Rand Paul Complains That Democrats Squandered Their Opportunity To Enact Marijuana Reforms
The prospects in the next session, when Republicans will control the House, are iffy.

"Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House and still couldn't get cannabis reform bills passed," Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) complained on Twitter last week. "I would go much further and end the federal war on a plant entirely, but at LEAST let legal business operate as a legal business."
Paul was alluding to the the SAFE Banking Act, which would make it easier for state-licensed marijuana businesses to access financial services by removing the threat of civil, criminal, and regulatory penalties against banks that serve them. The bill has broad, bipartisan support because it would simultaneously dial back the war on drugs, defend federalism by reducing interference with state marijuana laws, help small businesses, and protect public safety by addressing the robbery threat those businesses face when they are forced to rely heavily on cash. But while the House has approved the SAFE Banking Act more than half a dozen times, it has never gotten a vote in the Senate.
Much of the blame for that lies with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.), who until recently insisted that his own marijuana bill, which would repeal the federal ban, take priority over less ambitious reforms. Schumer's take on that situation is notably different from Paul's. "We came close, but we didn't make it," Schumer said last week, referring to his efforts to "decriminalize marijuana."
In reality, Schumer's 296-page bill, which was full of needlessly contentious provisions, did not come remotely close to passing, and no one seriously thought it would. Schumer and Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) introduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act in July, a year after circulating a discussion draft. It never attracted more than the four original co-sponsors (all Democrats), was never considered by a committee, and never got any kind of vote.
Meanwhile, however, Schumer and Booker opposed consideration of the SAFE Banking Act, which falls far short of federal legalization but represents an important step toward normalizing the cannabis industry. Schumer blocked the bill, which the House passed last year with support from 106 Republicans, until late 2022, when he desperately scrambled to include it in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. That effort was frustrated by opposition from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.). Presumably that was what Schumer had in mind when he said "we came close."
The Senate version of the SAFE Banking Act has 42 co-sponsors, including nine Republicans. Since Paul is one of those Republicans, his dismay at the Senate's failure to take up the bill is understandable.
Schumer initially argued that passing the SAFE Banking Act would relieve pressure for federal legalization. "If we let this bill out," he warned in 2021, "it will make it much harder and take longer to pass comprehensive reform." The Drug Policy Alliance, despite its long history of supporting piecemeal reforms, agreed, warning that enacting the bill would "prioritize marijuana profits over people." The bizarre implication was that marijuana merchants, who face an ongoing, potentially deadly danger that is exacerbated by a lack of financial services, do not qualify as "people."
Have Schumer and his misguided allies learned anything about the hazards of making the perfect the enemy of the good? Maybe. Speaking on the Senate floor last week, Schumer addressed Reggie Babin, an aide who is leaving the senator's office after working with him on marijuana reform. Schumer made a "pledge" that he would "continue your work and your legacy next year." He added that Babin had "built a great bipartisan coalition, and I believe we can get it done."
Since that "great bipartisan coalition" favors marijuana banking reform but manifestly does not support Schumer's legalization bill, we can surmise that the "it" he had in mind was the former rather than the latter. Commenting on the SAFE Banking Act this month, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D–Ohio) said he expects to "take it up and get it through" in 2023, noting that "there's interest in the Republican House."
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D–N.Y.), who will be the House minority leader in the next Congress, sees "an opportunity for common ground" and "bipartisan compromise" on marijuana reform. Although nearly half of the Republicans in the House voted for the SAFE Banking Act last year, it is not clear how receptive the new House leadership will be. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.), the current minority leader, voted for the bill in 2021, but that does not necessarily mean he will make it a priority next year if he is elected speaker.
Booker blames McConnell for the failure to pass the SAFE Banking Act. Republican leaders in the Senate are "dead set [against] anything [involving] marijuana," Booker told NJ Advance Media earlier this month. "The caucus is clearly divided, but the people in power in their caucus are clearly against doing anything on marijuana….That to me is the obstacle."
Until recently, however, Booker and Schumer were the obstacles. After they opposed including the SAFE Banking Act in last year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the bill's House sponsor, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D–Colo.), complained that "people are still getting killed and businesses are still getting robbed because of a lack of action from the Senate." The SAFE Banking Act "has been sitting in the Senate for three years," he noted, "and with every passing day their unwillingness to deal with the issue endangers and harms businesses, their employees, and communities across the country."
