Congress Won't Legalize Pot Anytime Soon, but It Could Protect Marijuana Businesses by Passing Banking Reform
Chuck Schumer seems less interested in achieving cannabis reform than in making political hay from his inevitable failure.

State-licensed recreational marijuana sales began today in New Jersey, one of 18 states that have legalized cannabis for adults 21 or older. Those states account for more than two-fifths of the U.S. population, and another 19 have legalized marijuana for medical use, meaning three-quarters of the states have retreated from a blanket ban. According to the latest Gallup poll, more than two-thirds of Americans think marijuana should be legal. Yet the federal government still prohibits marijuana use for any purpose, and it is very unlikely that will change anytime soon.
A big part of the problem is Republican resistance. When the House of Representatives approved legislation that would repeal federal pot prohibition on April 1, just three Republicans voted for the bill. In the Senate, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.), a latecomer to marijuana reform, plans to introduce a legalization bill "before the August recess," a year after he unveiled a preliminary draft. But that bill, like the one the House passed, seems doomed to fail in the Senate, where Schumer has made little effort to attract the Republican support he would need to overcome a filibuster.
As Michael Tesler notes at FiveThirtyEight, GOP lawmakers' opposition to legalization is rather puzzling in light of recent polling data, which show that Republican voters are increasingly turning against prohibition. In the Gallup poll, which was conducted last October, 50 percent of Republicans said marijuana should be legal, a bit more than the 49 percent who disagreed. A 2021 Quinnipiac poll put Republican support for legalization at 62 percent.
Polling data from Civiqs, Tesler says, show "it's Republicans [who are] disproportionately driving the most recent uptick in support for legalizing marijuana." According to the Civiqs numbers, "net support" for legalization (the percentage in favor minus the percentage opposed) among Republicans "grew from –15 points at the start of April 2018 to a high of +13 points at the end of March." Tesler adds that Civiqs polling indicates "more Republicans favor legal cannabis than oppose it in almost every state."
Republican members of Congress may be driven by personal conviction rather than their understanding of what their constituents want. "Compared with most Americans," Tesler writes, "congressional Republicans tend to be older and more religious, two demographic groups that are far more averse to legalization than younger and religiously unaffiliated Americans. Indeed, GOP politicians often oppose drug legalization on behalf of conservative principles like morality, order and family values."
But Tesler also suggests that GOP legislators may not realize how dramatically views on legalization have shifted among Republicans in recent years. "Political science research shows that politicians tend to overestimate their constituents' support for conservative policies, with Republican lawmakers driving much of this phenomenon," he writes. "Some congressional Republicans may therefore oppose federal legalization because they mistakenly believe they're representing their own voters' views."
If so, polling data could be an important tool for Democrats trying to build a bipartisan coalition in favor of repealing the federal marijuana ban. Another obvious point of entry is federalism, a "conservative principle" that suggests the federal government should not interfere with state marijuana policies. Since most states have rejected marijuana prohibition, even legislators who take a dim view of pot might be persuaded that Congress should accommodate those choices.
One likely prospect is Sen. Dan Sullivan (R–Alaska), who is cosponsoring the SAFE Banking Act, which would protect financial institutions from federal penalties for serving state-licensed marijuana businesses. Sullivan told MJBizDaily he supports reform not because he likes cannabis but because that is what his constituents want. "My state did this in a statewide referendum, right?" he said. "And so, the people of Alaska spoke, and I'm trying to fulfill their wishes." When it comes to broader reform, Sullivan said, "the big, core, fundamental issue is: Is this going to be kind of state-led, or is it going to be federal on down?"
It has been nearly 10 months since Schumer unveiled his "discussion draft," but so far it seems the discussion has been limited almost entirely to Democrats. "I've reached out already to a few Republicans to see what they want," Schumer said a couple of weeks ago. Last week MJBizDaily found that Schumer had approached just two GOP senators: Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski, Alaska's other senator. "In honesty," Murkowski said, "I'm not as familiar with what Schumer is looking for, so that's why it probably would be good of me to sit down and find out."
Schumer's office told MJBizDaily he picked Sullivan and Murkowski because "they appeared to be the most receptive on the Republican side." But seven other Republican senators—Steve Daines (Mont.), Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.), Susan Collins (Maine), and Roy Blunt (Mo.)—joined Sullivan and Murkowski in cosponsoring the SAFE Banking Act, which suggests they are interested in addressing the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws.
Schumer needs every Republican vote he can get. "At least two Democratic senators —Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Joe Manchin of West Virginia—have expressed skepticism about full legalization," MSNBC columnist Hayes Brown notes. "Given the likelihood of a Republican filibuster, that would require Schumer to get at least 12 GOP votes to move forward any comprehensive bill."
