When Will Democrats Get Serious About Repealing Pot Prohibition?
Instead of building on Republican support for federalism, they seem determined to alienate potential allies.

When Republicans who oppose federal marijuana prohibition vote against your legalization bill, you probably are doing something wrong. That is what happened last week, when the House of Representatives approved the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act by a vote of 220 to 204.
The ayes included 217 Democrats but only three Republicans, two fewer than voted for the MORE Act when the House passed it in 2020. The meager and waning GOP support for the bill suggests that Democrats want credit for trying to legalize marijuana but are not really interested in building the bipartisan coalition that would be necessary to accomplish that goal.
The 2020 vote was the first time that either chamber of Congress had approved legislation that would remove marijuana from the list of federally prohibited drugs. But as expected, the MORE Act went nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.
The Senate is now evenly divided between the two parties, with Democratic control depending on Vice President Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote. So even if Democrats unanimously supported a legalization bill, they would still need the support of 10 Republicans to overcome a filibuster.
Democrats seem determined to ignore that political reality. Both the MORE Act and the legalization bill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) plans to introduce this spring include unnecessarily contentious provisions that are bound to alienate Republicans who might otherwise be inclined to resolve the untenable conflict between federal prohibition and the laws that allow medical or recreational use of cannabis in 37 states.
According to the latest Gallup poll, 68 percent of Americans think marijuana should be legal, including 83 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of Republicans. Even Republicans who are not crazy about the idea should be able to get behind legislation that would let states set their own marijuana policies without federal interference.
Such legislation can be straightforward. The Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2017, sponsored by then-Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R–Calif.), consisted of a single sentence that said the federal marijuana ban would not apply to conduct authorized by state law. Its 46 cosponsors included 14 Republicans—11 more than voted for the MORE Act last week.
The Common Sense Cannabis Reform Act, which Rep. Dave Joyce (R–Ohio) introduced last May, is 14 pages long. So far it has just eight cosponsors, including four Republicans, but that still means it has more GOP support than Democrats managed to attract for the 92-page MORE Act, which includes new taxes, regulations, and spending programs.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) thinks Congress never should have banned marijuana, because it had no constitutional authority to do so. He nevertheless voted against the MORE Act, objecting to the "new marijuana crimes" its tax and regulatory provisions would create, with each violation punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The 163-page preliminary version of Schumer's bill doubles down on the MORE Act's overly prescriptive and burdensome approach. It would levy a 25 percent federal excise tax on top of frequently hefty state and local taxes, impose picayune federal regulations, and create the sort of "social equity" programs that gave pause even to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.), the MORE Act's lone Republican cosponsor.
GOP support for marijuana federalism is clear from the fact that 106 Republicans voted last April for the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, which would protect financial institutions that serve state-licensed marijuana businesses from federal prosecution, forfeiture, and regulatory penalties. The SAFE Banking Act would already be law if it had not been blocked by Schumer, who insisted that his own bill take priority.
Instead of building on the Republican appetite for letting states go their own way on this issue, Schumer is effectively telling GOP senators their views don't matter. That makes sense only if he is more interested in scoring political points than in reversing a morally, scientifically, and constitutionally bankrupt policy that should have been abandoned long ago.
© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
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
“Schumer is effectively telling GOP senators their views don't matter. That makes sense only if he is more interested in scoring political points”
It makes sense, yes.
Completely!
One thing that will never not continue to amaze me is the lack of understanding that media and journalists have with regard to politicians playing politics.
When political gamesmanship is clearly the motivating force, media always acts like they don't understand it and try to analyze different avenues of thought and reasoning.
The media and journalists completely understand politicians playing politics. What you need to understand is 90% of media/journalists are on one team or another. Their supporting their narrative to support their team.
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acc. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. (ui50) My last month of income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
.
More information. >> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
The corruption of the Republican Party is so deeply ingrained into our politics that there is very little opportunity for the Dems to pass legislation that even 80% of the country wants. What’s staggering to me is how nobody ever talks about it, like a collective amnesia
Did a Dem PAC or candidate at least pay you for this post? Cause damn.
Visit the best web portal in EU to search for hot girls for casual contacts Shemale Berlin
I did. Didn't know you mom was a man but ok.
"Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) thinks Congress never should have banned marijuana, because it had no constitutional authority to do so."
There's the RIGHT Supreme Court Seat nominee for the entire world to see... An actual USA patriot instead of a Nazi-Regime traitor.
And in short-story; No, Democrats don't care about the Constitution at all; they want MORE, MORE, MORE of a Nazi-Regime as this bill well establishes.
Rethugglicans won't vote for pro-individual freedom bills if they are Demon-Crap bills. Demon-Craps won't vote for pro-individual freedom bills if they are Rethugglican bills. So we can NOT have ANY approved pro-individual freedom bills! 'Cause self-righteous tribalism!
Just like the self-righteous tribalism of (?) about 80% of morons who post here! You stupid fuckers are reaping what you sow!
Above and beyond "which party authored this bill" there is THIS kind of utter bullshit, which tribalists favor, but only from ONE side:
Rethugglicans: "I'll vote for your pot-smoking freedom bill, but we have to add an 'every sperm is sacred' addendum outlawing birth control, and turning women into rent-controlled womb-hosts and sex slaves."
