible for President Biden’s blanket pardons.
  • Economic Impact of the U.S. Cannabis Industry: Ms. Littlejohn noted how the medical and adult use cannabis industries employed over 400,000 Americans. She indicated that these industries had contributed $3.7 billion in state tax revenues last year. She also noted how cannabis was now the sixth largest legal cash crop in the U.S.
• Cannabis Policy Topics: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in various cannabis policy topics and how cannabis’s current legal status could create challenges for people, businesses, law enforcement, and government agencies.
  • Access to Federal Government Jobs: Subcommittee Chairman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) noted how federal government employees and job applicants remained vulnerable to being fired or rejected for jobs for cannabis use, even when cannabis use was legal within their state. He indicated that the Biden administration had issued guidance saying that the past use of cannabis would not serve as an automatic disqualifier for federal government jobs. He stated however that people were telling him that their past cannabis use was still preventing them from obtaining federal government jobs. He called this situation unfair to the job applicants and commented that this led to unnecessary stigmatization and demoralization.
  • Cannabis Arrests: Subcommittee Democrats, Subcommittee Ranking Member Nancy Mace (R-SC), and Ms. Haynes noted how most cannabis arrests were for simple possession and that African Americans and Hispanics were more likely than their White counterparts to be arrested for these offenses. They asserted that decriminalizing cannabis would therefore help to alleviate racial disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system. Ms. Snider further stated that these arrests have intensified racial disparities, clogged court dockets, contributed to mass incarceration, devastated communities and families, fostered the growth of the illegal drug market, diverted police resources from substantial community threats, increased the prevalence of negative police-citizen encounters, fostered a distrust of the police, and weakened police-community relationships.
  • Challenges for Historically Disadvantaged Communities to Enter the Cannabis Industry: Subcommittee Democrats, Ms. Littlejohn, and Mayor Woodfin raised concerns over how historically disadvantaged groups (including women and minorities) faced challenges entering the cannabis industry. They highlighted how African Americans comprised 2 percent of legal cannabis business owners, despite representing 13.6 percent of the population. They stated that high upfront capital costs, a lack of access to banking, insurance, or federal intellectual property (IP) protections, legal uncertainty, and competition from illicit cannabis sellers created significant barriers to entry for minority-owned cannabis businesses. They stated that social equity considerations in the development of cannabis regulatory regimes and the licensing of cannabis businesses could improve access to the industry for historically disadvantaged groups.
  • The District of Columbia’s Ability to Regulate Cannabis: Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) stated that the governance of marijuana issues in the District of Columbia was unique and undemocratic. She mentioned how there existed an appropriations rider under current law that prohibited the District of Columbia from spending its local funds on commercializing recreational marijuana. She noted that while recreational marijuana was legal within the District of Columbia, she indicated that Congress restricted the District of Columbia from taxing and regulating marijuana sales. She called this restriction a violation of home rule and harmful.
  • Health and Safety Impacts of Cannabis: Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) raised concerns that increased cannabis consumption could lead to addiction, rime, and mental health issues. He also raised concerns over how a growing number of drivers had experienced serious crashes and deaths with marijuana in their systems. Mr. Armentano stated however that the current scientific literature suggested that cannabis was not dangerous enough to warrant its Schedule I status under the Controlled Substances Act. He acknowledged however that this scientific literature did not suggest that cannabis was harmless. Moreover, Subcommittee Ranking Member Mace and Ms. Snider noted how studies had found that the presence of cannabis dispensaries in a state was associated with reductions in opioid addiction and morbidity.
  • Inability for Legal Cannabis Businesses to Access Banking Services: Subcommittee Democrats, Mr. Armentano, Mr. Freedman, Ms. Littlejohn, and Mayor Woodfin discussed how legal cannabis businesses faced significant challenges in terms of accessing banking services due to cannabis’s illegal status at the federal level. They noted how this lack of access to financial services led smaller cannabis businesses to hold large amounts of physical cash, which made them targets for criminals. They also stated that the illegal status of cannabis at the federal level meant that cannabis businesses could not access insurance or traditional financing sources.
  • Regulatory Clarity for the U.S. Hemp and Cannabidiol (CBD) Industries: Full Committee Ranking Member James Comer (R-KY) and Mr. Freedman expressed interest in working to provide regulatory clarity to the U.S. hemp and CBD industries. They specifically criticized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its failure to approve rules for hemp and CBD following the passage of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (known as the 2018 Farm Bill).
  • Veteran Access to Cannabis: Subcommittee Chairman Raskin, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), and Mr. Goepel expressed interest in ensuring that veterans would have access to medical cannabis to treat chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). They noted how the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) was prohibited from prescribing medical marijuana to patients under current law and called for removing this prohibition. Rep. Sessions argued however that this prohibition was necessary to ensure that veterans were treated in a safe manner. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) further lamented how some U.S. servicemembers with Green Cards had been deported because of marijuana possession charges. She called these deportations unjust.
• Federal Cannabis Policy Proposals: The hearing considered several federal cannabis policy proposals that sought to decriminalize cannabis and address the conflicts between federal and state cannabis laws. Ms. Littlejohn noted how these proposals contained several common elements, including the descheduling of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act, the provision of second chances for people impacted by cannabis prohibition, the provision of support for small and minority-owned cannabis businesses, respect for diverse state regulatory frameworks, and support for the transition toward an interstate cannabis marketplace.
  • The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act: One notable cannabis decriminalization legislative proposal under consideration at the hearing was the MORE Act. This bill would deschedule cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act, establish a federal regulatory and tax regime for cannabis, and direct various federal agencies to study cannabis issues and make services available to cannabis-related businesses. The U.S. House of Representatives advanced this legislation earlier in 2022.
  • The States Reform Act: Subcommittee Ranking Member Nancy Mace (R-SC) highlighted her cannabis decriminalization legislation, the States Reform Act, which would empower states to determine the legality of cannabis within their jurisdictions. She mentioned how this bill would provide protections for children and veterans and noted how the legislation would address cannabis potency, labeling, consistency, concentration, and packaging. She also highlighted how the bill would establish a taxation system for cannabis, direct various federal agencies to study cannabis issues, and make government services available to cannabis-related businesses.
  • Expungements of Cannabis-Related Offenses: Subcommittee Democrats, Ms. Haynes, and Mayor Woodfin called on the U.S. to expunge all cannabis convictions. They stated that while President Biden’s blanket pardons for federal simple cannabis possession convictions would be beneficial, they asserted that these pardons would be limited in their ability to fully restore the rights of pardon recipients. They noted how people that received pardons would still have criminal convictions on their records, which could make it difficult for them to secure jobs, secure housing, enter the cannabis business, and regain voting rights. Ms. Haynes asserted that this expungement must be automatic because many people are unable to afford the legal fees associated with obtaining an expungement. Subcommittee Vice Chair Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) mentioned how she had introduced the bipartisan Harnessing Opportunity by Pursuing Expungement (HOPE) Act of 2021, which would establish a grant program for state and local governments to support their cannabis conviction expungement efforts.
  • Full Review of Cannabis-Related Convictions: Ms. Haynes further stated that prisoners with cannabis convictions ought to be released or have their sentences reviewed at a minimum. She noted how most people with federal cannabis convictions had “extremely” complex cases and indicated that these people may have convictions for conspiracy, distribution, manufacturing, or continuing a criminal enterprise. Mr. Goepel also called on Congress to mandate that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) initiate an automatic review and upgrade process for veterans with an other-than-honorable discharge linked to a cannabis offense.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mayor Randall Woodfin, City of Birmingham, Alabama
2. Mr. Paul Armentano, Deputy Director, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
3. Mr. Andrew Freedman, Executive Director, Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education, and Regulation (CPEAR)
4. Mr. Eric Goepel, Founder and CEO, Veterans Cannabis Coalition
5. Ms. Keeda Haynes, Senior Legal Advisor, Free Hearts
6. Ms. Amber Littlejohn, Senior Policy Advisor, Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce
7. Ms. Jillian Snider, Policy Director of Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties, R Street Institute