Schumer seems determined to ignore that reality. He has failed to engage in substantial outreach to Republicans, and the draft version of his bill, which runs 163 pages, is chock-full of unnecessarily contentious, burdensome, and prescriptive provisions that are apt to alienate potential allies across the aisle.
While the short-term prospects for federal legalization look dim, the SAFE Banking Act has a much better chance of passing the Senate. In fact, it would already be law, as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that President Joe Biden signed in December, if Schumer had not insisted that it be excised from the final version of the bill. The majority leader, who thought his own yet-to-be-seen bill should take priority, warned that addressing the banking issue would relieve pressure for broader reform.
The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) echoed that view, telling its supporters in December that "we have less than 72 hours to keep the SAFE Banking Act OUT of this omnibus bill and the only way to stop it is if advocates like you speak up right away." The DPA portrayed the bill as "prioritiz[ing] marijuana profits over people"—a bizarre stance given the burdens and sometimes deadly hazards created by the lack of banking services, which forces marijuana suppliers to rely heavily on cash, making them ripe targets for robbers.
By contrast, Democrats in the House—which has approved marijuana banking reform half a dozen times, only to be frustrated by Senate inaction—were dismayed by Schumer's obstruction. "I don't really quite know what the hell his problem is," House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D–Mass.) said. "People are still getting killed and businesses are still getting robbed because of a lack of action from the Senate," said Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D–Colo.), the House sponsor of the SAFE Banking Act.
When the House voted on Perlmutter's bill last April, it passed by a 3–1 margin with support from 106 Republicans. That tally, combined with the nine Republican cosponsors in the Senate, suggests the bill has a real shot this year, assuming Schumer allows a vote on it. "The issue I'm emphasizing with Sen. Schumer, I think, is a unifying issue," Sullivan told MJBizDaily, referring to banking reform. "This is also a safety issue. The way businesses have to carry around tens of thousands of dollars in cash because they can't bank is really dangerous."
The latest vehicle for the SAFE Banking Act is the America COMPETES Act, the House version of which includes Perlmutter's bill. "Unfortunately," the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) noted this week, "the Senate continued to punt on this incremental but important issue by passing a companion bill that removed the SAFE Banking language. The legislation now moves to conference committee where the House and Senate versions will be reconciled, and the Senate is the biggest hurdle to keeping cannabis banking reform in the final compromise bill."
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson, both Democrats, reiterated their call for marijuana banking reform in a Tacoma News Tribune op-ed piece published on Tuesday. "More than 50 cannabis stores throughout Washington state have been victimized by robberies so far in 2022," they write. "That's more than 50 robberies in less than three months—many of them by perpetrators with firearms and two of which resulted in people being killed."
Inslee and Ferguson think the solution is clear. "Congress must take action immediately to pass the SAFE Banking Act, which would, at long last, allow cannabis retailers to more easily use common cashless payment options such as credit and debit cards," they say. "This has become a matter of life and death. Congress can act today to pass the SAFE Banking Act. Every day of delay means business owners are incurring extraordinary costs to hire their own armed security. Retail store employees are being traumatized, assaulted and even killed."
In light of the continuing threat posed by the dearth of financial services for the cannabis industry, Schumer's stance on the SAFE Banking Act is hard to fathom. That bill, unlike his, has a good chance of passing, which would immediately help state-licensed marijuana merchants and their employees. As NORML understands but the DPA apparently does not, it is better to have a slice of the pie than no pie at all.
Judging from his actions rather than his rhetoric, Schumer is not really interested in achieving federal marijuana reform. Instead, he wants to take credit for trying and blame Republicans for his inevitable failure. "Democrats would be wise to make congressional Republicans' opposition to marijuana legalization an issue in the upcoming midterm elections," Tesler says. That seems to have been Schumer's plan all along.
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
You might want to review recently published medical literature on MJ and cardiovascular safety particularly in the young
In an early review about the cardiovascular safety of THC [46], the conclusion was reached that harmful effects occur in people with pre-existing heart disease only. In more recent studies, acute exposure even of young healthy people to cannabis was reported to lead to severe cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction (MI), sudden cardiac death, cardiomyopathy, transient ischemic attack and stroke (e.g., [47,48]. For example, Bachs and Mørland [49] reported six cases of cardiac death in young adults in which THC was present in postmortem blood samples. One of the first convincing studies suggesting that marijuana acts as a trigger for myocardial infarction (MI) was performed by Mittleman et al. [50] who showed that marijuana smokers had a 4.8-fold increased risk of developing MI in the first hour after cannabis exposure. Moreover, a French study reported that cardiovascular disorders, including MI and fatal stroke, were observed among 9.5% of 200 cannabis-related hospitalizations [51]. Therefore, it was recommended that individuals with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions should avoid cannabis [48].
