Will Congress Manage To Pass Marijuana Reform During the Lame-Duck Session?
Legalization is unlikely in the foreseeable future, but banking reform and expungement could be feasible.

According to Gallup poll results released yesterday, 68 percent of Americans think marijuana should be legal—the same level of support that Gallup reported in 2020 and 2021. "The only place where cannabis reform is unpopular is here in the halls of Congress," Rep. Nancy Mace (R–S.C.) complained at a congressional hearing on "cannabis decriminalization" yesterday. During an interview on the Fox Business show Kennedy last night, Mace, who introduced a legalization bill last fall, sounded a more optimistic note, saying, "This is an issue where we can really come together."
Is it? That depends on what we mean by this. Congress won't repeal the federal ban on marijuana anytime soon. But it seems possible that more modest changes, such as cannabis banking reform and expungement of marijuana-related criminal records, could win enough bipartisan support to pass during the current lame-duck session.
"At a time of record public support for legalization and when the majority of states regulate cannabis use, it makes no sense from a political, fiscal, or cultural perspective for Congress to try to put this genie back in the bottle or to continue to place its collective head in the sand," Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said at yesterday's hearing, which was convened by the House Oversight and Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. "It is time for the federal government to end its nearly century-long experiment with cannabis prohibition."
Republican members of Congress generally do not agree, at least publicly. The Democrat-controlled House has twice approved bills that would have removed marijuana from the federal list of "controlled substances." But that sort of fundamental reform has never attracted enough Republican support in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, where Democrats currently hold just 50 seats.
The situation in the Senate will remain essentially unchanged next session, when Democrats will hold 51 seats at most, depending on the outcome of the Georgia runoff. Meanwhile, Republicans will control the House, making it unlikely that legalization could win approval there. And even if there were enough Republican votes to legalize marijuana, President Joe Biden opposes that step, notwithstanding all his talk about the injustice of the war on weed.
Biden is an (almost) octogenarian who for decades was keen to show that Democrats could be even tougher on drugs than Republicans. Despite his avowed transformation from a gung-ho drug warrior into a criminal justice reformer, old habits die hard. But while Biden's continued support for pot prohibition makes psychological sense, it does not make political sense when more than two-thirds of Americans, including 81 percent of Democrats, think he is wrong.
Republican resistance to federal legalization is less surprising but still a bit of a puzzle. Based on Gallup data for 2018 to 2022, 70 percent of independents, 51 percent of Republicans, and 49 percent of conservatives support legalization. That suggests there should be enough wiggle room for 10 Republican senators to agree, especially since maintaining the federal ban is inconsistent with their party's avowed support for state autonomy.
Thirty-seven states recognize cannabis as a medicine, and 21 also have legalized recreational use. Twenty-five Republican senators represent states in the first group, while six represent states in the second. When so many states have rejected pot prohibition, classifying all marijuana suppliers as federal felons is an obvious affront to federalist principles.
So far those principles have proven no match for the anti-pot instincts of most Republican legislators. But even without descheduling cannabis, Congress can ameliorate the untenable conflict between state and federal marijuana laws. It can also deliver on Biden's promise to expunge the records of people who were convicted of low-level marijuana offenses under federal law and maybe even address the lingering impact of federal felony convictions for growing or selling cannabis.
Bipartisan House majorities have repeatedly approved the SAFE Banking Act, which would allow financial institutions to serve state-licensed marijuana businesses without worrying about criminal, civil, or regulatory penalties. That reform, which also has bipartisan support in the Senate, would address the potentially deadly robbery threat that such businesses face when they are forced to rely heavily on cash. But until now, the SAFE Banking Act has been blocked in the Senate by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.), who insisted that his own legalization bill take priority, even though that bill was clearly doomed.
In August, Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.), who co-sponsored Schumer's legalization bill, predicted that the Senate would consider an enhanced version of the SAFE Banking Act, dubbed "SAFE Plus," during the lame-duck session. In addition to cannabis banking, that bill is expected to address expungement and the V.A. health care system, which currently does not cover medical marijuana or even allow doctors to recommend it.
Biden's recent mass pardon of low-level marijuana offenders applied only to people convicted of simple possession, did not free any current prisoners, and did not address the ancillary penalties associated with marijuana records, such as difficulty finding housing or employment. Expungement, which generally is not available under current federal law, is aimed at relieving those burdens by sealing or eliminating criminal records. After someone's record is expunged, he can truthfully say he has not been convicted of a crime when he applies for college, a job, or an apartment, and his conviction is no longer a barrier to occupational licensing.