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Jamie Raskin (D-MD):

• He mentioned how President Biden had recently announced that he would issue a blanket pardon to people with convictions for simple possession of marijuana under federal law.
  • He also mentioned how President Biden had indicated that his administration would review the scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act.
• He applauded President Biden’s recent marijuana policy actions and stated that these actions were an important “first step” in rectifying the various social injuries stemming from the federal prohibition of marijuana.
• He remarked that cannabis must ultimately be decriminalized at the federal level and asserted that this decriminalization was necessary for providing “basic justice.”
  • He further compared the current prohibition of cannabis to the U.S.’s previous prohibition of alcohol and commented that both prohibitions were counterproductive and fostered social unrest.
• He stated that the federal prohibition of marijuana had harmed many Americans and contended that the U.S. ought to approach marijuana policy from a public health perspective.
• He remarked that cannabis decriminalization would benefit many communities, including people of color, individuals incarcerated for non-violent offenses, veterans, and federal employees.
• He also stated that cannabis decriminalization would benefit the small businesses operating in states where cannabis has already been legalized through providing these businesses with access to banking services.
  • He noted how these businesses currently operated on a cash-only basis, which made them ready targets for criminal gangs.
• He mentioned how 19 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have enacted measures to regulate cannabis for non-medical use by adults.
  • He also indicated that 37 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia permit the use of medical marijuana.
• He then discussed how cannabis arrests remained widespread and noted that cannabis arrests account for 43 percent of all drug arrests.
  • He highlighted how 90 percent of cannabis arrests were for simple possession.
• He noted how states that had reformed their cannabis laws had seen “markedly” fewer arrests between 2010 and 2018.
• He also emphasized that racial disparities in cannabis arrests had continued to persist nationally.
  • He indicated that Black people were nearly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession relative to White citizens.
• He stated that cannabis arrests could have “life altering” consequences, such as loss of children, denial of public assistance, evictions from public housing, and reductions in employment opportunities.
• He remarked that cannabis decriminalization would help to relieve disparities within the U.S. criminal justice system and advocated for automatic expungement of non-violent cannabis arrests and convictions.
• He also contended that cannabis decriminalization would benefit veterans that suffered from chronic pain and PTSD.
  • He noted how the VA was currently barred from prescribing medical marijuana to patients under current law.
  • He commented that this prohibition often forced the VA to prescribe opioids to patients, which could be dangerous.
• He further mentioned how cannabis decriminalization would benefit approximately 2.1 million federal civilian employees, as well as applicants for government jobs.
  • He noted how federal employees and job applicants remained vulnerable to being fired or rejected for jobs for cannabis use, even when cannabis use was legal within their state.
• He asserted that the U.S. should not deny government employment opportunities to Americans for previous cannabis use.
• He then remarked that the federal prohibition of cannabis hinders the operation of above-board cannabis companies and undermines the economic integrity of communities due to a lack of access to formal banking.
  • He added that this prohibition left cannabis companies vulnerable to theft and burglary because the companies were forced to deal in an all-cash market.
• He also discussed how historically disempowered groups (including women and minorities) faced challenges when seeking to enter the cannabis industry.
• He called for the descheduling and removing of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and mentioned how the U.S. House of Representatives had already passed legislation that would accomplish this.
  • He advocated for the U.S. Senate to consider and pass similar legislation.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Nancy Mace (R-SC):

• She recounted her personal experience using cannabis to recover from the trauma associated with a rape and stated that cannabis had been critical in supporting her recovery.
• She mentioned how most South Carolinians supported medical cannabis and noted how most of her constituents supported the legalization of medicinal and recreational cannabis.
• She discussed her legislation, the States Reform Act, which would empower states to determine the legality of cannabis within their jurisdictions.
  • She noted how 47 of 50 states have some form of cannabis regulation or reform and highlighted how her state of South Carolina regulates CBD and hemp.
• She mentioned how the States Reform Act would provide protections for children and veterans and noted how the legislation would address cannabis potency, labeling, consistency, concentration, and packaging.
• She also highlighted how the States Reform Act would impose a 3 percent federal excise tax on cannabis, which she described as low.
  • She commented that this low excise tax amount was intended to reduce demand for illicit cannabis.
• She further discussed how the States Reform Act would ensure that cannabis businesses could access U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) lending programs and that there existed a comparable regulatory framework that governed cannabis and alcohol.
• She highlighted how the States Reform Act included safe harbor protections for veterans that use cannabis.
  • She suggested that cannabis could play a key role in preventing veteran suicides.
• She mentioned how the States Reform Act would support medical research regarding cannabis, including research into the use of cannabis to treat PTSD and epilepsy.
  • She also noted how the legislation would support research regarding driver safety and address truck driver cannabis testing.
• She then remarked that cannabis was safer than alcohol and tobacco and lamented how cannabis received different treatment under federal law.
  • She also highlighted how racial minorities were four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis offenses.
• She lastly thanked President Biden for his recent announcement that his administration would consider rescheduling cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Paul Armentano (NORML):

• He discussed how 21 states now maintain policies regulating the production, use, and retail sale of cannabis to adults and added that 37 states authorize the use and dispensing of cannabis for medical purposes.
• He highlighted how not a single state had repealed or rolled back their cannabis legalization laws over the previous 25 years.
  • He commented that this dynamic demonstrates that state cannabis policies were working as intended.
• He also mentioned how more than two-thirds of Americans (including majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans) believe that adult cannabis use ought to be legal.
  • He commented that public support for cannabis legalization policies had increased in parallel to state cannabis legalization efforts.
• He remarked that the U.S.’s 25-year experience with state-level cannabis legalization had been positive.
• He then discussed the scientific literature regarding cannabis and stated that this literature suggested that cannabis was not dangerous enough to warrant its Schedule I status under the Controlled Substances Act.
  • He acknowledged however that this scientific literature did not suggest that cannabis was harmless.
• He mentioned how President Biden had previously criticized the U.S.’s federal criminalization of cannabis and had called for a review of cannabis’s status under federal law.
• He also highlighted how the U.S. House of Representatives had recently approved the MORE Act, which would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act (among other changes).
  • He explained that this policy was known as descheduling and would provide state governments with explicit authority to establish their own cannabis policies.
  • He commented that these state cannabis policies would not face “undue” federal intrusion.
• He remarked that the descheduling of cannabis was necessary to close the “growing and untenable” divide between state and federal cannabis laws.
• He stated that the descheduling of cannabis would ensure that Americans that resided in states with legal cannabis would no longer face “needless” hurdles and discrimination.
  • He noted that these hurdles and discrimination included reduced access to financial services, loans, insurance, Second Amendment rights, tax deductions, and certain professional security clearances.
• He further stated that the descheduling of cannabis would relieve millions of Americans from the fear of federal prosecution.

