Attacks on Federal Medical Cannabis Reveal Dangers for Patients on Capitol Hill!
What just happened?
On July 9th, the House Appropriations Committee passed a version of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations bill that included language to block rescheduling efforts for cannabis (Section 623). Additionally, a modification to the medical cannabis amendment from 2014 opens the door for federal interference in state medical cannabis programs again (Section 531(b)) with double penalties (see end of blog for language and summary).
The only cannabis-related amendment proposed by the Appropriations Committee was one to create similar protections afforded to medical cannabis stakeholders in the recreational adult-use market, which did not pass.
CLICK HERE to send a letter to your representatives telling them to prioritize patients!
How did this happen?
It would be easy to blame the resurgence of a visible pro-drug war opposition for this setback. However, the lack of action from expected medical cannabis Congressional champions on the committee is equally concerning. These champions did not attempt to amend the language or even create a public record of their implicit objection. No one on the committee took the opportunity to strike Section 623 or Section 531(b) from the bill, nor did they emphasize that medical cannabis is a crucial treatment option for millions of patients suffering from conditions such as chronic pain, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and PTSD.
These amendments are an affront to patients across the country who are finding significant improvements in their quality of life, reduced reliance on prescription medications, and better overall health outcomes thanks to medical cannabis. By all accounts, the current political landscape shows a nation poised for medical cannabis to fulfill its potential as a nationally recognized medicine, offering the political backing for policymakers to champion proposals to ensure safe, legal, and consistent access for those who need it most.
CLICK HERE to send a letter to your representatives telling them to prioritize patients!
So why, in this environment, when medical cannabis enjoys public support well above 90%, has limited opposition from the medical community, and endorsements from major health agencies would Congress even entertain these amendments? At a time when our movement includes over 6 million patients enrolled in state programs, with well documented benefits to not only patient health but also their healthcare systems, and the confirmation of accepted medical use by FDA, HHS, and DOJ, how could members step aside while patient access is threatened without objection?
The truth is Congress is not seeing patients as they debate cannabis policy. Over the last few years, patient advocates have been overshadowed in policy matters by the “business of cannabis” in the media and in representation on Capitol Hill. However, it is also true that patients and the medical cannabis movement are not making themselves as visible as we once were.
Whatever the reason, the void left in our absence is being filled with the notion that our ultimate policy goal is to nationalize the state cannabis programs and that this model sufficiently serves our needs. These state programs have proven inadequate for cannabis therapeutics to reach their full potential, relegating them to a perpetual state of compassionate use. This has created the dangerous misconception that these programs are synonymous with “medical cannabis,” deterring potential allies from engaging with us on policy matters and looking to pharma or the current inadequate drug development infrastructure for solutions.
As it stands, the state-by-state compassionate use model excludes patients in states reluctant to pass medical cannabis laws, federal employees, contractors, and veterans utilizing VA medical services. Time has shown that these programs do not address patients’ many medical, financial, and logistical needs, serving only a privileged class of Americans. These realities are worsening in markets where patients must compete with adult-use consumers for policy protections and product supply. This will persist as long as medical cannabis access happens independently of broader healthcare systems and will not be corrected by rescheduling alone.
What’s Next?
There are many questions about the enforceability of these amendments, and many procedural steps with opportunities to remove the language from the 2025 Appropriations bill before they would be signed into law.
The advancement of these CJS amendments is alarming and does not bode well for patients as Congress and the Biden Administration grapple with other cannabis policy issues such as hemp regulations in the Farm Bill, FDA’s request for a new regulatory pathway for cannabinoids, pending rescheduling proceedings, and oversight of the 2022 Research Act. All will impact patients’ lives, with potential outcomes that not only effect current access but it could also result in subpar policy solutions, such as a “center of cannabis studies” at the FDA that could diffuse the urgency of our movement, derail its progress all together or worse.
This is our wake up call: We have reached the critical tipping point to advance cannabis as a medicine in the United States. It is up to us to build the movement that ensures it tips in the favor of patients.
Medical Cannabis Patients Need Leadership on Capitol Hill
Through decades of persistent advocacy, often with the guidance and support of Congressional champions, we have removed federal barriers and laid the groundwork toward our goal of integrating medical cannabis into our healthcare systems. At this critical moment, we have an opportunity to advance medical cannabis policy significantly. To achieve this, we need Congressional leaders to seize this opportunity for impactful policy change and not squander it by passing over medical cannabis patients for policies that do not yet have the political will to advance. We have proven that medical cannabis policies win on Capitol Hill. With the right leadership, we can prioritize patient health outcomes and make meaningful progress that will improve the lives of millions of Americans.
Calls to Action:
- Engage with Your Representatives: CLICK HERE to send a letter to your representatives telling them to prioritize patients! We’ve made it super simple with a pre-written letter that is automatically sent to your representatives.
- Support Advocacy Efforts – Attend The Validated Voices Summit Washington, DC: CLICK HERE to let us know you are interested!
- Invest in Patient Advocacy: We need your support to help implement campaigns and mobilize advocates. DONATE NOW!
Let’s ensure that the progress we’ve made in medical cannabis advocacy is not lost and that patients across the country will be able to access the treatments they need.
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations Amendment Summary
Section 623 Summary: This section blocks the Department of Justice (DOJ) from completing its review of the appropriate schedule for cannabis as defined in the Controlled Substance Act (CSA). The rescheduling process also provides an appropriate time frame for Congressional Review. It is baffling why anyone, regardless of their stance on medical cannabis, would want to halt this process that could validate the experience of millions of Americans currently using medical cannabis and set a path for regulations!
NEW CJS LANGUAGE: SEC. 623. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to reschedule marijuana (as such term is defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) or to remove marijuana from the schedules established under section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
Section 531(b) Summary: This section amends the Medical Cannabis Amendment, first passed in 2014, which prohibits the DOJ from using funds to threaten, arrest, or prosecute medical cannabis stakeholders acting in accordance with their state medical cannabis law (Section 531(a) see language below) by adding (b) (see language below) language that would allow the DOJ to target licensed medical cannabis facilities that violate 21 U.S.C. 860 (see language below) which is a section in the CSA that doubles the penalties for individuals in violation of the CSA. State laws already include restrictions on business locations, such as buffer zones around schools and daycare centers, decided by local communities. This amendment is not only overreaching and contradictory to the principles of local governance and state rights, but it could also impact access to regulated sources of medical cannabis, pushing patients to find relief from the illicit market.
SEC. 531 Medical Cannabis Amendment
(a)None of the funds made available under this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
NEW CJS LANGUAGE: (b) Funds made available under this Act to the Department of Justice may be used to enforce violations of 21 U.S.C. 860.
(21 U.S.C. 860 (paraphrased). Any person who is distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or manufacturing a controlled substance in or on, or within one thousand feet of, a public or private elementary, vocational, or secondary school or a public or private college, junior college, or university, or a playground, or housing facility owned by a public housing authority, or within 100 feet of a public or private youth center, public swimming pool, or video arcade facility, is subject to twice the maximum punishment and twice the fines.)
