Federal Cannabis Reform – Is 2022 the Year? – National Law Review

And for good reason –  the induction of a new, more liberal administration, rapid state-level legalization, broad support by Americans, and growing bipartisan backing led many to believe that 2021 was going to be the year where federal decriminalization of cannabis would become a reality.

Justice Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court even subtly advised Congress to address legalization, noting that the Federal Government’s current “half in, half out regime” on cannabis strained the principles of federalism.

At the time of the House’s passage, many believed the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 would easily move its way through the Senate, due – in part – to its demonstrated bipartisan appeal with 106 Republican votes in the House.

After years of bringing up this issue, I’m thrilled to see overwhelming support for this bipartisan, commonsense legislation in the U.S.

In late September 2021, fervor for the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 arose again when the House passed, by voice vote, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 to add the SAFE Banking Act of 2021.

On May 28, 2021, Representative Jerrold Nadler reintroduced the MORE Act into the House and much of its substance provided the legislative stepping stones for the Cannabis Administrative and Opportunity Act .

The MORE Act aimed to end criminalization of cannabis by removing it from the list of controlled  substances, eliminate related past criminal penalties and convictions, and provide essential criminal justice reform, social justice and economic development for those affected by the War on Drugs.

After sitting in the House Judiciary Committee, the bill was finally approved in the Committee on September 30, 2021, with 2 Republican Representatives voting yes.

Embracing the MORE Act’s goals for comprehensive reform, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced the long awaited draft of the CAO into the Senate on July 14, 2021.

At the expiration of this review period, the drafters of the bill received numerous comments from both supporters and those criticizing the CAO as overly ambitious and a big-government approach.

For now, the public comments have been taken under advisement as the cannabis industry waits to see what the drafters decide to incorporate.

The SRA permits each state to determine the appropriate age limit for purchase of cannabis products, but incentivizes states to implement a 21+ limit by eliminating funding for highways for any state with an age limit of under 21 years of age and prohibiting advertisements directed at any person under the age of 21.

Additionally, it is anticipated that the Congressional Republicans will appreciate the SRA’s straight forward tax structure capped at a low rate for at least 10 years and its stance on states’ sovereignty regarding cannabis reform.

Indeed, the CAO could be an example of such needed compromise – especially if the drafters seriously heed the criticisms and comments provided during the bill’s review period and consider incorporating certain bipartisan elements of the SRA, like a more stream-lined and lower rate tax structure.

It may not resolve the issue of prohibition on cannabis, but its passage will likely be a great victory for the cannabis industry, signal federal de-stigmatization of cannabis, promote public safety by discouraging participation in the illicit cannabis market, and help cannabis-related businesses comply with tax laws.

Le is an associate in the Government Contracts, Investigations and International Trade Practice Group in the firm’s Los Angeles office.Ms. Le’s practice comprises predominantly of representing corporations and non-profit organizations in cases involving False Claims Act, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, U.K.

No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website.

The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.

Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

…Read the full story