Now it has been four years. In the year since that NDAA battle, the victims of pot shop robberies have continued to pile up. Last week, The Seattle Times noted that "cannabis retail stores in Washington reported at least 100 armed robberies in 2022—the most in the past 10 years." It added that "crimes have become increasingly violent, with the first robbery killing of a retail employee recorded this year at a Tacoma cannabis store in March."
First Schumer and Booker opposed the SAFE Banking Act as a threat to broader reform. Then McConnell opposed it as "liberal nonsense," notwithstanding the Republican support for the bill and the conservative arguments in its favor. All three seemed oblivious to the real-world consequences of their obstruction. Now Schumer is belatedly promising to fix a problem that could have been addressed by now if he had not squandered the opportunity.
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 are hypocrites. What else will be news, dog bites man?
But Joe passed a meaningless EO to forgive those who already served their full sentences!
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
Democrats aren’t interested in marijuana reform without attaching massive new taxes and regulations. So fuck that.
I’m not convinced they’re for marijuana reform at all. The current arrangement works for Democrats. Have a couple of senators openly propose and support a law that really is on the fringes and has no hope of becoming law (and yes, all manner of tax and regulatory fuckery to go with it), while opposing what is possible behind closed doors. They have the veneer of supporting reform, while being able to oppose reform when given the opportunity by using the all-encompassing “profits over people” or “harmful to BIPOC” as cover.
I’m sure Republicans do this type of shit all the time too.
They are in favor of marijuana reform, but "reform" to them means tight regulation and massive taxes, same as most other "reforms" they support.
Google pay 200$ 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.:)
https://WWW.WORKSCLICK.COM
Hypocrisy is Rand Paul whining about D's squandering an opportunity while not mentioning one damn word about what R's will do with their newfound opportunity. He's an R right? He has no problem in his self-righteous tweet yapping about how silly a war against a plant is right? But apparently he can't actually DO anything - and doesn't even say he will use any political capital trying - as an elected R inside the tent.
Nor is ONE commenter here doing anything but parroting Rand Paul's partisan BS about the D's. Oh yeah R's are the lesser evil blahblahblah.
Fucking useless 'libertarian' R's. All of you are tools.
"All (meaning Libertarian'Rs) of you are fools." Yes, these "fools" are supporting those ruling at the expense of their supporting victims. It's "politics as usual", coercive govt. where they divide & distract.
What is "the root of the problem of govt."? Public support for being ruled, i.e., people self-enslaving. Worse, they want dissenters to suffer with them, be ruled as they are, against their will, as if they have a right to violate rights. This political paradigm is madness.
Looks like your descent into madness is complete.
This should be titled "Lying Politicians and the Lies They Tell." It has become a hallmark of the Democrats that they whimsically title a bill with some attractive wording and a cute acronym and then load dozens (or hundreds) of controversial provisions and unnecessary slogans from their narrative playbook in order to GUARANTEE that their bill won't be passed so that they can claim to have tried but that the Republicans prevented the measure from passing. Meanwhile their real but hidden agenda remains safe and secure behind the scenes.
I'd like to know, given our observation of the rapidity by which the legal-drugs movement has moved on to psychedelics, if you think another class of drugs will follow on soon (in terms of any liberalization of access), and if so, which?
If they're going in anything like seniority order, LIFO, then anabolic steroids would be overdue, as would khat. Maybe movement in the opposite direction, as with nicotine, has to be spent before the pendulum can swing back toward tolerance.
Psychedelics seem to be the fad of the moment.
free mdma!
also isn't Mitch more of a cocaine guy?
I would've thought so.
Can you imagine that asshole wired on coke? Ugh…..
Can always count on Republican support for wars against nouns.
War on Poverty, anyone? I don't think LBJ was a Republican, Sarc.
Sarc was actually pushing the southern strategy party switch narrative a few weeks back. So he might believe he is.
Democrats like wars on nouns too. What's your point?
Drugs, terror, trafficking, immigration, free trade... Republicans can be counted on supporting wars against those nouns. And I'm sure I could come up with more if I thought about it.
