Sessions' Request To Congress: Funding To Fight Marijuana Laws

In 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions removed an Obama-era protection for states that had legalized marijuana, allowing federal prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases in those states. This decision was met with backlash from lawmakers on both sides, with some threatening to block funding for the Department of Justice and others urging Congress to ultimately legalize cannabis. Despite this, Congress did not provide funding for Sessions to fight state marijuana laws. This article will explore the debate surrounding Sessions' actions and the impact on the legalization of marijuana.

Bipartisan group blocks funding for Jeff Sessions' anti-marijuana efforts

In May 2017, a bipartisan group of House Democrats and Republicans blocked Attorney General Jeff Sessions' attempts to obtain federal funding to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that had legalized the drug for medical or recreational purposes. The group agreed to $1 trillion in government spending to avoid a shutdown, with additional funding for border security and military spending, but did not allocate any money for Sessions' anti-marijuana efforts. This move prevented Sessions from interfering with the implementation of marijuana laws in 44 states, Washington D.C., and the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico.

Sessions, a vocal opponent of marijuana legalization, had been considering enforcing the federal U.S. Controlled Substances Act, which ranks marijuana higher than cocaine and methamphetamines, against users of the drug. He had also been reviewing an Obama-era directive that prevented the federal government from interfering in state-level marijuana laws. Sessions' stance on marijuana was at odds with the growing support for legalization across the country, including among Republicans.

The bipartisan group's decision to block funding for Sessions' anti-marijuana efforts reflected the changing landscape of marijuana laws in the United States. It also highlighted the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws, with a growing number of states legalizing the drug for medical or recreational purposes. The move led pro-legalization advocacy groups and House representatives to urge Congress to amend federal law, removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act.

Despite the lack of funding for Sessions' efforts, marijuana possession remained a federal offense, and local and state law enforcement had traditionally been relied upon to enforce federal law. However, the federal government had faced challenges in enforcing its laws, particularly in states where city police forces had refused to support Trump's executive orders on immigration.

The decision to block funding for Sessions' anti-marijuana efforts was a significant development in the ongoing debate over marijuana legalization in the United States, demonstrating the increasing support for reform and the recognition of the potential benefits of legalization.

Jeff Sessions' anti-marijuana stance

Jeff Sessions, the former Attorney General of the United States, has a well-documented history of opposing cannabis reform and marijuana use, both as a member of the U.S. Senate and in his role as Attorney General. Sessions' anti-marijuana stance is rooted in his belief that marijuana is a dangerous and unhealthy substance, particularly for young people. He has stated that "good people don't smoke marijuana" and that it is a "very real danger". Sessions also equates the use of marijuana with harder drugs like heroin, rejecting the notion that legalizing marijuana could help address the heroin crisis.

Sessions' stance on marijuana has translated into concrete actions and policy decisions during his tenure as Attorney General. In January 2018, he rescinded the Cole memo, a guidance document that limited federal prosecutions of marijuana offences in states that had legalized the drug. This move was seen as an attempt to chill further reform and spread fear in the industry. However, it seemingly backfired, galvanizing policymakers and leading to a wave of new legalization measures at the state level.

Sessions has also attempted to block amendments supportive of cannabis reform, including those affecting federal incentives to revoke drivers' licenses for marijuana offences, protections for state hemp programs, and funding for the DEA's cannabis eradication program. He has argued that marijuana remains illegal under federal law and that there is nothing he can do to change that. This position puts him at odds with a growing number of states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational purposes.

Sessions' anti-marijuana stance has drawn criticism from various quarters, including pro-legalization advocacy groups, House representatives, and even some members of his own party. Despite his efforts, support for cannabis reform continues to grow in Congress, with influential figures such as Sen. Cory Gardner and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pushing for legislation to protect and expand legal marijuana.

It is worth noting that Sessions' opposition to marijuana legalization has been linked to his ties with the tobacco industry. Documents revealed that he received significant donations from tobacco companies, such as R.J. Reynolds, during his political campaigns. Sessions has consistently backed the interests of the tobacco industry, even introducing a pro-tobacco industry amendment to stem the tide of state lawsuits against tobacco companies.