In the past five years, cannabis use has been listed among the risk factors of MI (also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality) in younger patients [52,53] and at least twelve reviews have appeared drawing attention to adverse cardiac effects of cannabinoids (Table 1). They are based on numerous case reports, epidemiologic or retrospective cohort studies encompassing millions of cannabis users, patients or hospitalizations. Their authors conclude that (1) cannabis use is an independent predictor of MI, heart failure and cerebrovascular accidents; (2) young cannabis users are more at risk with respect to hospitalizations for acute MI, arrhythmia and stroke; (3) medical cannabis authorization was associated with an increased risk of visits at emergency departments or hospitalizations for cardiovascular events including stroke and acute coronary syndrome; (4) screening for marijuana use should be performed in young patients with cardiovascular disease; and (5) the increasing risk of MI and other acute cardiovascular events among young cannabis users strongly needs further studies (including clinical trials) to assess cannabis-related cardiovascular implications and to determine the detailed pathophysiology of cardiac adverse events of cannabis (Table 1).
Weresa J, Pędzińska-Betiuk A, Mińczuk K, Malinowska B, Schlicker E. Why Do Marijuana and Synthetic Cannabimimetics Induce Acute Myocardial Infarction in Healthy Young People? Cells. 2022; 11(7):1142. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11071142
Ever cannabis use was associated with 60% increased odds of high-risk ASCVD score (odds ratio [OR] 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.60 [1.04 to 2.45], p = 0.03). We also observed a dose-response relation between increased use of cannabis and a higher risk of ASCVD. Those reporting ≥2 uses per month had 79% increased odds of high-risk ASCVD score (OR [95% CI] 1.79 [1.10 to 2.92], p = 0.02) and those reporting ≥1 use per day had 87% increased odds of high-risk ASCVD score (OR [95% CI] 1.87 [1.16 to 3.01], p <0.001]. In conclusion, cannabis use is associated with elevated CVD risk. Individuals using cannabis should be screened for CVD risk, and appropriate risk reduction strategies should be implemented.
Am J Cardiol. 2022 Feb 15;165:46-50.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.10.051.
Therefore it should remain illegal?
Years ago I stopped telling my patients to lose weight, quit smoking, quit alcohol consumption and quit cocaine / crystal meth / opioids utilization. They already know what they have to do. However, people do not know how MJ puts them at higher risk for a cardiac event. Some may want to know, that is our job. Reason Magazine / Jacob Sullum should likewise educate their readers before breaking out the bongs.
Thanks - inform, don't control. All of life is a measure of risk v reward.
However, people do not know how MJ puts them at higher risk for a cardiac event
Because it doesn't. Your evidence is statistical noise that has been cherry-picked and amplified. Drug warriers have been doing this kind of thing for well over a century now.
Why is that my job?
Reason Magazine and Jacob Sullum are not telling readers to "break out the bongs." Specifically in this article, they're pushing Banking Reform to better protect Marijuana businesses.
You're of course free to tell your patients about the risks of marijuana. And Reason is of course free to explain the dangers of the black market and prohibition without having to talk about the health risks of marijuana just to appease those who support Marijuana Prohibition.
Children should dial 911 and call SWAT teams to kill mommy, daddy and doggie and confiscate the house for asset forfeiture over a roach in the ashtray. That is the GOOD thing libertarian spoiler vote clout is endangering. The Hirojito-Cruz-Rubio sockpuppet needs to kill its parents to set us an example.
Get a load of mystical pseudoscience all gussied up to cross-dress as Creationist Truth before the pagan masses! I remember when AMA whores screeched that acid "had the power" to scramble your chromiums, just as bigots assured my parents the Demon Rum was the sure ticket to insanity, murder, prostitution, addiction, laziness, illiteracy, eviction, failure, hallucinations, mob control, financial collapse, panics and prison revolts due to overcrowding. In point of fact, their lies and violent coercion cause most problems.
This seems fabricated. Republicans in the House, introduced a marijuana legalization bill themselves. The idea that the Senate Republicans wouldn't support one, and even filibuster, seems a stretch.
If I were the Republicans, I would do this after they take the two houses in November, and have it be a Republican win.
Yeah, I'm under the impression they are not supporting Democrat bills because they are chalk full of usual nonsense; tax and spend, equity, et cetera. If they put forward a clean bill, I would think they could probably pass it with bipartisan support.
Agree. Converse is probably also true (e.g. defeat of the House Republican bill with whatever riders it had).