Have Schumer and his misguided allies learned anything about the hazards of making the perfect the enemy of the good?
Not really. This assumes that the Democrats see legalization, per se, as a value. The truth is Democrats have also rejected the States Reform Act that would also decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. The only legalization is that 296-page bill that provides a host of favors to their cronies and supporters. They don't want legalization. They want legalization where their allies are handed control of the market, additional tax revenues are diverted to their hands and power is centralized in the hands of the progressive establishment.
They want a heavily regulated market with a concurrent black market so they can control things and the unions that pay for their re-elections still make money off the illegal activity.
The problem is that there is a democrat party. Get rid of the ‘rats.
It has taken 2+ years for the legal market in NY to start up. I'm sure the senior senator from their state really wants a free, open market.
If you don’t have a million nitpicking rules, you don’t need more bureaucracy to administer them, and Democrats will never go for that.
Coming to terms with the fact the Democrats are openly admitting they are National Sozialists(Nazi's) would be a big step for Democrat voters. I think most of them are still diluted into think the Nazi's are here to help.
They don’t even understand what the Nazis were.
lol... So much truth to that... Lefty-Propaganda has really flipped history on it's head in that manner.
Funny how they can't seem to figure out that Jewish can be Black or White and that their Woke-Religion is of the same Nazi-building scheme (Religious purity) or that they were a 'poor' workers party building a National Sozialist empire and DEMANDING anything and everything they wanted with Guns.
Democrats can be associated with the historical Nazi's at almost 100% equivalence.
Democrats didn't "squander" their opportunity to enact marijuana reform any more than they "squandered" their opportunity to codify Roe v Wade. It gives them a nice campaign issue that they can raise millions of dollars off of. Of course, the GOP also has a ready-made campaign issue in paying lip service to opposing the Dems. Let's see if the GOP is stupid enough to repeat the mistake of bringing the repeal of Obamacare to a vote and exposing the scam of making sure their opposition remains only lip service.
Whoa, I think I may have found someone who actually gets this. Dems have zero interest in actually reforming marijuana laws. What they really want is a club to bash Reps. If some practical reforms actually passed, they'd lose that particular club. When power is at stake, who cares about the little people who are actually being endangered? Spoiler alert: it ain't either half of the corrupt Republicrat duopoly.
110% this.
I recall in 2016 they made major campaign issues out of fears that Trump appointing a justice to replace Scalia would threaten Roe, Winchester, Obergfell, and other favorable SCOTUS rulings. They rehashed many of those in the 2018 midterms, promising that control of Congress would allow them to prevent these rulings from being struck down.
When they took control of the House in early 2019 they used the symbolic HR1, not to codify any of the rights they sought to protect, but to propose a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college and (in their minds) ensure Democrat presidents for the foreseeable future.
They want rights to rest on a knife edge, because if they are set in stone they have nothing to get elected on.
Aha! Still a follower of Aqua Buddha!!!
I haven’t heard Rand called that in years.
Most people think pot heads are losers, so paying any attention to them while people are e.g. struggling with 10% inflation on some consumables, is dumb politics.
Smart politics is resetting the LP to originalist platform and using spoiler votes to chip away at totalitarian enactments. Those enactments are there because rabidly superstitious fanatics in the Prohibition Party voted their platform until their 1.4% of the votes cowed the other looters into folding, prohibiting, then wrecking the economy so completely that communist party membership increased sevenfold--as did Germany's National Socialist Party "Over There". Ours is the first minor party to consistently defend individual rights and use the same mechanism to undo damage.
CO and the other states that have legalized pot need to realize that Congress won't do anything and they need to do it (or defy the feds) on their own. Create state-owned banks if nec and immunize them against whatever rules the feds have that prevents existing banks from opening accounts with legal pot businesses. Create a constitutional or a modern day nullification crisis with the legalizers on one side and the prohibiters on the other.
i agree that the us congress will never legalize weed. they've have many opportunities to make it happen but never did it. we have enough history to show it will never happen. to believe otherwise is foolish.
Humorously; All it would take is a HONORABLE SCOTUS that would upholds "the peoples" law over their government. The very path that is suppose to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
Instead we always seem to get HACKS and CROOKS who imagine words like 'potential' and 'commerce' to justify any political party agenda and growth of National Sozialism(Nazism).