Congress' support for marijuana legalization

In 2017, Congress blocked Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a determined opponent of marijuana legalization, from receiving any new federal funding to crack down on state marijuana laws. While Sessions could enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act, which ranks marijuana higher than cocaine and methamphetamines, against users of the drug, Congress did not provide him with the funds to do so. This move was supported by pro-legalization advocacy groups and House representatives, who urged Congress to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act.

Congress's refusal to fund Sessions' efforts to fight state marijuana laws is indicative of a broader shift in public opinion towards support for marijuana legalization. A 2017 CBS News poll found that 61% of Americans wanted marijuana to be legalized, a five-percentage point increase from the previous year and the highest level of support recorded by the poll. This shift is evident even among Republicans, who are traditionally associated with hardline drug policies. A 2017 poll showed that 45% of Republicans supported legalization measures, a significant increase from the 50% who opposed them just a year earlier.

Despite this growing support for marijuana legalization, Congress has yet to pass comprehensive legislation to end the federal prohibition of cannabis. However, there have been some efforts to reform marijuana policies at the federal level. For example, in 2022, President Biden signed the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, which removes barriers for researchers studying medical marijuana and its health impacts. Additionally, there have been various bills introduced in Congress that aim to address different aspects of marijuana policy, such as the SAFE Banking Act, which would allow legitimate cannabis businesses to access banking services, and the Veterans Equal Access Act, which would ensure that veterans using VA services can access medical marijuana in accordance with state laws.

Overall, while there is a growing trend towards supporting marijuana legalization in Congress, there is not yet enough support to pass comprehensive legislation to end the federal prohibition of cannabis. Nonetheless, the increasing number of states that have legalized marijuana, both for medical and recreational purposes, and the changing public opinion on the issue will likely continue to shape the debate and push for further reforms in Congress.

The Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment

The amendment was first introduced in 2001 by US Representative Maurice Hinchey. However, it was withdrawn before it could be put to a vote. In 2003, Hinchey, along with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, reintroduced the amendment, but it failed to pass. Over the next decade, the amendment was voted on six more times and failed each time. Finally, in May 2014, the amendment passed the House by a vote of 219-189. It was then included in the Senate Appropriations Bill and became law in December 2014 as part of an omnibus spending bill.

The amendment has been hailed as a historic victory for cannabis reform advocates, as it marked the first time that either chamber of Congress had voted to protect medical cannabis patients. However, it is important to note that the amendment does not change the legal status of cannabis and must be renewed annually to remain in effect.

The Controlled Substances Act

The cornerstone of the CSA is its classification system, which categorizes controlled substances into five schedules based on their accepted medical use, potential for abuse and addiction, and harmfulness. Schedule I substances have the highest potential for abuse and no recognized medical use, while Schedule V substances have known medical uses and the lowest potential for abuse. The process of scheduling or rescheduling a drug involves the consideration of several factors, including its potential for abuse, scientific evidence of its pharmacological effects, and the risk it poses to public health.

The CSA outlines strict requirements for handling, prescribing, and dispensing controlled substances. It mandates registration for individuals or entities involved in the manufacturing, importing, exporting, distributing, or dispensing of these substances. Pharmacies, for instance, must register and renew their registration every three years. The act also sets out prescription requirements, such as the need for a valid prescription from a practitioner for a legitimate medical purpose.

The enforcement of the CSA falls under the purview of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which was established in 1973. The DEA is responsible for investigating and proposing the scheduling or rescheduling of drugs, collecting relevant data, and making final decisions on the control of substances.

The CSA has been amended numerous times since its enactment to address emerging issues related to controlled substances and to align with international treaties, such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

The act has been a subject of controversy, particularly regarding the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance. Despite a growing number of states legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational purposes, and increasing public support for legalization, the federal government continues to classify it as a highly dangerous substance with no accepted medical use. This discrepancy between state and federal laws has led to ongoing debates and efforts to amend federal legislation.

Frequently asked questions