Demon-Craps: "I'll vote for your pot-smoking freedom bill, but we have to add a 'Government Almighty Charity Monopoly' addendum saying that income taxes will go to 97%, so that all of the deserving poor people will benefit from this 'Government Almighty Charity Monopoly', 'cause income earners are cheap-ass skin-flints who can NOT be trusted to make their own charity choices."
Dems wouldn’t have to make deals with crazy people if half the Senate wasn’t junk states. We’ll never advance as a society until we reorganize and reduce the number of states
Agreed! The 50 states as they are now, are an anachronism! Alaska and Rhode Island... 2 Senators each! California, New York, and Texas... 2 Senators each!
"reduce the number of states" --- Yes, Yes; Let that NATIONAL Socialism peddling shine... Why it's not a Constitutional Union of Republican States..... It's a Nazi-Regime!!!!
F'Off treasonous traitors.
They are doing what politicians normally do. They are taking an issue which has growing support, now majority support, and they are trying to leverage it for maximum political gain. If they win, then they get what they want. But if they lose, then they run on the issue in the next election: "Those obstructionist Republicans are standing in the way of pot legalization which is now widely supported! They are just out of touch! Vote for us instead!" It is cynical and depressing, but that is the timeline that we are in.
To put another way: The Democrats here are not in favor of pot legalization per se, they are in favor of power, and in favor of using the issue of pot legalization to acquire power.
See also: Republicans on abortion and gun issues
+1000000... Perfectly said...
Congress would be very wise to adopt rules of Constitutional muster and Subject specific based bill proposal.
And forced reproduction doesn't fit into a LIMITED government ideology. Humorously - the Roe v Wade was initiated by a Republican Supreme Court; apparently many new [R] Politicians want to thwart their own precedence even though the [R] voters aren't even party-aligned on the subject.
“gun issues”
How so?
This is exactly it.
Democrats can't propose anything that doesn't include more bureaucracy, regulation, and tax. They're ideologically incapable of doing so.
"When Will Democrats Get Serious About Repealing Pot Prohibition?" When Republicans are in power.
This. It's all just an game to the Dems. Give them something to be outraged over after the midterms.
Ingenuous or disingenuous? Those penalties apply only to those who participate in the regulatory regime, so it doesn't make things any worse for those who are already operating illegally. So I can't decide whether Massie's an idiot or is taking advantage of voters who don't know any better.
“Those penalties apply only to those who participate in the regulatory regime”
Cite?
Every criminal who has ever lived KNOWS that it is OK so long as you don't get caught! If you grow or sell LEGAL pot, the cops know where you live and-or operate, as you "participate in the regulatory regime", unlike the unknown illegal criminals of the underground, who DARE to believe that their bodies and their customers' bodies belong to THEM!
Next, slobbering moron, are you gonna ask for a "cite" if someone asserts that water is wet?
Why does the federal government need to add regulations? It's like the 10A doesn't exist.
^THIS +10000000000000....
But enforcing those new tax regimes and penalties will require expanding federal police powers, federal investigatory powers, and federal taxation powers. And that is a huge problem.
It's called wanting the political issue to use against opponents rather than wanting to solve the issue itself.
It's pure politics.
Dems will not allow prohibition to end until they abandon gun control.
So long as the federal law exists, dems have a means to lock up republican gun owners if they are ever caught buying pot even though it is legal in the state.
State legalization is a honey pot. It's a ruse to collect data on drug users for a future purge.
If you look at the lists of things that each side wants banned, recreational drugs stand out as the exception to the pattern in both cases. Compare to transfats, soda, vaping, tobacco, salty foods, etc. "The government should prevent you from using things that are bad for you" is entirely a Progressive Era thing. See also: Prohibition. So of course the Left will start to drag their feet at the finish line. It goes against their overall instincts. That recreational drugs are the exception on both sides is really just a historical accident, due to their association with the 60s -- is nostalgia for liberals, and anti-nostalgia for conservatives.
If drugs had never been made illegal and were sold by profit-making corporations like everything else, today you'd see Senator Schumer dragging the executives of Big Cannabis into hearings, demanding they be punished for marketing to kids, etc.
While I agree with Sullum's criticism of Democrat bills and political tactics in Congress, most Republicans in Congress and in State Legislatures still oppose legalizing the weed (that they and their friends have smoked).
Here in PA, at least our totalitarian lockdown loving, vote manipulating, mask mandating governor (Wolf) supports legalizing weed. But a large majority of GOP State Senators and Reps continue to oppose legalization of weed.
The only way PA legalized Rx weed was because several Republicans broke away from their GOP Puritans, joined forces with Democrats, and took leadership of the campaign.
I still don't understand why so many Republicans oppose repeal of marijuana prohibition.
"I still don't understand why so many Republicans oppose repeal of marijuana prohibition."
See my previous post. The reason is that, in their view, pot = hippies. That's the the reason Republicans tend to be pro-ban and Democrats anti-ban, in contrast to their respect views on just about every other "this might be bad for you" commodity.
