On November 20, the House Judiciary Committee voted 24-10 to advance the MORE Act (Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment, and Expungement). Two Republicans, Reps. Matt Gaetz (FL) and Tom McClintock (CA), plus all of the committee’s Democrats supported it. The vote is the first time in US history that a Congressional committee has approved a marijuana legalization bill.
The MORE Act was introduced by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. It would legalize marijuana nationwide by removing it from the federal Controlled Substances Act, which lists it as a Schedule I narcotic.
The Act may now see a vote in the full House. Rep. Nadler told Marijuana Moment that he wants to speed up the legislative process to get a full House vote before the end of this Congress by lobbying other committees to waive their jurisdiction over it.
Significantly, the Act doesn’t just seek to legalize, but includes numerous measures to repair harms of prohibition. It would provide for expungement and re-sentencing of current, pending and past marijuana convictions, as well as for arrests and adjudifications of juvenile delinquency. Federal courts would be required to apply expungement retroactively. Anyone with a cannabis conviction would be able to file a motion for expungement. And any expunged convictions would have to be sealed by the courts.
The MORE Act also includes a series of forward-looking measures. It would create an Opportunity Trust Fund through a 5 percent sales tax on cannabis products, which would be used to invest in various community, job training, youth, education and other initiatives. It would also fund business loans and licensing programs for people disproportionately harmed by the War on Drugs—similar to the social equity programs in states like Massachusetts or California.
At this point, it is not clear if the MORE Act would pass a full vote in the Democrat-controlled House. The Republican-controlled Senate and, ultimately, President Trump’s desk represent even more daunting obstacles to its becoming law. But when it comes to federal cannabis policy, lawmakers now have options—and they are debating them.
Part of the debate in the Judiciary Committee hearing concerned whether lawmakers should instead consider passing the STATES Act (Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States). That bill would not legalize marijuana, but would neutralize conflict between federal and state marijuana laws by allowing states with legal cannabis laws to operate free of federal enforcement. The STATES Act has bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House, and Trump said last year that he would “probably” support it.
But Nadler insisted on November 19 that the House should push for his and Harris’s far more expansive proposal, with the expectation of amendments or compromises being made throughout the legislative process.
Marijuana policy advocates and leaders chimed in on Twitter to share their elation at the Judiciary Committee vote.
“This is a truly historic moment,” said Erik Altieri, executive director of NORML. “For the first time, a Congressional committee has approved far-reaching legislation to not just put an end to federal marijuana prohibition, but to address the countless harms prohibition has caused.”
The Act’s name “was chosen intentionally,” said Queen Adesuyi, policy manager of the National Affairs Office of the Drug Policy Alliance. “Our communities deserve MORE than just a booming white male-led industry. Our communities deserve MORE than to be second in line to capitalism. Period. We should not have to wait for the justice we are owed.”
Image by Robert Nelson via Unsplash.
Show Comments
YearofAction
If the MORE Act passes as it is now, then cannabis with less that 0.3% THC would be called hemp for whatever perceived value that bestows, cannabis with over 0.3% THC would just be cannabis, and the “other substance” that is marijuana would be federally legal even though its current definition remains severely malformed.
However, by also reconstructing the malformed federal definition of marijuana in the necessary and proper way to uphold the Constitution, then the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens to grow and carefully use cannabis will be protected as the 2nd, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments originally intended, and marijuana will have an altogether accurate federal definition.
Let’s contact our members of Congress about amending the MORE Act to reconstruct that definition in this straightforward way that informs state and local controls of marijuana itself:
Sec. 802.
(16) The term “marijuana” means all parts of the smoke produced by the combustion of the plant Cannabis sativa L., which is, as are the viable seeds of such plant, prohibited to be grown by or sold by any publicly traded corporation or subsidiary company, and such smoke is prohibited to be inhaled by any child or by any person bearing any firearm, as is their intake of any part or any product of such plant containing more than 0.3% THC by weight unless prescribed to such child by an authorized medical practitioner.
States and communities should be informed about marijuana rather than deceived about marijuana, as this malformed federal definition from the Farm Bill of 2018 does in so many ways:
Sec. 802.
(16)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the term “marihuana” 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.
(B) The term “marihuana” does not include (i) hemp, as defined in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946; or (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.