Are Democrats Serious About Legalizing Marijuana?
Democrats need to decide whether they want to legalize marijuana or just want credit for seeming to try.

The House of Representatives made history last December by approving a bill that would have repealed the federal ban on marijuana. Senate Democrats made history again this summer by unveiling legislation that would do the same thing. But both bills are chock-full of unnecessarily contentious provisions that make you wonder whether Democrats are serious about ending the war on weed.
The Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, which former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R–Calif.) first introduced in 2013, consisted of a single sentence that would have made the federal marijuana ban inapplicable to people acting in compliance with state law. A bill that simply removed cannabis from the federal schedules of controlled substances would be similarly brief, even allowing for conforming amendments.
By contrast, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which passed the House last year with support from just five Republicans and never had a chance in the GOP-controlled Senate, was 87 pages long. It called for new taxes, spending programs, and regulations that were apt to alienate Republicans who might otherwise be inclined to resolve the untenable conflict between federal pot prohibition and state laws that allow medical or recreational use.
The Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) presented in draft form on July 14, doubles down on that approach. It is nearly twice as long as the MORE Act.
Under Schumer's bill, state-licensed marijuana businesses, which already are regulated by state and local governments, would also be supervised by the Food and Drug Administration, the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, and the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The bill envisions detailed rules dealing with production, storage, transportation, packaging, labeling, advertising, and sales. It would establish a minimum national purchase age of 21, meaning states would not be free to set a lower threshold.
The bill would impose a federal excise tax on marijuana starting at 10 percent and rising to 25 percent by the fifth year, which would be in addition to frequently hefty state and local taxes. It would spend the resulting revenue on three new grant programs aimed at helping "individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs" as well as "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals."
Politico called Schumer's bill a "long-shot bid for legal weed," and it is not hard to see why. His overly prescriptive and burdensome proposal makes an already iffy effort even more quixotic. Democrats need to decide whether they want to legalize marijuana or just want credit for seeming to try.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Legal weed or not, Biden is already the most libertarian President ever because he opened our borders and made billionaires much richer.
#ImmigrationAboveAll
#LibertariansForBiden
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…Fxh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW
Maybe SCoTUS can get a case on this, on federalism grounds. To me, that is where the weed question gets decided: federalism.
They decided 20 years ago in Raich, and they decided poorly.
They had such a case in 2005, Gonzales v. Raich. Unfortunately, it was decided the wrong way.
Good idea. If they start by repealing the 13th and 14th Amendments nobody can gripe about Texas Governor Babbitt bringing back the fugitive slave law. Unreconstruction would also make it easier to add president Teedy Rosenfeld's "race suicide" exhortations to the Texas Republican platform statement of principles.
Does someone transcribe this gibber, after you’ve smeared it on the wall of your padded cell using your own feces?
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.ghj Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now…… READ MORE
I
M
I agreed that a simpler bill is needed but probably not as simple as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher put forth. I would suggest that the bill mirror Federal legislation on the regulation of alcohol. Alcohol has long been taxed and regulated and marijuana should be treated in a similar manner.
Why not keep it ridiculously simple? = ...not as simple as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher put forth...
Don't we libertarians bitch about how complex laws are? Seems like a step in the right direction = simplicity.
Libertarians asking for a permission slip are not libertarian.
I suspect that there is significant opposition from alcohol producers. Nobody likes competition. Even those in the business of providing mind altering substances. By putting marijuana on the same footing as alcohol some of this opposition might be blunted.
Blunted. I see what you did there.
As long as we take the high road, and keep this joint classy. Although I have low expectations, as the democrats are chronically wrong.
Perhaps Liz Warren can jump in and get everyone to smoke the peace pipe and get something passed?
Ok...nice use of 'blunted'. 🙂 Touche!
Great, then pot smokers can have the ATF breathing down their necks.
No. No, they are not.
Has either half of the Kleptocracy passed a bill explicitly legalizing the breathing of air or drinking of water?
Yeah Hank, except for you.
No. Democrats are serious about control.
Of course they aren’t. If they legalize weed, it’s the resolution of a problem they need to have around to keep as a wedge issue and pretend like they’re the party trying to help the young’uns escape the clutches of those eeeeeeeeeeevul reTHUGlicans!!
No, Democrats don't even want breathing legalized, everything must be tightly controlled by government. It's not "legalization" when the government explicitly makes it a privilege.
Democrats will only legalize marijuana if they can tax and regulate it to the point that legal growers and sellers can't make a profit, and then go after the unofficial market that will spring up, with arrests and imprisonment.