Mr. Eric Goepel (Veterans Cannabis Coalition):

• He called on the U.S. to end its prohibition of cannabis and to rectify the harms caused by government cannabis policies.
• He discussed how the problems of suicide, overdose, and toxic exposure had afflicted many veterans and stated that cannabis could help to treat these issues.
  • He highlighted how cannabis could alleviate pain, support sleep, and reduce stress for its users.
• He then discussed how California maintained the Dennis Peron and Brownie Mary Act, which permits regulated companies to donate cannabis to eligible patients at no cost.
  • He commented that this law had eliminated barriers to cannabis access for the state’s veterans.
• He also mentioned how Canada had maintained a medical cannabis reimbursement program for its veterans since 2011.
  • He indicated that the Canadian government had subsidized the purchase of $150 million in legal cannabis for more than 18,000 veterans in the most recent year.
• He stated however that the VA had opposed every Congressional attempt to expand cannabis research, improve veteran access legal state cannabis programs, codify protections for veterans using cannabis, and provide veterans with safe harbor protections for cannabis use.
  • He noted that the VA defended this opposition on the grounds that cannabis was a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act.
• He remarked that the U.S. must entirely remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
• He also commented that keeping cannabis scheduled under the controlled Substances Act would keep the plant criminalized.
  • He highlighted how possession of cannabis without a doctor’s prescription would still be a federal felony if cannabis were classified under Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act.
• He also called on Congress to mandate that the DoD initiate an automatic review and upgrade process for veterans with an other-than-honorable discharge linked to a cannabis offense.
  • He indicated that this policy was included within the States Reform Act.
• He noted that many veterans have been penalized for using cannabis to self-medicate to manage trauma and asserted that the federal government ought to rectify these penalties.

Ms. Amber Littlejohn (Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce):

• She discussed how there existed some form of a legal cannabis industry in 48 states and noted how the medical and adult use cannabis industries employed over 400,000 Americans.
  • She indicated that these industries had contributed $3.7 billion in state tax revenues last year.
  • She also noted how cannabis was now the sixth largest legal cash crop in the U.S.
• She criticized Congress for failing to implement “sensible” cannabis reforms and asserted that the status quo of federal cannabis prohibition was balkanizing state marketplaces and creating “insurmountable” barriers to entry.
  • She commented that the status quo had “devastating” consequences for small and minority-owned businesses.
• She stated that minority-owned cannabis businesses were currently in decline and asserted that African Americans were most impacted by the disparate enforcement of cannabis laws.
  • She also asserted that African Americans were most impacted by failed state cannabis policies and federal cannabis prohibition.
  • She highlighted how African Americans comprised 2 percent of legal cannabis business owners, despite representing 13.6 percent of the population.
• She discussed how 15 states had implemented cannabis social equity programs to promote economic opportunities and restorative justice objectives.
  • She asserted however that these programs would be insufficient for enabling small businesses to compete in an industry dominated by large operators and the unlicensed market.
• She remarked that ending the federal prohibition of cannabis would constitute a critical step toward addressing the impacts of “failed” federal drug policies.
  • She mentioned how most Democratic and Republican voters were in favor of ending federal cannabis prohibition, which would entail the descheduling of cannabis.
• She applauded President Biden’s recent actions to prompt a review of the status of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act.
• She remarked that Congress should rectify past cannabis policy failures and asserted that Congress had “substantial” opportunities for bipartisan reforms.
  • She commented that while the States Reform Act, the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, and the MORE Act differed in their approaches to ending cannabis prohibition, she stated that these legislative proposals would provide a “sound” basis for progress.
  • She noted how these legislative proposals contained several common elements, including the descheduling of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act, the provision of second chances for people impacted by cannabis prohibition, the provision of support for small and minority-owned cannabis businesses, respect for diverse state regulatory frameworks, and support for the transition toward an interstate cannabis marketplace.

Mr. Andrew Freedman (Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education, and Regulation):

• He mentioned how two states had recently legalized cannabis for adult use in the 2022 midterm elections and noted how roughly 50 percent of Americans currently lived in the 21 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have legalized cannabis for adult recreational use.
  • He added that 37 states have legalized cannabis for medicinal use.
• He stated that voters from across the political spectrum view federal cannabis prohibition as a failed policy and that the motivations for cannabis legalization varied significantly.
  • He asserted that states were being “critically” hampered in their efforts to achieve their cannabis legalization goals in the absence of federal cannabis policy reforms.
• He remarked that state cannabis policy reforms would remain in place and called on the federal government to institute regulatory, public health, public safety, and criminal justice cannabis policies that respect and align with state cannabis policies.
• He stated that his organization, the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education, and Regulation (CPEAR), did not opine on whether a state should legalize cannabis.
  • He asserted that states should remain free to determine whether and how they wish to pursue the legalization of cannabis.
• He remarked however that the federal government should provide regulatory guardrails for states pursuing cannabis legalization.
  • He asserted that federal policy could support efforts to combat the problem of driving under the influence of cannabis through augmenting and improving drug recognition expertise, creating universal intoxication standards, and accelerating the implementation of new impairment detection technologies.
  • He also stated that Congress could combat youth cannabis misuse through supporting youth programming networks, establishing a national minimum purchasing age for cannabis of 21, and drawing upon best practices of point-of-sale age verification, and restricting cannabis advertising that targets the youth.
• He mentioned how states had implemented track and trace inventory control systems to monitor cannabis products throughout the supply chain in order to combat the illicit cannabis market.
  • He stated that the federal cannabis policy reform efforts ought to supplement and integrate with existing state systems.
• He remarked that federal engagement on cannabis policy issues was critical for addressing mental health concerns, conducting research, restricting unproven health claims, preventing substance abuse (known as cannabis use disorder), and maintaining safe access to cannabis for patients and veterans.
• He then discussed how there were several federal legislative proposals under consideration that would define a role for the federal government in overseeing the cannabis space, including the States Reform Act and the HOPE Act of 2021.
  • He expressed CPEAR’s support for both legislative proposals.
• He also commended Full Committee Ranking Member James Comer (R-KY) for his efforts to provide clarity to the U.S. hemp industry during both his previous tenure as Kentucky’s Agriculture Commissioner and his work on the 2018 Farm Bill.
• He lastly indicated that his written testimony included policy proposals to support small and minority-owned cannabis businesses, address mental health and substance abuse, prevent youth cannabis misuse, and combat driving under the influence of cannabis and other drugs.

