Trump Endorses Federal Marijuana Reforms and Reiterates His Support for Legalizing Pot in Florida
His new stance could encourage Vice President Kamala Harris to emphasize her opposition to federal marijuana prohibition.

Former President Donald Trump last night reiterated his support for legalizing recreational marijuana in Florida—and added that he favors rescheduling cannabis under federal law and removing barriers to banking services for state-licensed marijuana businesses. Unlike Vice President Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent, Trump has not endorsed repealing federal pot prohibition, a move that voters overwhelmingly favor. But his recent statements on marijuana reform, coming just before his first debate with Harris, suggest he recognizes the potential political potency of this issue.
"As I have previously stated, I believe it is time to end needless arrests and incarcerations of adults for small amounts of marijuana for personal use," Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social media site. "We must also implement smart regulations, while providing access for adults, to safe, tested product. As a Floridian, I will be voting YES on Amendment 3 this November."
Trump's endorsement, which he first signaled in an August 31 Truth Social post, could give a boost to Amendment 3, which would make it legal for adults 21 or older to possess three ounces or less of marijuana and allow recreational sales. As a constitutional amendment, the initiative needs support from 60 percent of voters to pass. Judging from polls conducted prior to Trump's endorsement, it was unclear whether the initiative would reach that threshold. If it does, Florida will be the 25th state to legalize recreational marijuana use.
In addition to backing Amendment 3, Trump said he supports the Biden administration's plan to move marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the most restrictive category, to Schedule III, which includes prescription drugs such as ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids. "As President," he wrote, "we will continue to focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana [as] a Schedule 3 drug."
That reclassification, which is still pending, would facilitate medical research by removing regulatory barriers that are specific to Schedule I. It also would be a financial boon to the cannabis industry, allowing state-licensed suppliers to deduct standard business expenses when they pay their federal income taxes. But it would not legalize those businesses, which would remain criminal enterprises under federal law. Nor would it make marijuana legally available as a prescription drug, which would require regulatory approval of specific cannabis-based products.
There was previously some doubt about the fate of rescheduling under a second Trump administration. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump said states should be free to legalize marijuana. But he also made it clear that he took a dim view of that "bad" policy, which he said had caused "some big problems" in Colorado. And as Harris pointed out after Trump endorsed Amendment 3 last month, he took two steps as president that seemed to contradict his avowed preference for marijuana federalism.
Trump's first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, rescinded a Justice Department memo that encouraged federal prosecutors to leave state-licensed cannabis suppliers alone. Trump also proposed eliminating an annually renewed spending rider that bars the Justice Department from interfering with state medical marijuana programs. Although nothing came of either move, Harris argued that Trump had flip-flopped on marijuana reform—a criticism she is apt to repeat if the subject comes up during their debate on Tuesday night.
Last night, Trump also promised to "work with Congress to pass common sense laws, including safe banking for state authorized companies," with the aim of "supporting states rights to pass marijuana laws, like in Florida, that work so well for their citizens." Financial institutions are leery of serving the cannabis industry, which under current law could expose them to potentially devastating criminal, civil, and regulatory penalties. As a result, marijuana businesses have trouble raising capital and are forced to rely heavily on cash, which makes them a ripe target for robbery, sometimes with lethal results.
Despite that widely recognized problem, legislation aimed at protecting financial institutions that serve state-licensed cannabis suppliers has languished in Congress for years. If Trump is elected and keeps his promise to support such legislation, it could finally pass.
Although Trump's current position falls short of opposing the national ban on marijuana, his turnaround on the merits of state legalization and his late-breaking support for federal reform could help him in November. According to a Gallup poll conducted last October, 70 percent of American adults—including 87 percent of Democrats, 70 percent of independents, and 55 percent of Republicans—think marijuana should be legal.