They will legalize and then place incredibly burdensome and expensive regulations on it so that small, independent growers are priced out, and only a small handful of large corporations can afford to grow weed profitably.
It will be purely coincidental that those corporate weed farms all donate generously to democrat candidates.
See: California.
Other states, too.
But a friend here who lives in the middle of nowhere north of LA is now surrounded by cartel financed weed growers. All illegal, tapping the ground water, the neighborhood literally stinks.
So much taxing and regulating that most people don't buy their weed legally, and legit weed grow operations and stores are really hard to run.
Only California could screw up the weed market in California.
WA and OR are pretty heavily regulated too. With lots of taxes. Democrats love massive ‘sin’ taxes. They claim it will go for education or some shit, but it always goes in the general fund for whatever corrupt boondoggle they’ve cooked up.
Their political leadership is acting either as Muzzled thinks — wedge issue they can keep ostensibly on the verge to exploit their voters — or as if they think they have a winning issue they can hold hostage or in trade for less popular but seemingly-related measures.
I'd like to see the grass roots of Democrats polled on a similar basis to the legislative proposals: Do Democrat voters think getting marijuana legal at the federal level would be worth some additional baggage? Or do they think it part and parcel?
I think the great majority of voters don't care about the federal law on marijuana, only on their state laws.
One issue with retaining the federal ban is the effect on filling out a federal background check form when purchasing a firearm from a gun dealer. If someone that uses marijuana responds truthfully, they get denied. If they fib on the form, they open themselves up to future prosecution. Iirc a few have been charged with this.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines strikes again!
Has anybody noticed that in the areas where Medical Marijuana is legal, only certain organizations are allowed to certify someone for use and they can only purchase it from authorized dealers? If it was such a medical necessity, why are they charging between $125 and $300 for certification? Because that money goes to certain politically connected people. If they legalize it, they lose that money. When the Democrats do anything the first thing that needs to be asked is who profits?
Here is how it works in the People's Republic of NJ - a pot paradise.
The initial application fee is (or was) $100 bucks. Then, you need to get a physician to sign off. That is another $200 bucks. The MMP card is good for two years, but the physician fee is paid annually. It used to be $400 (100 per quarter, but people freaked). Then the fun begins when you visit a dispensary. The best price for 'small bud' is 80 bucks per quarter ounce, or 320/oz. The supply chain hit here, too.
On the street, one can get an oz for 240 bucks.
In The NW, an ounce of top quality weed (we have the best in the world) can be had for half of that. At least from the black market.
This is a great inspiration. I am pretty much pleased with your good work. You put really very helpful information. IT services Oxford
This is a great inspiration. I am pretty much pleased with your good work. You put really very helpful information. Business telephone (phone) system
Look at the 21st Amendment. It only repealed the 18th as the only way to make it legal to send federal thugs into states to shoot people every time the Klan, WCTU, Anti-Saloon League or Methodist White Terror managed to pack a State legislature or appoint some dry judges.
The feds will never agree to legal weed.
It's not about money, it's about gun control.
Anyone who owns guns and is stupid enough to buy "legal" weed is going onto a list that the feds can leverage when the time comes.
It's a trap that both parties are laying.
In WA there is no list. No purchase records either. As they can only accept cash payment.
In most "legal" states they have to electronically scan your DL...
The shop then has a list that can be used by the state whenever and however they want.
>>just want credit for seeming to try.
this ^^ is the last 25 years on the Hill. minimum.
Raich ruling was 6–3 and evidence neither "party" is serious
Stevens
Kennedy
Ginsburg
Souter
Breyer
Scalia (concurring)
Usually it's the Republicans that snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The 2 major parties really are merging.
" It called for new taxes, spending programs, and regulations that were apt to alienate Republicans who might otherwise be inclined to resolve the untenable conflict between federal pot prohibition and state laws that allow medical or recreational use."
That assumes that Republicans ever wanted to and their track record highly suggests they don't.
But in any case, I doubt the Democrats could get it done either with their razor thin majority. One could only hope that one day we get a sane Congress that expressly delegates the matter to states with no federal barrier/scheduling.
I knew you would frame this as de o rats being the good guys. They’re not. Nor are they interested in doing this.
Or Biden could, you know, delist it
No, they're not serious about legalizing marijuana. They're serious about making sure the spoils of legalization are duly redistributed by the government to their favored constituencies. One need only look at marijuana legalization in California to see the model they want in practice.
Isn't the conventional wisdom that the answer to a headline question is ALWAYS NO?
LOL no they aren't.
Next.
Schumer's been a drug warrior his entire career. He doesn't want legal weed.
Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this.
Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this.
nice blog
keep it up for more information like this.