Ms. Jillian Snider (R Street Institute):

• She remarked that the U.S.’s decades long efforts to prohibit cannabis had proven futile and highlighted how cannabis constitutes the most widely used illegal substance in the U.S.
  • She noted how an estimated 55 million Americans currently use marijuana and mentioned how recent polls indicate that more than 90 percent of the American public support the legalization of cannabis for adult medicinal or recreational use.
• She remarked that federal legislation would be critical for providing clarity on the overall legal status of cannabis.
• She discussed how cannabis’s legality varied across states and noted that cannabis’s illegality at the federal level subjected users or possessors of the substance to criminal penalties.
  • She called this dual legality problematic because it was confusing to most citizens and led to varying approaches to policing.
• She remarked that the federal prohibition of cannabis and related enforcement efforts have intensified racial disparities, clogged court dockets, contributed to mass incarceration, devastated communities and families, fostered the growth of the illegal drug market, diverted police resources from substantial community threats, increased the prevalence of negative police-citizen encounters, fostered distrust of the police, and weakened police-community relationships.
  • She stated that while cannabis legalization could not solve all of the aforementioned issues, she asserted that the benefits of a smart federal cannabis legalization policy would outweigh the current drawbacks of cannabis prohibition.
• She then discussed how the widespread use of cannabis and its distinct odor made the substance especially prone to initiate police contact.
  • She recounted her previous experience as a police officer and stated that most of her marijuana-initiated encounters did not result in the seizure of more serious drugs or more dangerous weapons.
• She remarked that continued cannabis prohibition had diminished community confidence in police and the criminal justice system.
  • She referenced a 2020 poll that found that most Americans did not trust the police.
• She stated that a lack of trust towards police led to escalating violence and “street-level justice,” which was to the detriment of public safety.
• She also asserted that the diminishing view of police legitimacy was compounding the issue of low levels of community trust.
  • She explained that police legitimacy referred to the public support for the authority of officers to manage and resolve conflicts.
• She remarked that police-community collaboration made citizens more willing to cooperate with the police on efforts to prevent and respond to crime.
  • She commented that this collaboration could lead to neighborhood crime reductions and decrease opportunities for harm to police.
• She contended that the U.S. ought to prioritize violent crime reduction, which would entail the U.S. reducing its emphasis on low-level cannabis crime enforcement.

Ms. Keeda Haynes (Free Hearts):

• She recounted her experience having received a cannabis conviction for being unknowingly involved in her then-boyfriend’s cannabis distribution scheme and having later become a public defender that often worked on cannabis cases.
  • She testified that she had regularly represented minority clients as a public defender that had been more likely to experience cannabis arrests and convictions.
• She stated that her experiences as both a person convicted of a cannabis offense and a public defender had led her to advocate for the decriminalization of cannabis.
• She discussed how the U.S. was moving towards cannabis legalization and noted how several states had already legalized cannabis.
  • She also mentioned how both President Biden and Congress were taking actions to move the U.S. towards cannabis decriminalization.
• She indicated that while she supported the U.S.’s current move towards cannabis legalization, she called on the U.S. to take additional actions on the issue of cannabis.
• She stated that the racial disparities in cannabis arrests and prosecutions and the harms inflicted upon minority communities were well-documented.
  • She called for future cannabis policies to acknowledge these racial disparities and asserted that cannabis reform was key to achieving racial justice.
• She discussed how people with cannabis convictions experience a range of consequences that impact their ability to obtain jobs, housing, education, licenses, the right to bear arms, and the right to vote.
• She called for the automatic expungement of cannabis convictions and commented that such expungement would restore the rights of people with these convictions to participate in society.
  • She further stated that prisoners with cannabis convictions ought to be released or have their sentences reviewed at a minimum.
• She noted how most people with federal cannabis convictions had “extremely” complex cases and indicated that these people may have convictions for conspiracy, distribution, manufacturing, or continuing a criminal enterprise.
  • She added that some of these people may have convictions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), money laundering statutes, or aiding and abetting statutes.
• She contended that Congress must therefore address adjacent offenses in any cannabis reform legislative proposals.

Mayor Randall Woodfin (City of Birmingham, Alabama):

• He remarked that the U.S.’s prohibition of cannabis had significantly harmed the African American and Hispanic communities.
• He called on Congress to use the lame duck session to pass “common sense” cannabis policy reforms that will expunge cannabis convictions from criminal records, normalize banking and financial services, and expand cannabis research opportunities.
• He mentioned how he had used his pardon power as mayor to pardon over 23,000 individuals with cannabis possession charges within his city.
  • He also mentioned how he had encouraged his state of Alabama to take action on cannabis, including the decriminalization and the expungement of past convictions.
• He applauded Alabama for its efforts to create a medical cannabis program and called on the state to permit adult recreational use of cannabis.
• He discussed how mayors could play a key role in advancing cannabis legalization and highlighted how mayors could deprioritize the enforcement of minor cannabis offenses, use their executive authorities for cannabis conviction pardons, and eliminate prior cannabis convictions from consideration in city employment applications.
  • He asserted that mayors should embrace cannabis as both a moral imperative and economic development opportunity.
• He stated that there did not exist evidence that cannabis legalization led to “appreciable” increases in any form of crime or increases in teenage cannabis use.
  • He asserted that cannabis legalization instead freed up the resources of law enforcement to pursue violent crime.
• He also discussed how cannabis legalization provided states and local governments with sales taxes, business license fees, and property taxes and commented that these governments could use these collected revenues to reinvest in their communities.
• He thanked the Biden administration for urging the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to consider rescheduling or descheduling cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act.
  • He contended that the descheduling of cannabis would be preferable to the rescheduling of cannabis.
• He remarked that the descheduling of cannabis would clarify the legal status of cannabis across the U.S., which would disproportionately benefit African American and Hispanic communities.
• He also stated that federal cannabis reform proposals should include robust restorative justice provisions.
  • He called on the DoJ to aggressively process the thousands of delayed clemency petitions for Americans that had been “unjustly” incarcerated for cannabis offenses.
• He remarked that there were additional ways to incorporate equity considerations into cannabis reforms.
  • He indicated that this could involve research partnerships with historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), the provision of special capital access programs for homegrown cannabis microbusinesses and collectively owned cannabis, and the leveraging of the SBA and the U.S. Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) to provide capital and technical assistance to minority-owned cannabis businesses.