Marijuana been berry berry good to Boehner.
As soon as LP infiltrators quit nominating communist anarchists with intellectual disabilities, increasing libertarian vote counts will resume causing the Kleptocracy to repeal more of its cruel and unmanly vice-criminalizing laws. With 2 to 4% of the vote, we completely wreck their ability to peddle future influence for campaign contributions today. Hundreds of elected libertarians are already draining off what would otherwise be graft and boodle in Kleptocracy clutches.
Why is pot a schedual one, most heinous drug category, when it doesnt even fit the legal definition of a drug? Yaknow, at the same time cocain and bloody fking heroin, arent?
Do we have a federal government or just a catholic namblacrat fgt troll pantheon.... not sure...
Drug test congress.
Weed isn't habit forming, its not addictive, its almost impossible to abuse, it never killed anyone, and the only thing that ever made it a buisiness was that it was illegal. Organized drug gangs are going out of business everywhere. They do all their own heroin and then have nothing to sell.
I think the namblanese nazicrats are recognizing they made a huge mistake legalizing it and are trying to get it back.
Greaseball slime bags.
Very seriously tho. I want capital politicians subject to drug testing for hard narcotics. They must all be on heroin if they thought they could get away with running an afghan pederast heroin cartel.
There is no other possibility and no excuse for this shit. They must be planning to kill us all before enough people recognize them as the putrid slime they are.
Even trump btw. What kind of slime bag would pivot to swine flu instead of simply citing jHoe's heroin epidemic?
It makes no fking sense.
Covid and swine flu are acts of god. jHoe's afghan-pederast-heroin-cartel heroin epidemic is an act of jHoe. Why would trump throw a softball like swine flu?
Dirty, that's why.
Why would they do that when they can keep it in a legal Grey area and score votes by saying they support it and do nothing, like immigration.
^
Politicians don't thrive on solving problems, they thrive on having problems to solve. It's a very important distinction that most people fail to see.
It would take a 1 sentence bill and cost nothing. Congress is fucking useless.
This, modulo whatever nonsense "one sentence" is required to be expanded to when it comes to getting rid of old laws. It could be much, much simpler than they're making it.
Went to a legal recreational weed shop here in NM for the first time yesterday.
Don't know what the prices are like, because I didn't make it past the part of the store where they want to enter every bit of data on my driver's license and scan the front and the back into a database. Oddly enough, I had some concerns about that.
So I'll just go see my regular guy at some point and the state can just get fuck-all for taxes out of the deal. I'd have even put up with the usual local nonsense of being forced to show my ID to prove that my foot-long grey-bearded self is over 21. But this... no. Just no.
Bullshit. The AG has the authority to reschedule drugs.
I'm sorry, I don't pay Schumer's salary so he can sit on his ass, while the rest of my taxpayer money goes on unspent on what could have been a nice new set of provisions, or a shiny rider on an otherwise simple bill. What are you paying Congress for?
I favor swift tribunals followed by death sentences. Executions to be carried out immediately
.
Will we be required to pay for this as a premium event, or will it be available to the general public on C-Span?
Jacob..your analysis is spot on…Schumer has little interest in passing MJ reform…he is gaming this for contributions and votes in November…..sadly, cowboy
A big problem with Democrat support for pot legalization is that for the most part they see it as a huge revenue windfall to pay for all of their spending programs. While Republican support for legalization is less numerous for the most part GOP support is based on supporting an individual liberty rather than on some kind of "revenue enhancement."
State tax greed in Californicate has already created a black market. A black market unlike traditional ones where prohibition or price controls and rationing move consumers to pay higher prices, this one has pot users paying lower prices to illicit suppliers .
"A tax on beah.." in an FDR speech nevertheless guaranteed GOP losses for 20 years.
i guess sallum doesn't realize that both houses of congress are owned by the dems. the only thing stopping the legislation are the dems themselves. blaming this on the gop is rediculous.
Hey check this out helpful blog,thanks for helping us! eco web design
Sullum keeps sounding like the 1931 movie "Just Imagine," in which prohibition persisted in the 1980s and actors popped liquor pills like they were food pills. In the 1980s, LSD is the prohibited pill, for now... Libertarian spoiler votes have ended many of the laws early LP platforms sought to repeal. Comix, most sex, abortion, cohabitation, divorce, mushrooms and small stashes were felonies or Comstock-era "misdemeanors." The very thought of libertarians holding office is enough to legalize just about anything. It's math.
What ever happened to "MUH PRIVATE COMPANIES"?
Nice post! Your writing efforts shows in your content that have amazing information. Thanks for this article. Keep up the good work!! Also visit here for payment processing