A Pew Research Center survey conducted in January put support for recreational legalization at 57 percent. An additional 32 percent of respondents—for a total of 89 percent—thought marijuana should be legally available as a medicine. Among Democrats and independents who leaned toward the Democrats, 72 percent supported recreational legalization, compared to 42 percent of Republicans and GOP leaners. Support was especially strong among younger respondents, with 71 percent of 18-to 29-year-olds and 62 percent of 30-to 49-year-olds favoring full legalization
Theoretically, Trump's belated support for marijuana reform could alienate Republicans who oppose legalization so much that they refrain from voting at all. But as with his triangulation on abortion, Trump seems to have calculated that the risk is small compared to the chance of attracting the independents who could be crucial to his victory. The public comments on the pending reclassification of marijuana, 69 percent of which endorsed the change or said it did not go far enough, provide some indication of which side is more motivated by this issue.
Trump's marijuana moves might encourage Harris to distinguish herself from him by emphasizing her support for repealing the federal ban. As a California senator in 2018, Harris cosponsored a bill that would have descheduled marijuana, and she introduced a similar bill in 2019. But President Joe Biden has always resisted that step, and the 2024 Democratic platform says nothing about federal legalization.
The platform instead emphasizes that marijuana use should not be treated as a crime. "No one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana," it says. "Sending people to prison for possession has upended too many lives and incarcerated people for conduct that many states no longer prohibit."
That stance not only exaggerates the risk of "jail" (let alone "prison") for people convicted of simple possession; it is indistinguishable from the position that Trump is now taking. Unless Harris wants to give up her chance of capitalizing on this issue, she may have to reiterate her past support for eliminating the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws, as opposed to merely ameliorating the consequences of that contradiction.
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
Doesn’t matter unless Congress does something. That’s because the DEA has sole discretion over what’s on the Schedule, unless there’s a law that says otherwise. Pretty sure that even if the president issued an executive order telling them to reschedule it or take it off, they could tell the president to pound sand.
Since Congress doesn’t like to do their job and prefers to pass decisions to executive agencies, I doubt they’ll pass a law to legalize marijuana. They’d rather leave it to the DEA so they can tell voters it’s not their fault as they run for reelection. And the DEA isn't going to change anything. They make too much money stealing stuff from the people they bust.
It's on the attorney general. And the president can fire hir, just as he did Sessions.
You sure? Because every source I looked at said it’s up to the DEA not DOJ.
The DEA lives under the umbrella of the DOJ. Two overfunded and useless organizations.
The administrator of the DEA has final say on re-scheduling, de-scheduling or for a new drug, which schedule it should go into. That was part of a delegation of authority Congress gave the DEA in the controlled substances act. NORML once sued to re-schedule and after like 10years+, got an administrative law judge to agree only for that ruling to be overturned by the then head of the DEA, whose decision was deemed final by the appellate courts.
Then the next president can change it?
He can keep getting rid of attorneys general until he gets one to sign off on it.
Following the Nixon "Saturday Night Massacre" precedent.
Hey. Found the one time sarc will blame Congress instead of a president.
You can put your weed in it.
>>Theoretically, Trump’s belated support for marijuana reform could alienate Republicans who oppose legalization so much that they refrain from voting at all.
I assume people with more vivid imaginations than I could write an entire scene of you & Jonah Goldberg & Hedonism Bot in someone’s backyard gazebo imagining-up the above scenario
But I don't think Republicans are going to risk a Harris Administration becoming reality over a little smoke, and refraining from voting will ensure that. At least I hope not...
MO has become a very red state, but it's legal here. I don't think it's going to be a big negative.
mind blown I was just up there for phish ... suburban STL is a far cry from 1997 lol
Which one is the MYOB Freedom Party again? This election cycle is getting confusing.
"Although nothing came of either move, Harris argued that Trump had flip-flopped on marijuana reform—a criticism she is apt to repeat if the subject comes up during their debate on Tuesday night."
All Trump has to do is bring up the 1900 black men Harris charged with marijuana possession during her reign as DA, and how it was a 25% increase over the previous DA, and how Harris authored the official opposition statement to a pot legalization referendum measure.