Congressional Question Period:

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA):

• Rep. Pressley remarked that the U.S.’s failed drug policies had created a mass incarceration “crisis” that had particularly harmed African American and Hispanic communities. She noted how marijuana arrests accounted for nearly half of all drug arrests. She called on the U.S. to legalize marijuana and address the harms caused by incarceration. She specifically stated that the U.S. should work to make the legal cannabis industry more accessible to harmed communities. She expressed concerns over how African American entrepreneurs accounted for less than 2 percent of the U.S. cannabis industry. She asked Ms. Littlejohn to identify the top challenges that African Americans and Hispanics face when seeking to enter the cannabis industry.
  • Ms. Littlejohn noted how new cannabis industry market entrants often found that cannabis licenses were not readily available to newcomers. She stated that available cannabis licenses tended to be “nearly impossible” to secure as a result of the tensions between state and federal laws. She mentioned how one state required prospective businesses to come up with $3 million to obtain a cannabis license while also needing to meet low-income requirements. She also noted how many cannabis license applicants were required to secure commercial property at between four and ten times the market rate. She added that these applicants must hold this property indefinitely with no promise of securing the cannabis license. She stated that cannabis businesses were subject to the aforementioned conditions without access to capital and federal small businesses loans and services. She then noted how cannabis businesses that were able to open faced effective tax rates of between 70 percent and 90 percent. She further indicated that these businesses did not have access to banking, insurance, or federal IP protections. She lastly remarked that legal cannabis businesses must navigate the federal policy uncertainty surrounding cannabis and competition from unlicensed and unregulated cannabis businesses.
• Rep. Pressley commented that Ms. Littlejohn’s response had highlighted how current cannabis laws were perpetuating inequities within the cannabis space. She mentioned how her commonwealth of Massachusetts had created the U.S.’s first social equity program as part of its cannabis legalization. She explained that this social equity program provided historically disadvantaged communities with access to resources, grants, and low or no-interest loans to set up their cannabis businesses. She asked Ms. Haynes to address why it was beneficial to mandate equity provisions that help formerly incarcerated individuals as part of cannabis policies.
  •  Ms. Haynes remarketed that formerly incarcerated individuals experienced numerous collateral consequences stemming from their cannabis convictions. She called this situation unfair given how many businesses (particularly White-owned businesses) were now making money from selling cannabis and how many people could freely use cannabis. She noted that while Congress could not restore the time lost serving cannabis convictions, she stated that the expungement of cannabis convictions would help formerly incarcerated individuals to secure jobs, secure housing, enter the cannabis business, and regain voting rights. She contended that this expungement must be automatic because many people are unable to afford the legal fees associated with obtaining an expungement.
• Note: Rep. Pressley’s question period time expired here.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):

• Rep. Sessions noted how U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provisional data indicates that there had occurred significant year-over-year increases in drug overdoses for the past three years. He called marijuana and drugs “crippling” in that they cause addiction, crime, and mental health issues. He remarked that police played a key role in protecting citizens from criminals and dangerous products. He expressed concerns over policies that permitted the open consumption of cannabis. He also discussed how New York state had eliminated cash bail for nonviolent felonies and highlighted how this policy had enabled a New York man with 20,000 fentanyl pills to be let free post-arrest. He then asserted that policymakers ought to consider the impacts that marijuana has on children, families, and women. He noted how more drivers had experienced serious crashes and deaths with marijuana in their systems than with any other drug in 2021. He also mentioned how 27 percent of drivers that were injured or killed in a motor vehicle crash in 2020 had tested positive for marijuana. He remarked that marijuana was addictive and raised concerns over marijuana’s rising potency. He noted how there were marijuana sellers that increased the THC content in marijuana and commented such increases were often meant to cause addiction. He highlighted how Colorado’s most popular marijuana strains in 2017 had THC levels that were 400 percent greater than cannabis THC levels in 1970. He also asserted that many marijuana legalization advocates had a financial interest in its legalization and commented that cannabis legalization was not necessarily moral. He stated that the drug industry was inherently violent and predatory. He then noted that the VA did not wish to provide marijuana to veterans because it took 30 days for marijuana to completely pass through a person’s system. He noted how marijuana directly impacts the receptors in the human body, which could increase the prevalence of false positives when treating a patient. He expressed hope that future Congressional hearings on cannabis would address the harms that marijuana could bring to children, communities, and the U.S.
• Note: Rep. Sessions’s question period time expired here.

Full Committee Chairman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY):

• Chairman Maloney noted that while there were no federal laws that prohibited banks from serving the cannabis industry, she stated that current regulations required “extensive and costly” reporting for banks that served cannabis businesses and imposed fines for procedural missteps. She commented that these reporting requirements and fines discouraged banks from working with cannabis businesses, which left the businesses without access to banking services. She asked Mr. Armentano to further explain why banks were so reluctant to take on legal cannabis businesses as customers.
  • Mr. Armentano remarked that banks and other financial institutions were “largely discouraged” from working with state-licensed cannabis-related businesses because of cannabis’s Schedule I categorization under the Controlled Substances Act. He stated that banks and financial institutions were worried that the Schedule I categorization could put them in conflict with federal law at some point and make them vulnerable to enforcement actions (such as money laundering prosecution). He testified that his trade association had faced challenges in obtaining and maintaining banking and credit card services because of their work on cannabis issues. He also testified that he was aware of other cannabis advocacy organizations that have faced similar challenges in obtaining and maintaining financial services. He emphasized that his trade association did not handle cannabis and did not engage in cannabis retail sales. He noted how the U.S. Department of the Treasury had found that only 11 percent of banks and 4 percent of credit unions were willing to provide financial services to state-licensed cannabis-related businesses.
• Chairman Maloney asked Mr. Feedman to discuss how the inability of legal cannabis businesses to access banking services had impacted the businesses and their customers during his tenure as Colorado’s cannabis czar. She also asked Mr. Freedman to provide his thoughts on legislative proposals that would extend banking services to cannabis businesses in states that have legalized marijuana.
  • Mr. Freedman recounted how Colorado banks and the Colorado government had initially been unable to receive all the cash deposits from cannabis businesses following the state’s legalization of cannabis. She stated that many Colorado community banks had since begun to accept cannabis businesses as customers and that Colorado cannabis businesses now had access to merchant services. He acknowledged however that these merchant services for cannabis businesses were expensive. He applauded Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) for his leadership on the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act of 2021, which would make it easier for legal cannabis businesses to access banking services. He called on Congress to address the public health and public safety issues surrounding cannabis, including banking, insurance, and proper pesticide use.
• Chairman Maloney then mentioned how Canada was the first country to develop national regulations to limit the potency of edible marijuana products. She stated that the U.S. had a nationwide cannabis industry, which required similar national regulations. She asked Mr. Armentano to identify the strengths and limitations of existing U.S. cannabis policies compared to the cannabis policies of other countries. She also noted how Canadian law had measures to prevent children from accessing legal marijuana products. She indicated that these measures included bans on cannabis vending machine sales and cannabis packaging that might appeal to children.
  • Mr. Armentano noted that while Canada did maintain some basic national cannabis regulations, he stated that Canadian provinces were primarily responsible for regulating cannabis. He noted how some Canadian provinces permitted private retailers to engage in cannabis sales while other Canadian provinces limited cannabis sales to government stores. He also noted how Canadian provinces set the age limit for cannabis use and highlighted how these age limits varied across provinces. He commented that Canada’s regulatory structure for cannabis was similar to the U.S.’s regulatory structure for cannabis in that regional governments had significant influence over cannabis policies. He discussed how state cannabis policies in the U.S. were meant to discourage underage cannabis use and highlighted how all states required people to be 21 or older to use cannabis. He mentioned how studies had found very high compliance levels with these state cannabis age requirements. He then remarked that states had the ability to regulate the potency of certain cannabis products and mentioned how some states (including Montana, Vermont, and Connecticut) did maintain cannabis potency regulations. He further noted that some states (such as California) impose caps on cannabis serving sizes.
• Note: Chairman Maloney’s question period time expired here.

