Congressional Committee Directs Federal Agencies To Study State Marijuana Laws

A key congressional committee is set this week to take up a spending bill that includes a report directing federal agencies to assess the “adequacy” of state-level marijuana regulatory models.

The House Appropriations Committee will mark up the legislation, which covers Financial Service and General Government (FSGG), on Wednesday.

The underlying bill includes longstanding provisions blocking Washington, D.C. from using its tax dollars to legalize cannabis sales. But an attached report acknowledges the need to study legalization at the state level.

“The Committee notes that over 20 States and territories now permit the use of adult use cannabis, while over 35 States and territories permit the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes,” the report says.

To that end, the legislation directs the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) and other agencies with “relevant regulatory expertise” to “coordinate an assessment of the adequacy of State marijuana regulatory frameworks, including commonalities and novel approaches to enforcement and oversight.”

The agencies are to formulate an assessment that includes “recommendations to improve data sharing and coordination between State and Federal authorities” and then brief the committee on the findings within one year of enactment.

“Cannabis Regulatory Framework.—The Committee notes that over 20 States and territories now permit the use of adult use cannabis, while over 35 States and territories permit the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. The Committee directs TTB in coordination with the Department, and other agencies, which may have relevant regulatory expertise, to coordinate an assessment of the adequacy of State marijuana regulatory frameworks, including commonalities and novel approaches to enforcement and oversight. The assessment shall include recommendations to improve data sharing and coordination between State and Federal authorities. The Department shall provide a briefing to the Committee on the findings of the assessment within one year of enactment of this Act.”

The language mirrors what was included in reports attached to appropriations bills covering FSGG and Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) last year.

In a sense, the cannabis research mandate for TTB is similar in intent to a standalone bill that House FSGG Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Dave Joyce (R-OH), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, filed in April.

That legislation would lay the groundwork for federal marijuana legalization, directing the attorney general to create a commission charged with making recommendations on a regulatory system for cannabis.

The current FSGG bill, meanwhile, includes a two-part section barring D.C. from using local tax dollars to implement a system of regulated cannabis sales—despite the fact that voters in the District approved a legalization initiative at the ballot in 2014.

While local lawmakers have found ways to work around that policy to some extent by significantly expanding access to an existing medical marijuana program, advocates view the rider—championed by prohibitionist Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD)—as a troubling infringement on D.C.’s autonomy.

“SEC. 830. (a) None of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.

(b) No funds available for obligation or expenditure by the District of Columbia government under any authority may be used to enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative for recreational purposes.”

The White House has called the District’s move to enact local marijuana reform an example of a “failed” policy that “opened the door to disorder.”

President Donald Trump’s budget request that he released in May similarly contained the Harris rider preventing marijuana sales in D.C. Former President Joe Biden also repeatedly requested the continuation of the D.C. cannabis rider in budget proposals during his time in office.

Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LaborH) is scheduled to vote on a separate spending bill on Tuesday that contains one provision that prohibits relevant agencies from advocating for the legalization of Schedule I drugs such as marijuana.

The section does include a carve-out stating that the policy “shall not apply when there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic advantage to the use of such drug or other substance or that federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to determine therapeutic advantage.”

“SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for any activity that promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance included in schedule I of the schedules of controlled substances established under section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act except for normal and recognized executive-congressional communications.

(b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply when there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic advantage to the use of such drug or other substance or that federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to determine therapeutic advantage.”

The LaborH bill also contains a provision limiting the use of federal funds for harm reduction efforts like syringe exchange programs and safe consumptions sites for illegal drugs.

“SEC. 525. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no funds appropriated in this Act shall be used to purchase sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug: Provided, That such limitation does not apply to the use of funds for elements of a program other than making such purchases if the relevant State or local health department, in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, determines that the State or local jurisdiction, as applicable, is experiencing, or is at risk for, a significant increase in hepatitis infections or an HIV outbreak due to injection drug use, and such program is operating in accordance with State and local law: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for the operation of a supervised drug consumption facility that permits the consumption onsite of any substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).”

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

In other congressional drug policy news, a GOP senator recently successfully blocked a proposed ban on hemp THC products that was included in another key spending bill, giving the industry a win amid contentious discussions around intoxicating cannabinoids. The prohibition was included in the House version approved in committee, however.

Bipartisan congressional lawmakers have also teamed up on another psychedelics amendment to appropriations legislation—this time seeking to give the Department of Defense (DOD) another $10 million to support clinical trials into the therapeutic potential of substances such as ibogaine and psilocybin.

The House’s Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriation bill, meanwhile, includes provisions that would block the Justice Department from rescheduling marijuana.

The legislation would also maintain a separate longstanding rider protecting state medical cannabis programs from federal interference—though with language authorizing enhanced penalties for sales near schools and parks.