Harris would be crazy to call Trump a flipflopper, and I wonder why Jacob thinks otherwise.
May I suggest a small edit?
. . . and I wonder why Jacob thinks.
I don't actually read Jacob's screeds. But I assume I'd be correct in concluding that this is yet another attempt to rehabilitate Harris?
When your side changes their mind they are coming around to the right point of view.
When the other side changes their mind they’re lying, spineless, flip-flopping hypocrites that can’t be trusted.
Good faith vs bad faith.
When one guy changes his mind about something he thinks or believes, it is simply changing his mind.
When some woman who has imprisoned 1900 black men and then tries to pretend that it never happened for political expedience, yes, that person is truly evil.
As always, your “comparison” is absolutely fucking worthless. It’s apples to Huey helicopters.
Please. Anyone not on Team Trump who changed their minds about Twitter once evidence existed was heckled and damned. You guys hate anyone who changes their mind who isn’t on your team. Bad faith all the time.
Not defending Harris here but I haven’t heard of her denying what she did as AG in CA. I agree that she was, and still is, evil. Stories I’ve read about her laughing at people when she won in court, sometimes against innocent people, are truly disturbing.
My original point is the same though on how you guys always treat your team with good faith and everyone else with bad faith. Calling me a hypocrite, which you will because it’s your standard defense, doesn’t make what I said less true (nor me a hypocrite), though it does satisfy the Trump Defense: they did it first so it’s ok.
“Not defending Harris here”
Hahaha, the fuck you aren’t. I pointed out Harris’ long and factually accurate history as an anti-drug warrior and you flipped the fuck out.
At least you admit to being on the otherside.
Is Trump calling everyone conspiracy theorists like you do though?
The Republicans have given lip service to rugged individualism and personal liberty for years, yet still supporting the useless war on drugs.
It is so refreshing to see Trump come out in support of marijuana legalization in more ways than one. I think I'll go smoke a hit right now.
Republicans back the blue, and the blue likes robbing druggies.
Are you at all curious as to the beginning of the drug war in the 80s and which party lead the initial efforts in urban areas? I'm guessing not.
Beginning of the drug war in the 80's? But, but, but...Eh, I know what you mean...and both parties are to blame. Ranking them would be pretty difficult. Reagan preached the drug war, the Dem congress and SCOTUS obliged.
Reagan was largely listening to urban leaders in the early 80s facing the heroin and crackhead crisis' springing up.
That's a new one, but his motivation is irrelevant. He was the major driver of the 80's crackdown.
Urban leaders means Democrats, means not Reagan’s fault, blame Democrats.
I’m sure he has some snide way to blame Democrats for all the liberty destroying legislation signed by Nixon as well.
He blames the checks with Trump’s name on them on Democrats, and credits Republicans for all of Carter’s deregulation.
Asset forfeiture, just say NO and Dare.
Let us not forget your brain on drugs- and egg sizzling in a frying pan. Who could forget the anti cocaine ad where people were snorting up boomboxes, cars and all sorts of material possessions
Before Reagan cops were peace officers. By the time he left office they were drug warriors. An occupying force where everyone is an enemy until they’ve been searched and ran for warrants.
Republicans always back the blue, and Trump is no exception.
50% of drug enforcement centered on weed. Take away the illegality and you have solved 1/2 of the problem. I’m sure that those keystone cops will find some other fake endeavor like “human trafficking”.
Ever notice that the head of the DEA has gone from a balls to the walls tough guy to a sympathetic women who is sad about all the fentanyl overdoses? Kabuki theater.
I’m sure that those keystone cops will find some other fake endeavor like “human trafficking”.
As long as it’s in quotes we mean women selling sex.
Another consensual activity that’s illegal because the men who write laws have daughters.
Actually kidnapping and moving women and girls from here to there against their will is a privilege reserved for the police.
Funny how Sullum can repeat Harris's accusations of flip-flopping without mentioning which one of the candidates actually sent people to prison for marijuana - and did that in spite of smoking it herself.