Rep. Clay Higgins (D-LA):

• Rep. Higgins remarked that young Americans should completely abstain from using cannabis given its very high potency levels. He stated that the potency of cannabis had increased significantly since the 1970s. He remarked however that Americans ought to be empowered to decide their best course of action for medical treatment. He expressed support for permitting the VA to prescribe marijuana for veterans. He remarked that the current conflicts between federal cannabis laws and state cannabis laws must be addressed. He expressed receptiveness to rescheduling cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act from Schedule I to either Schedule III or Schedule IV. He reiterated his belief that veterans ought to be able to access cannabis if they believed it to be in their best interest. He asked Mr. Goepel to confirm that veterans could not access cannabis through VA health facilities.
  • Mr. Goepel confirmed that veterans could not access cannabis through VA health facilities. He stated that VA physicians could only discuss cannabis with their patients.
• Rep. Higgins remarked that there were potential benefits associated with medical marijuana for veterans. He asked Mr. Goepel to address how veterans accessed marijuana for medicinal purposes when they were barred from accessing marijuana through the VA system.
  • Mr. Goepel remarked that a veteran’s ability to access marijuana depended on their state of residence. He noted how veterans residing in states where marijuana was legal could purchase THC products from state-licensed vendors.
• Rep. Higgins interjected to note that a veteran that purchased marijuana from a state-licensed vendor would be violating federal law. He reiterated that Congress must address the current conflicts between federal cannabis laws and state cannabis laws. He expressed interest in working to address these conflicts in a bipartisan manner. He lastly asked Mr. Goepel to provide recommendations for how Congress should approach cannabis access for veterans.
  • Mr. Goepel noted how veterans were a special population in that they received federal health care services. He asserted that Congress must deschedule cannabis if it seeks to provide veterans with access to cannabis. He commented that the failure to deschedule cannabis would result in some forms of cannabis possession being criminalized, which would deny veterans the access they need to cannabis.

Subcommittee Vice Chair Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY):

• Vice Chair Ocasio-Cortez mentioned how President Biden had recently announced that he would pardon some simple federal marijuana possession convictions. She stated that while the spirit of this executive action should be applauded, she asserted that additional action was needed from Congress and states to fulfill the action’s aims. She mentioned how the White House and the U.S. Sentencing Commission had reported that there were currently no people currently in federal custody for simple possession of marijuana. She highlighted how President Biden’s recent announcement involved pardons and not expungements. She also noted how Mayor Woodfin had issued pardons for city cannabis offenses in Birmingham, Alabama. She asked Mayor Woodfin to explain the difference between a pardon and an expungement.
  • Mayor Woodfin discussed how pardons were issued at the executive level and explained that executives could issue pardons to set aside the penalties (including incarceration) associated with a conviction. He stated that expungement was at the judicial level and noted that a person who received a pardon may still have a conviction on their criminal record. He explained that an expungement allowed for a person’s entire criminal record to be concealed. He indicated that this concealment applied to both the criminal charge and the associated arrest.
• Vice Chair Ocasio-Cortez emphasized that pardons decreased the penalties associated with a crime while expungements completely eliminated convictions from criminal records. She stated that criminal records made it difficult for people to obtain jobs, qualify for affordable housing, and access financial aid for education. She asserted that the expungement of cannabis convictions was therefore key to enabling these people to fully participate in society. She then mentioned how she had introduced bipartisan legislation that would establish a grant program for state and local governments to support their cannabis conviction expungement efforts. She highlighted how tens of millions of Americans had convictions for marijuana offenses and commented that these convictions impacted American democracy, the U.S. economy, housing access, and the ability to participate in public institutions. She then discussed how undocumented people were not eligible for President Biden’s recent pardons for simple federal marijuana possession convictions. She asked Mr. Armentano to address how having a pardon for a simple federal marijuana possession conviction would be significant for an undocumented person in an immigration proceeding.
  • Mr. Armentano criticized the federal policy that enables the U.S. to deport people with Green Cards that have consumed cannabis. He applauded Vice Chair Ocasio-Cortez and Subcommittee Ranking Member Nancy Mace (R-SC) for their efforts to address this issue. He also noted how the MORE Act included provisions that would remedy this type of situation.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Nancy Mace (R-SC):

• Ranking Member Mace asked Mr. Armentano to comment on the importance of legislation that would prohibit the marketing and advertising of cannabis products to children.
  • Mr. Armentano noted how individual states were responsible for regulating the marketing, packaging, labeling, and testing of cannabis products. He commented that these regulations might vary across states. He called for the establishment of uniform national regulations for cannabis labeling, testing, and packaging.
• Ranking Member Mace then asked Mr. Goepel to identify the leading cause of overdose deaths in terms of drugs and to indicate how many overdose deaths were attributable to marijuana.
  • Mr. Goepel remarked that neither the CDC, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), nor any other federal agency had directly associated a fatal overdose with cannabis. 
• Ranking Member Mace emphasized that there had been no overdose deaths related to cannabis. She then asked Ms. Littlejohn to address how the U.S. could ensure that consumers would be sufficiently informed about the cannabis that they purchased and ingested. She also asked Ms. Littlejohn to address the importance of having the U.S. maintain cannabis labeling, concentration, and potency standards.
  • Ms. Littlejohn remarked that the U.S. should first legalize cannabis so that it can develop standards for the substance. She noted how every state that had legalized cannabis maintained strict packaging and labeling requirements. She commented that the primary purpose of these packaging and labeling requirements was to protect the public and prevent children from accessing cannabis products. She remarked that the cannabis legalization process would provide a mechanism for developing policies that did not impede commerce and maintained public safety.
• Ranking Member Mace then noted how studies had found that the presence of cannabis dispensaries in a state was associated with reductions in opioid addiction and morbidity. She asked Ms. Snider to address how cannabis could play a role in preventing opioid addictions and deaths.
  • Ms. Snider highlighted how states with cannabis dispensaries had observed a “substantial” decrease in opioid-related deaths. She also noted how recent studies had shown that opioid-related hospital visits have subsided substantially in jurisdictions where recreational and medicinal cannabis have been legalized.
• Ranking Member Mace then asked Ms. Littlejohn to provide recommendations for reducing incentives for people to participate in the illicit cannabis market. She suggested that lower cannabis taxes and higher quality cannabis could reduce incentives for participating in the illicit cannabis market.
  • Ms. Littlejohn remarked that the two biggest factors that were perpetuating the illicit cannabis market were high cannabis taxes and the lack of interstate commerce. She asserted that allowing interstate commerce in the cannabis market and providing “reasonable” cannabis tax rates would therefore be key for combating the illicit cannabis market.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC):