But ya know; When a population elects CRIMINALS (who willfully ignore any people's law over them) to offices that assigns justices its pretty well written the justices assigned will be CRIMINALS too.
To give the enforcement arm of your central planning fewer opportunities to interact with the chess pieces would be madness.
Democrats only want to legalize marijuana insofar as it expands the size and scope of government.
Democrats want to legalize weed so they can tax it. Republicans want to keep it illegal because they support cops and prisons.
Edit: To libertarians it's just a fucking flower.
Leftard Projection 101...
It amazes me how often leftards can blame Republicans for EXACTLY what they do/are..
FYI: Republicans tried to pass legalization. Republicans tried to end Obamacare. Republicans tried to cut spending. A Republican tried to stop the Cares Act.
Yet leftards just kept pushing and pushing and pushing.. And blaming their blockage on Republicans. Leftards really need some serious enlightenment on the amount of Projection they sell.
non se·qui·tur
/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
Need a comprehensive summary?
"Republicans want to keep it illegal because...."
UR a liar. And u project and deflect compulsively.
if course he's right
Republican girl-bullier Randal Paul is right that the other half of The Looter Kleptocracy twiddled its thumbs and laundered the brainwashees. This is obvious. Just a obvious is that the Alternative für Germany Lebensborn nazis now invading the former libertarian party believe he and Daddy Paul be libertarian. This proof of acquired taste for self-deception showcases the contagion of violent mystical superstition flowing from Germany and Alabama to These States as from 1933 to 1945, and again in 1968. It's what the LP formed to combat.
This solution might come from the Judicial Branch [courts], not Congress or state legislatures [Legislative Branches].
For sake of legal argument, let’s say this drug is not good for you. That’s not the real constitutional issue.
The real issue to be litigated in court: is this drug substantially more harmful than cigarettes, caffeine or liquor? Other drugs that are currently legal but are also regulated. Also smoking this drug versus edible forms, compared to other legal drugs. How does this drug compare to other legal drugs?
Since many states already allow using this drug to treat medical conditions (with a medical card prescribed by a doctor), I’d guess it is less harmful than cigarettes, caffeine and liquor (in the right doses).
The only legitimate opposition so far seems to be “testing”. Is there an accurate test for an employer (work accident) or police officer (driving intoxicated) to be able to perform?
I would guess most police officers would tell you that marijuana rarely leads to violence, unlike liquor or other drugs. Marijuana users rarely want to fight anyone.
For example: apparently if a worker smoked marijuana on Friday night and get’s into a work accident the next Tuesday (perfectly sober at work), there apparently is no test to prove it. The worker likely will be fired for being completely sober and may go bankrupt due to medical bills (Workman’s Comp insurance may renege on paying the medical bills) – even though the worker was completely sober on Tuesday.
Same issue may be police officers, is there a test that can accurately tell them if the driver is intoxicated while driving or did they test positive for smoking it 5 days ago?
Of course current law allows drivers to use nicotine and caffeine while driving, so how does marijuana compare to those other drugs?
Seems like a legal marijuana business in Colorado could cite “Citizens United” court case (corporate-personhood rights) against a legal liquor manufacturer, arguing all of the above points in court and likely win the case on constitutional grounds. Such a victory in a constitutional case would force legalization by Congress and state legislatures.
For sake of legal argument, let’s say this drug is not good for you.
For the sake of argument, let's say people are allowed to do things that aren't good for them. Like eating cheesecake.
Poor Rand Paul. He opposes deficit spending, the Export-Import Bank, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve's control of the money supply and interest rates, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act , a graduated income tax (he wants a flat 14.5% tax), the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, claiming that it is "not conclusive." , the USA PATRIOT Act, abortion , etc. etc. etc. But he sells newspapers and talk shows.
Pick your battles: drug legalization is way, way down on the list of concerns for Americans.
Rand Paul is content with being "not nearly as bad as other politicians". He isn't. But, he doesn't "strike at the root of the problem", i.e., "The Most Dangerous Superstition" (Larken Rose).
Authoritarianism, by many names/forms, is popular, unquestioned, a superstition. Those who resist it are heroes in fiction, vilified in life.
This is mass madness.
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