Keeda Haynes, senior legal adviser to Free Hearts, a Tennessee-based organization that provides support to families affected by incarceration, explained that distinction at yesterday's marijuana hearing. Haynes served four years in federal prison for participating in a marijuana distribution operation, which she says she did unwittingly. She finished college just before she was incarcerated, went to law school after she was released while still under federal supervision, and passed her bar exam on the first try. But she still had to persuade the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners that, despite her felony record, she was morally "fit" to practice law.
"Although I was finally released from the punitive clutches of the criminal legal
system, the damage had already been done," Haynes testified. "I now had a scarlet F emblazoned on my chest. Like so many others, regardless of my accomplishments, I would continue to be reminded and treated as a second-class citizen, all because of a felony conviction on my record."
For many people, Haynes noted, that "scarlet F" becomes a lifetime barrier to success. "Once a person is entangled in the criminal legal system, it is nearly impossible to extract oneself," she said. "While the criminal justice system claims to value rehabilitation and promotes reducing recidivism, many of the collateral consequences of a drug conviction can make these goals difficult to obtain for the average person."
A few months ago, Booker said he thought there was enough Republican support for the Senate to pass SAFE Plus, including expungement provisions. Last month, Schumer said the Senate was "very close" to considering such a bill. "We may be able to get something done rather soon," he said. "I'm working with a bunch of Republican senators, a bunch of Democratic senators, to get something passed."
After the midterm elections, Booker sounded less confident. "There's a greater understanding on these issues, and I just have a feeling that we can get something done," he told NJ Spotlight News on Sunday. "But the problem we have right now is the clock. There's very little time in this lame duck and a lot of things that people want to do." After the elections, Booker said, Schumer indicated that "it's just going to be hard to get as much done as we need to." Schumer and Booker could have avoided that problem, of course, if they had been open to piecemeal marijuana reforms sooner.
As Booker sees it, reformers need to seize the moment. After Republicans take control of the House, he said, "I just don't see the Republicans wanting to advance that," even though many House members represent "states that have legalized marijuana in one way or the other." In short, Booker said, "it's either now, or it might be many years from now."
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
The situation in the Senate will remain essentially unchanged next session, when Democrats will hold 51 seats at most, depending on the outcome of the Georgia runoff.
Has there ever been a time in American history when Democrats held both the house and the Senate AND the White House? If so, what were the prospects of marijuana legalization during those times? Why do we believe this time will be different, if only we can just nudge... fortify, "cure" that 51st Senate seat into Democrat hands?
"Has there ever been a time in American history when Democrats held both the house and the Senate AND the White House?"
Yep. Over twenty times. Last time was under Obama.
Here is a list for your perusal:
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Party-Government/
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job (knd-06) online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
Pretty low priority Sullum. Low fucking priority. That shit is at the bottom of the list.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
only thing that's ever going to pass is the We Win, You Still Lose But We Won't Throw You In Jail For Getting High Bill
★I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly $30k, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart.OPEN>>
https://www.pay.hiring9.com
If we took a poll and the majority of Americans thought we should be able to take other people's money and stuff would we legalize stealing? Oh yeah, right.
Well, considering your example has a victim I wouldn't think these two things are comparable
The real issue is not that a majority support something, it's that the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit anything within these United States. Authority over import/export yes, but not within the states. The ICA was created to prevent one state from banning commercial transport from the state to it's south to the state to it's north, it's to protect commerce, it was never intended to allow the federal government to prevent or prohibit commerce. 100 years ago we had to amend the constitution just to allow the federal government to regulate alcohol and we took that power back, now the federal government can regulate anything from alcohol to light bulb manufacturing as easily as passing a law? Heck, even a federal agency can regulate anything it wishes and we don't even elect them.
The only way Congress cares about people going to jail for having marijuana is if it happens in Russia.
By far the best point from a troll I have seen. This is more proof that our govt., or any will not heed the will of the people.
They don't give a shit. It doesn't advance the agenda of any of the big donors and don't expand government power. The only 2 things that matter.
If they gave a shit they'd put forth a simple, straight forward bill.
It is, was, and always has been a dividing issue. Put so much poison progressive pork in the bill that the Republicans cannot vote for it and stand a chance of being reelected. Then you can use it as a wedge issue come the next election or news cycle.