• Del. Holmes Norton first applauded President Biden for recently announcing blanket pardons for all people with convictions for simple marijuana possession under federal and District of Columbia law. She then stated that the governance of marijuana and clemency issues in the District of Columbia was unique and undemocratic. She mentioned how there existed an appropriations rider under current law that prohibited the District of Columbia from spending its local funds on commercializing recreational marijuana. She noted that while recreational marijuana was legal within the District of Columbia, she indicated that Congress restricted the District of Columbia from taxing and regulating marijuana sales. She called this restriction a violation of home rule and harmful. She also noted how the President has the authority to exercise clemency for District of Columbia crimes. She stated that this was another violation of home rule and contended that the District of Columbia should have the authority to grant clemency for its own crimes. She thanked the Committee for its recent advancement of the District of Columbia Home Rule Expansion Act of 2022, which would provide the District of Columbia with the authority to grant clemency for District of Columbia crimes (among other things). She then asked Ms. Haynes to discuss how President Biden’s recent announcement of blanket pardons for all people with simple marijuana possession convictions would impact the recipients of the pardons.
  • Ms. Haynes called President Biden’s recent cannabis pardons a “great first step.” She noted however that pardons were not the same as expungements and asserted that the U.S. must also expunge these cannabis convictions. She further called on the President and Congress to address people with marijuana-related felonies on their criminal records.
• Del. Holmes Norton reiterated that President Biden’s recent announcement of blanket pardons was beneficial. She asserted however that there remained problems that could only be addressed through a full deschedulization of marijuana and the expungement of cannabis convictions. She also noted how people that were not citizens or permanent residents at the time of their cannabis convictions were not eligible for President Biden’s blanket pardons. She asked Mr. Armentano to comment on this situation.
  • Mr. Armentano applauded President Biden’s recent announcement of blanket pardons for people with convictions for simple marijuana possession under federal and District of Columbia law. He highlighted how 29 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana-related violations and emphasized that the overwhelming majority of these arrests occurred at the state and local levels. He noted that the President did not have the power to pardon or expunge state and local criminal records. He expressed support for the efforts of nearly two dozen states to enact legislation to facilitate the expungement of marijuana-related offenses. He indicated that these laws had enabled nearly two million Americans to have their marijuana-related offenses expunged from their criminal records. He predicted that more states would pursue laws to expunge marijuana-related offenses if the U.S. were to deschedule marijuana and if there was federal assistance made available to states to support the expungement process.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI):

• Rep. Tlaib noted how many states still made arrests and filed criminal charges for marijuana possession. She mentioned how Alabama had sought to use COVID-19 relief money to fund the construction of a prison and noted how corrections were a top expenditure in Alabama’s state budget. She remarked that her state of Michigan also spent a significant amount of its budget on corrections. She stated that this money would be better spent to support education or to combat public health disparities. She applauded Michigan however for its move toward cannabis decriminalization. She then noted how Alabama ranks 16th among states in terms of racial disparities for marijuana possession arrests. She asked Mayor Woodfin to address how these racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests had impacted his city’s residents.
  • Mayor Woodfin remarked that his city of Birmingham was taking a different approach to cannabis than the state of Alabama. He stated that he had provided blanket pardons for cannabis-related offenses because many citizens were unable or unwilling to address their offenses. He testified that his city was now reaching out to pardon recipients and assisting them in the expungement process. He noted that many of the pardon recipients did not understand that their cannabis-related offenses remained on their records, even with a pardon. He mentioned how he had advocated that other mayors use their pardon powers to forgive cannabis-related offenses within their individual cities. He also mentioned how he had encouraged Alabama’s governor to pursue cannabis decriminalization.
• Rep. Tlaib highlighted how 40 percent of all drug arrests nationwide were marijuana possession arrests and lamented how these arrests were impacting the African American community. She then noted how the decriminalization of cannabis could still subject people to fines and punishments for cannabis-related offenses. She asked Ms. Haynes to address this situation.
  • Ms. Haynes noted how many people with cannabis convictions were required to pay off all of their legal debt in order to qualify for a pardon. She indicated that this legal debt could include fees and fines associated with a cannabis conviction. She also noted how the failure to pay this legal debt could lead people to lose their driver’s licenses in some states. She stated that people with cannabis convictions often cannot afford to pay off their legal debt and commented that this situation was perpetuating a cycle of poverty.
• Rep. Tlaib then recounted her visit to the Unified U.S. Deported Veterans Resource Center in Tijuana, Mexico. She lamented how some U.S. servicemembers with Green Cards had been deported as a result of marijuana possession charges. She stated that the Committee should meet with these deported veterans and called these deportations unjust.

Subcommittee Chairman Jamie Raskin (D-MD):

• Chairman Raskin recounted how the U.S. had previously prohibited alcohol between 1919 and 1933 and stated that this prohibition had fostered organized crime. He remarked that the U.S. had decided to repeal alcohol prohibition because the harms associated with criminalizing alcohol were too significant. He asserted that the U.S.’s current experience with cannabis prohibition was very similar to the U.S.’s previous experience with alcohol prohibition. He asked Ms. Snider to compare the U.S.’s previous experience with alcohol prohibition to the U.S.’s current experience with cannabis prohibition. He also asked Ms. Snider to recount her experiences in enforcing cannabis crimes as a New York City police officer.
  • Mr. Snider remarked that the growth in social acceptance of alcohol had led the U.S. to end its prohibition of alcohol. She commented that a similar growth in social acceptance was occurring with cannabis. She mentioned how she had observed a decrease in the social taboos surrounding cannabis during her time as a police officer.
• Chairman Raskin asked Mr. Freedman to indicate whether the U.S.’s attitudes towards cannabis were currently changing in a manner similar to how the U.S.’s attitudes towards alcohol had changed at the end of its prohibition of alcohol.
  • Mr. Freedman remarked that most cannabis consumers and patients already view the U.S.’s prohibition of cannabis as being over. He asserted that the federal government’s views toward cannabis were not keeping pace with the general public’s views towards cannabis. He stated that the U.S. cannabis landscape was currently missing regulations and scientific research and commented that the federal government could address these missing items.
• Chairman Raskin asked Mr. Armentano to comment on the political prospects for Congress to pass cannabis legislation in the near term that would better align the federal government’s approach to cannabis with state approaches to cannabis.
  • Mr. Armentano expressed hope that Congress would recognize the need to swiftly address cannabis policy issues. He highlighted how most U.S. states were pursuing various forms of cannabis legalization. He called the federal government’s current prohibition of cannabis untenable. He asserted that the federal government would ultimately need to deschedule cannabis so that federal cannabis policies would comport with state cannabis policies.

