Legalizing Pot Requires GOP Support
With its unnecessarily complicated and contentious provisions, the MORE Act received only three Republican votes in April.

When legislators who oppose federal marijuana prohibition vote against your legalization bill, you probably are doing something wrong. That is what happened in April, when the House of Representatives approved the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act.
The 220 ayes included 217 Democrats but only three Republicans, two fewer than voted for the MORE Act in 2020. That tiny tally suggests that Democrats are not really interested in building the bipartisan coalition that would be necessary to resolve the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws.
Even if Senate Democrats unanimously supported a legalization bill, they would still need help from 10 Republicans to overcome a filibuster. But both the MORE Act and the legalization bill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) planned to introduce by August include unnecessarily complicated and contentious provisions.
A simpler approach could help attract GOP votes. 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 no longer apply to state-authorized conduct. Its 46 co-sponsors included 14 Republicans—11 more than voted for the MORE Act this year.
The Common Sense Cannabis Reform Act, which Rep. Dave Joyce (R–Ohio) introduced in May 2021, is 14 pages long. So far it has just eight co-sponsors, 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.
Schumer's bill seems even less likely to lure Republicans. The preliminary version, which runs 163 pages, would levy a 25 percent federal excise tax on top of 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 co-sponsor.
Last year, 106 House Republicans voted to protect financial institutions that serve state-licensed marijuana businesses from federal prosecution, forfeiture, and regulatory penalties. That bill would already be law if Schumer had not blocked it in the Senate, insisting that his own legislation take priority. Instead of building on Republican support for marijuana federalism, Democrats seem determined to alienate potential allies.
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
Democrats gotta make things more complicated, and add things like "Social equity" programs, so they can bribe their various constituencies.
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going
this article... https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Maybe they don't actually need Republican support, since this can just fall to states. Unless you're stretching the commerce clause beyond all reason, there's no authority for a federal law outlawing marijuana. Many Republicans just won't sign on to a piece of sweeping legislating that creates vast new social programs, taxes, and spending when all they want to do is legalize weed.
This is the trick that's constantly played, too. Both sides do it but I see it from Democrats a lot more: they offer a piece of legislation that, ostensibly, does what their constituents want, but they load it so full of poison pills that the other side absolutely can't approve it. Then they blame the other side for preventing any progress being made on the issue. It happened with criminal justice reform in 2020.
Or in order words, a Chuck Schumer Special.
Unless you're stretching the commerce clause beyond all reason, there's no authority for a federal law outlawing marijuana.
Dude, the Commerce Clause makes Mister Fantastic look like he needs flexibility training.
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (fhg-08) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career &
can gain more dollars online going this article.......... http://payout11.tk
Exactly! Wickard v Filburn stretched it between all recognition.
Motte-and-bailey 'til they die.
re: "Unless you're stretching the commerce clause beyond all reason"
Not only is that horse already out of the barn, the whole barn burned down long, long ago. I agree with the rest of your comment but blindly wishing for a return to a sane interpretation of the Commerce Clause? That's about as likely as asking Santa Clause for a pony.
But someone told me this is the party of small government.
So small they're legislating you're bedroom, legislating inspecting high schooler genitals for sports, your choice to smoke a plant, etc. etc.
your post shows how dumb you are and that you obviously did not read the article.
It’s going to require a lot of Republican support after November.
But someone told me this is the party of small government.
Only when they're not in power.
Someone told me they democrats are the party of economic awesomeness, because they pass trillions of extra spending while printing press goes “Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!”
How’s that working out?
And the other party wants to remove high schooler genitals for wokeism.
Fucking idiot.
May I call you Unic?
You wrote, "And the other party wants to remove high schooler genitals for wokeism."
Your phrasing is easier to say, but shouldn't it go like this?