No, that's not quite it. Republicans by and large don't care whether you do bad stuff to yourself; what Republicans care about is if they are forced to pay for the bad stuff you do to yourself.
Drug prohibition, like immigration restrictions, are objectively needed as long as we have a massive social welfare state.
That's the non-secular Republican approach. But Republicans are still very much the party of secular people who are still very on board with banning sinful things.
"Republicans by and large don't care whether you do bad stuff to yourself; what Republicans care about is if they are forced to pay for the bad stuff you do to yourself."
Except the only public costs of marijuana consumption are the enormous costs of arresting, prosecuting, adjudicating, incarcerating, and otherwise destroying the careers, lives of families of people who are caught smoking or possessing weed.
Many Republicans don't oppose the repeal of marijuana prohibition per se, they oppose it under the conditions and rules set by Democrats, who want to couple it with new taxes and new police forces.
Other Republicans oppose the repeal of drug prohibition as long as we have socialized medicine and a welfare state, since that socializes the cost of drug use.
Here is the libertarian/conservative position: drugs should be legal provided individuals have to bear the costs and consequences of drug use by themselves. That is, if you become drug addicted and can't work or get sick, that's on you and charities, not the tax payer.
What makes you think they want to? Progressives brought us the war on drugs, the progressive nanny state cannot afford the cost of drug addiction, and hence progressives are going to force you not to use drugs, by hook or by crook.
Nixon was a progressive now? Lol
Domestically? Well, he did impose wage/price controls, went the last step on ending the gold standard, and implement the EPA and OSHA. But as to the main thrust of your comment:
Uniform State Narcotics Drug Act, 1934.
Heroin Act, 1924.
Harrison Narcotics Act, 1914.
Opium Exclusion Act, 1909.
Pure Food and Drug Act, 1906*.
All Nixon did was push it further than before, and originate (I think) the use of "War on Drugs" as a term.
* - This is the ultimate foundation that the drug war stands on. Once you establish the principle that the government can stop you from buying/selling/using something that it decides is bad for you, the only question the government's decision on a particular substance. Freedom has already been tossed out the window. And the Pure Food & Drug Act is a cornerstone -- possibly even the crown jewel -- of the Progressive movement.
Is the bug up Schumer's butt about marijuana or is it some NY cronyism about banking?
You should be free to take any drugs you want without a perscription.
Sure, but distributing drugs brings liability into the equation.
That doesn't apply to alcohol. Why should it apply to other drugs?
> When Republicans who oppose federal marijuana prohibition vote against your legalization bill, you probably are doing something wrong.
Or maybe the GOP is just corrupt and not negotiating in good faith. When are we gonna get an article holding the Republicans and the House of Horrors we call the Senate to some sort of account?
I don't really think there is much if any support for marijuana law reforms in the Republican Party. I think Mr. Sullum is naive to think that enough Republicans would sign onto a reform bill to get it passed in the Senate. So, the Democrats might just as well play for the political points.
The Republican's action to nullify the reform referendum in ND and the pregnancy test requirements in Alabama suggest that Republicans are not supportive of reform.
No, it suggests that the objective freedom loving Republicans have allowed Puritanical theocrats to take control of GOP policy making.
It would be nice if you explained what Republicans objected to, but perhaps you had spent all your energy trying to twist this around to being Democrats' fault despite them being the ones on the right side.
I personally think pot should remain illegal. But then, I come from a family who believe that we didn't give Prohibition the chance it deserved.
The 14th Amendment and the “Citizens United” ruling could help push Congress and state legislatures.
For example: a Kentucky bourbon company is a “corporate-citizen” now entitled to the very same 14th Amendment rights as a cannabis company (also a “corporate-citizen”).
A cannabis company could literally litigate, claiming that they are entitled to “equal treatment” as a bourbon company. Is cannabis more dangerous than alcohol, nicotine, etc? Can this “corporate-citizen” be discriminated against and denied earning an income?
Drugs (and alcohol) cause a lot of social ills. Prohibition arguably causes even more social ills.
The logic brain solution is to allow for drug use but also provide ample treatment opportunities for those who abuse them. But we can't have that because it would go against Republicans' lock-em-up ethos as well as the Koch-libertarian one where government isn't allowed to help people or else it might lead to taxes on oil companies.
You're part of this problem, never forget!
"where government isn't allowed to help people"
There you go again pretending pointing Gov-Guns at people is "helping them"... I don't think there is any 'logic' in that 'brain' of yours at all...
Under what indoctrinated B.S. does your brain not comprehend that government is not a business/plan because (and entirely *****ONLY***** because) it points Guns at people..
The only "helping" you P.O.S. Democrats propose is "helping" yourselves to everyone else's **EARNINGS** because apparently you're all like spoiled babies who can't *EARN* a d*mn thing for themselves. So you turn into the biggest CRIMINAL mob to ever hit this once great nation.
Governments are things we made up. We can make of the world what we want.
And some of us realize the importance of having a Supreme Law over that 'made up' government to prevents [WE] mob/gang majority from using GUNS to dictating the minority....