Full Committee Ranking Member James Comer (R-KY):

• Ranking Member Comer noted that while marijuana was not legal in his commonwealth of Kentucky, he mentioned how Kentucky had a vibrant hemp industry. He stated that he had worked to promote the hemp industry’s growth as both a member of Congress and as Kentucky’s Agriculture Commissioner. He specifically noted how he had implemented the U.S.’s first hemp pilot program as Kentucky’s Agriculture Commissioner. He remarked that hemp and related products (such as CBD and fiber materials) showed “great potential” for Kentucky farmers, patients, and consumers. He highlighted how the U.S.’s recent legalization of hemp had resulted in various applications for hemp and its related products. He stated however that the U.S. hemp industry faced challenges with an uncertain regulatory environment. He commented that this uncertainty was inhibiting the U.S. hemp industry’s ability to expand. He called on the FDA provide regulatory certainty for the U.S. hemp industry. He also stated that the U.S. must provide access to credit for hemp farmers and entrepreneurs that operate legitimate hemp businesses. He asked Mr. Freedman to indicate whether he was aware that the FDA had failed to promulgate regulations that would provide the U.S. hemp industry with certainty (especially with regard to products containing CBD).
  • Mr. Freedman noted that the FDA had not yet created a regulatory approval pathway for most CBD products. He also indicated that the FDA had not yet created regulations around intoxicating CBD products. He stated that Congress must push the FDA to address these CBD issues.
• Ranking Member Comer discussed how the hemp and CBD industries wanted FDA regulation to ensure product integrity. He stated that CBD products should be treated as nutraceuticals. He mentioned how he had previously requested that the Committee hold a hearing with the FDA on the topic of hemp and CBD regulation. He asked Mr. Freedman to project the FDA’s future actions on hemp and CBD regulation. He lastly predicted that the Committee would hold a hearing on CBD issues “in the very near future.”
  • Mr. Freedman predicted that the FDA would ask that Congress resolve outstanding problems related to CBD. He stated that the U.S. CBD landscape remained unclear and asserted that consumers were currently unable to make informed CBD consumption decisions. He also noted how some bad actors were selling intoxicating CBD products. He contended that clear regulations were necessary for addressing hemp and CBD products. He warned that bad actors in the cannabis industry could go into the hemp and CBD industries due to an absence of regulations.

Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL):

• Rep. Kelly called for marijuana to be descheduled and removed from the Controlled Substances Act. She stated however that there needed to exist balance in the regulatory space between federal and state governments, especially considering the existing state regulatory regimes for cannabis. She asked Mr. Freedman to indicate what the appropriate balance of power should be between state governments and the federal government in terms of regulating marijuana.
  • Mr. Feedman remarked that states should take the leadership role in regulating marijuana and that the federal government should assist states in regulating marijuana. He commented that the States Reform Act would create this type of regulatory framework for marijuana. He discussed how states had created unique regulatory systems for marijuana that best meet the needs of their own communities. He asserted that federal marijuana legalization should not lead to the jettisoning of these state regulatory systems. He remarked that the federal government could assist in the regulation of marijuana through providing uniform standards for marijuana and basic research to inform state marijuana policies. He testified that the states that he had worked with were looking for this type of federal assistance on marijuana policy issues.
• Rep. Kelly asked Mr. Armentano to provide recommendations for how Congress could effectively regulate the cannabis market.
  • Mr. Armentano remarked that the U.S.’s regulatory approach to alcohol should inform the U.S.’s regulatory approach to cannabis. He noted how states played key roles in regulating alcohol within their states while the federal government played a key role in regulating interstate commerce and the production of alcohol. He elaborated that the federal government regulated the marketing and labeling of alcohol. He highlighted how the U.S.’s current regulatory system for alcohol had emerged out of a “patchwork” system stemming from the federal prohibition of alcohol. He stated that the MORE Act and the States Reform Act would take the U.S.’s current regulatory approach to alcohol and apply it to the cannabis space.
• Rep. Kelly then discussed how many locations with vibrant cannabis industries (including San Francisco and Washington state) had experienced “disturbing” patterns of violent robberies of cannabis companies. She asked Ms. Littlejohn to address how the lack of banking access and the need to hold large amounts of cash for cannabis companies had created “dangerous” obstacles for cannabis businesses.
  • Ms. Littlejohn discussed how federal banking laws made it difficult for cannabis businesses to access financial services. She stated that smaller cannabis businesses faced particular challenges in terms of accessing financial services because these businesses tended to not have sufficient profits to justify their associated risks. She noted how this lack of access to financial services led smaller cannabis businesses to hold large amounts of physical cash, which made them a target for criminals. She also remarked that the illegal status of cannabis at the federal level meant that cannabis businesses could not access insurance or traditional financing sources. She commented that this situation made it more difficult for cannabis businesses to adopt security measures to protect themselves and their employees.
• Rep. Kelly lastly remarked that Congress needs to address the challenges that historically disempowered groups face in entering the cannabis industry.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Nancy Mace (R-SC):

• Ranking Member Mace remarked that the U.S.’s federal prohibition of cannabis has racist origins and asserted that the federal government had used cannabis’s illegal status to target African American and Hispanic communities. She noted how African American and Hispanic people were four times as likely to be arrested for cannabis-related offenses as compared to White people. She expressed hope that federal cannabis reform could help to reduce longstanding racial inequities. She called on Congress to advance federal cannabis reform. She noted how 70 percent of Americans supported medical cannabis and how more than half of Americans supported adult and recreational use of cannabis. She commented that the only place where cannabis legalization was controversial was in Congress. She also stated that the cannabis industry was already a multi-billion dollar industry and was unlikely to end. She then remarked that access to cannabis would reduce opioid addictions and deaths and stated that cannabis could help to treat various medical conditions, including Parkinson’s disease and cancer. She contended that the States Reform Act would establish a sufficient regulatory framework for the U.S. cannabis industry.

Subcommittee Chairman Jamie Raskin (D-MD):

• Chairman Raskin expressed optimism that Congress could reform federal marijuana laws in a bipartisan manner. He mentioned how there were 2.85 million federal employees and noted how people have been disqualified from federal government employment opportunities because of their admissions of past cannabis use. He indicated that the Biden administration had issued guidance saying that the past use of cannabis would not serve as an automatic disqualifier for federal government jobs. He stated however that people were telling him that their past cannabis use was still preventing them from obtaining federal government jobs. He called this situation unfair to the job applicants and commented that this led to unnecessary stigmatization and demoralization. He expressed interest in working to advance various federal marijuana reform legislative proposals. He asserted that states had taken a leadership role in ending the prohibition of cannabis and called on Congress to modernize federal cannabis laws to better reflect state cannabis policies.