"And the other party wants to 'remove high schooler genitals, provided the high schooler wants them removed,' for wokeism"
They way you wrote it makes it sound like the other party wants to turn /unwilling/ high schoolers into eunuchs.
tl/dr: I just wanted to make a unic/eunuch pun. No insult intended.
The party of small government voted against the holding hostage of legalizing marijuana as a pretense for making the government bigger.
But, that's beyond your 1st grade level of reading comprehension.
You know that anyone playing sports gets a physical where their genitalia are checked for hernias, etc, right?
Politicians benefit from problems, not solutions. If we solved our problems now what would they campaign on in the next election?
It appears that a more accurate headline would be 'Legalizing pot requires honest law-making from democrats.' Both teams are impaired, but team blue are crippled by their need to blame the GOP for everything while simultaneously painting them as racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
This.
The headline makes it sound like a GOP problem when the only thing the GOP did here was refuse to take the obviously poisoned pill. That bill was written as it was specifically to make it unacceptable. If there was a chance Republicans would actually adopt it I bet a bunch of the Ds who voted for it would not have.
Not even a passing mention of the plan by S. Carolina republican Nancy Mace, who simply wants to de-schedule it without regulating and/or taxing it to all hell?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-republicans-move-decriminalize-marijuana-federal-level-2021-11-15/
I mentioned it below, as well. You'd think ostensible libertarians would be cheerleaders for such an approach.
it's the only way to be sure.
Had Trump decriminalized weed at the federal level (something I urged him to do for 4 years), he'd have won the election in 2020.
Then Trump doubled down on his stupidity by not supporting Mace's weed decriminalization bill, nor Mace's recent primary victory.
Seems like far more GOP Congress members supported legalizing weed two decades ago than now support doing so, and it the ultra Conservative Caucus of the GOP has been calling for another escalation of their disastrous War on Drugs.
Even the WSJ has published op/eds by marijuana prohibitionists that repeatedly lie about the miniscule risks of smoking, vaping or eating THC (the former of which poses lower risks than the latter).
So much for the GOP supporting freedom.
. .
Don't forget about Trump's Opioid Commission that weaponized the CDC guidelines against #ChronicPainPatients. It is now OK to deny patients the FDA approved medications that work and force them into becoming pharmaceutical guinea pigs. Over 50M Americans are forced to suffer like this everyday and over 2M are dead from illegal drug OD's, suicides (DEA reported in 10/21 that 85% of all suicide attempts are comprised of untreated/under-treated #ChronicPainPatients), heart-attacks, strokes, liver & kidney disease - double the Covid death toll...but as long as Psychiatrists can continue telling our leaders that any sort of long term pain is due a patient's finances & psychological issues, like depression, and that opioid pain pills stop working & making the pain worse, Dr.s can view #CPPs as being broke depressed lying dope fiends, in order to avoid dealing with the DEA or their state's DPH AG.
Since these patients have no HIPPA rights & are part of PDMD monitoring system, we could easily see how many patients were tapered/cut-off and who are now dead, but then who would be dumb enough to participate in the off-label use of a surgically implanted pain pump?
As for the Weed, #passHR1227 -The End Federal Prohibition of Marijuana Act of 2016-17: it succinctly states - "This act ends the federal prohibition of marijuana." - that's it, it becomes a state's issue. One would think that the @GOP would love such a law, after all, it's exactly what they're wanting regarding women's fetuses.
Bravo, Corporal Hicks.
That was intended to reply to Dillinger.
At a closed-door meeting last week that included cannabis regulators from nearly every state, my formerly unpopular opinion isn't as unpopular anymore: The industry is better served by converting Republicans who are pro-business than they are with "pro" cannabis Democrats who are hostile to business. After the red wave, Republicans are going to steal this issue from Democrats and they'll get the credit for eventually getting the federal gov't out of the way and leaving it to the states.
Dr. Oz (who I reluctantly voted for last month) recently said that he opposed legalizing weed, which is sharply different than the views he expressed during the past 2 decades.