Getting re-elected also matters to them. But hardly anyone votes on the issue, so no help there either.
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time.
Every person easily do this job by just.........>>> onlinecareer1
I have to agree with you. Going through that and probably anger management sessions would help a lot. I think another reason they act that way is because they take the game run 3 too seriously. I've met a few individuals who think that the game is actually their life.
As we move into an era of divided government it would be nice if the two parties looked at small things to make the government better. Big things are off the table, but small things are not. This would be one of those things that would be nice to get done. I doubt it will happen, as there more to be gained from chest thumping about big things that politicians can't get done.
It would also be worth noting that the one retrograde candidate running for President want to go the opposite direction and institute a death penalty for drug dealers.
Neither party wants to legalize marijuana. The Dems have been as strongly for prohibition as the Rs right from the beginning.
Biden and Harris are both hardcore drug warriors with long histories.
What would be the government's incentive to legalize anything?
Just last week Brandon invoked the illegality of marijuana, a Schedule 1 drug in the company of LSD and heroin, to prosecute persons who smoke weed and own guns [that'll get you 15 years, by the way].
And then of course there is the long standing probable cause of "I thought I smelled marijuana" as an excuse to bring out a search warrant on a leash and go on a fishing expedition around and throughout your vehicle. Or maybe to shoot you.
SULLUM! WHERE TEH NOOKULAR SECRETS SULLUM?!
I thought wallz was clozin in
Great article on the political side but maybe this will be best resolved through the court/constitutional side.
There are “Voter-Issues” versus “Court/Constitutional-Issues”. This may be a better plan.
Following the “Citizens United” ruling. Why couldn’t a marijuana company (corporate-person) in Colorado want equal treatment as a bourbon company in Kentucky?
Not that I’m a strait laced, self righteous fanatic and lots of my Boomer generation experimented with multiple recreational drugs during the 60’s, but here’s the problem. At some point most of us decided to become adults; not so the “cannabis stuck” folks. As a EM physician, I see plenty of these folks with intractable vomiting or vague nonspecific complaints colored by their cannabis excess. Although useful for certain types of pain and appetite enhancing, marijuana for many is an excuse to remain juvenile and a “slacker”. Alcoholics tend to , at some point, admit that they have a problem and that they’re the “ass” of the party. Chronic cannabis users, on the other hand, think of themselves as more “enlightened” than the rest of us..adults.
Nobody is talking about the loss of the Child Tax Credit. I think the Lame Duckers will pass a law to continue the CTC version that we had during Covid where the CTC was fully refundable, and social welfare adherents say that the poor actually benefited. A lot of people expecting the $$ to continue are going to be mighty surprised that their tax refund is $thousands less. The difference is especially great on those who have a lot of kids.
Stats and facts and science.
https://everybrainmatters.org/2022/11/10/what-legal-marijuana-really-costs/
Drug Warrior garbage and prohibitionist lies and third-rate Propaganda.
Seriously...who funds that site? ONDCP and the Drug Czar's Office? The Liquor lobby? No...it's Alex Berenson, right? He and 'Save the Children' (his modern-day 'Reefer Madness' book,) are mentioned right off the bat! It's probably all of the above. I looked, but funding information is curiously not available. But a 'donation' link sure is!
The site's first specious 'argument' is that '"we" tried legalization good and hard and it didn't work, it just made the black market worse!'
Really? When did the Feds end the Drug War? When did they remove Cannabis from Schedule I? We've had a few states make half-hearted attempts at decriminalization, at best. Not even close to 'legalization!' Right of the bat, the lies begin. Not a good sign!
No one advocates for children to abuse drugs of any kind. Thanks to prohibitionists more interested in virtue signalling than actual remedies, the black market ensures kids have an easier time getting Cannabis and other drugs than liquor, America's most commonly abused drug! That's the exact opposite of prohibtionists' claimed intentions, but that's the ugly reality of the Iron Law of Prohibition. More children die so drug warriors and zealots can sleep a little better at night. Who are the monsters again?
Now, please tell us: what does the unconstitutional Drug War cost? Well over a TRILLION dollars down the toilet since 1972. A militarized police state with more people in prison than any other nation (excepting maybe Communist China)? And has drug use declined? Are our cities safer?
I could go on but I simply don't have time to systematically refute every specious 'fact' on that absurd site when it's much easier to let it speak for itself. Probably not getting many views anyway if you have to resort to spamming the comments at libertarian sites!