If Oz continues to oppose legalizing weed and continues to support banning abortions (something else he recently flip flopped on, I wouldn't be surprised if pro choice and pro weed legalization Fetterman will be PA's next US Senator (and could help Democrats to keep control of the Senate).
I suspect that the Democrats don't really want to legalize marijuana. Legalization pisses off a lot of people in the law enforcement community, whose jobs depend on a steady supply of busts and convictions. This includes cops, court staff, judges, clerks, prison guards, parole officers, etc. It's common for politicians to prefer a live issue to a settled one. Pelosi and Schumer can promise all sorts of pay-offs to special interest folks, knowing they won't have to make good on those promises. As W. C. Fields used to say, "Never smarten up a chump."
That wouldn't happen to be caused by all of those "block grants" given to law enforcement and to finance new prisons, by the Clinton Administration, thus buying off the Police and Prison Guard Unions, would it?
But both the MORE Act and the legalization bill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) planned to introduce by August include unnecessarily complicated and contentious provisions.
"Unnecessarily complicated and contentious provisions" seems an awfully roundabout way of saying "giveaways and monopoly grants to favored constituencies". Because that's ultimately one of the big sticking points. The Democrats' bills are essentially written to ensure that the Democrats and their allies reap a politically granted windfall. Even in the Senate, Nancy Mace's States Reform Act is vastly simpler because it doesn't include any giveaways.
Maybe if the Republicans wanted to demonstrate how libertarian they are, instead of just posing, they could introduce their own marijuana legalization bill. It would fit all in one double spaced legal page.
Did you read the article? Republicans have introduced several bills. Democrats oppose and block the bills because they're too simple. They don't contain enough new taxes and new crimes to satisfy the left.
If you RTFA, you'd see that they have done so:
Twice:
That would require Brandy not being a partisan bigot.
In Brandy's defense: nobody expects Reason to incorporate something even remotely positive about Republicans in their articles, so he had no reason to look for it there.
Reform, even with the help of Dev Jois, does not change in people's heads in any situation. So that people finally understand that the unwanted drug in the world is alcohol, as well as cigarettes! Not a single person was killed under the influence of cannabis, not a single war was unleashed! What else can you say about weed?
can't spell control without (D).
Why does the Fed even have a say in this in the first place?
Unless the states are conducting sales between states and allowing movement / shipping of marijuana between states there should be no federal involvement in the first place.
Considering that it is illegal to move weed between two states even where it is legal in both states the Federal government has no place is regulating marijuana.
The commerce clause has been interpreted to mean anything that could potentially have an effect on interstate commerce. If you grow tomatoes then you're not buying tomatoes from another state. That means that, according to the commerce clause, the federal government can regulate your garden if it wants to.
The commerce clause has been stretched so much it makes Mister Fantastic look like a pussy.
According to SCOTUS, the commerce clause can be used to prevent you from growing food on your own land for your personal consumption. Obviously, once you have made a mockery out of the Constitution in that way, prohibiting pot is easy.
I don't think those evangelical christofascists will never allow you to smoke weed
Those "evangelical christofascists" proposed a simple, one-line legalization of weed (RTFA).
It was Democrats who opposed that because Democrats want to control, regulate, and tax weed. So, worry about the literal fascists in the Democratic party.
The author makes very good points. I however don't see the Republican pushing their position. Here is an issue that could help them and yet there is silence on the matter except in Reason. Why not push this issue more. Why not go on the news casts and say we want to facilitate repeal of marijuana laws. Right now people think that Democrats are leading on this issue. Republicans need to show they can lead on this issue. I much rather see this than discussions of gender and CRT.
Since when does the news ever honestly portray what Republicans say?
Whenever a politician is in power, anything that increases government power is in his interest, and anything that decreases it is against his interest. So the only way Democrats support marijuana legalization is to make it so complicated it actually increases government power.
Republicans are the same, only they depend on getting "smaller government" votes so they have to disguise it better.