It is accepted wisdom at this point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is no fan of marijuana, including in its medicinal capacity. He is adamant that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” He recently compared medical marijuana, which has never led to an overdose death, to opioids, which kill nearly a hundred Americans each day.

Now, Sessions is pushing congressional leaders to allow the Justice Department to use its funds to prosecute medical marijuana-related crimes, even in states that have legalized medical marijuana. In a letter sent last month to top-ranking representatives and senators, obtained by MassRoots on Monday, Sessions shows his opposition to a budget provision that would prohibit the Justice Department from spending federal cash to crack down on states with legal medical marijuana laws. He wrote:

I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime. The Department must be in a position to use all laws available to combat the transnational drug organizations and dangerous drug traffickers who threaten American lives.

Sessions is referring to the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, a budget rider, introduced in 2014, that prevents the Justice Department from allocating funds to press cases against medical marijuana actors in states that have legalized cannabis for medicinal purposes. The amendment was included in the Fiscal Year 2017 omnibus spending bill, which passed early last month, states:

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used […] to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Though the spending bill, which will fund the government until October 1, included the amendment, it is unclear whether it will make the next one. In the letter, which was provided to MassRoots by a congressional staffer, Sessions argues that the amendment prevents the DOJ from cracking down on gangs that operate in states where medical marijuana is lawful.

“Drug traffickers already cultivate and distribute marijuana inside the United States under the guise of state medical marijuana laws,” he wrote. “In particular, Cuban, Asian, Caucasian, and Eurasian criminal organizations have established marijuana operations in state-approved marijuana markets.”

The Obama Administration was no fan of the amendment either. For one, the Justice Department lobbied Congress to strike down the provision in 2014, arguing that it might “limit or possibly eliminate the Department’s ability to enforce federal law in recreational marijuana cases as well.” And even after the amendment passed, the administration still managed to prosecute individuals and organizations in states where medical marijuana had been legalized.

Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam Farr (D-CA) responded by writing a letter to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, saying the administration’s interpretation of the amendment “clearly is a stretch.” They added:

The implementation of state law is carried out by individuals and businesses as the state authorizes them to do. For DOJ to argue otherwise is a tortuous twisting of the text of [the provision] and common sense and the use of federal funds to prevent these individuals and businesses from acting in accordance with state law is clearly in violation of Rohrabacher-Farr.

If the Sessions-led Justice Department takes a similar tactic as the previous administration, it will certainly be hearing from Rohrabacher and Farr.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sessions Asked Congress to Remove Marijuana Protections from Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

A provision that directs the Justice Department to respect states’ medical marijuana laws is included in the new spending bill, which Congress is expected to pass this week. The provision, known as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, should soothe concerns that Attorney General Jeff Sessions will increase enforcement of the federal marijuana ban–at least regarding medical marijuana. The amendment does not explicitly protect recreational marijuana laws, which are in place in eight states and D.C.

Initially introduced in 2014–and included in every budget since then–by Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam Farr (D-CA), the amendment bars the Justice Department from allocating funds to enforcing the federal ban on medical marijuana activities in states where use, distribution, and cultivation is legal in some capacity. Twenty-nine states and D.C. have legalized marijuana for medical use. More than a dozen others have legalized cannabidiol (CBD)–a non-psychoactive element of marijuana that has therapeutic effects–for limited use.

“None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used […] to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana,” the amendment states.

After weeks of uncertainty about what the budget would include, Congress reached an agreement on how to fund the government last weekend. President Donald Trump’s promised border wall with Mexico will not receive government money, according to the agreement, which the House is scheduled to take up on Wednesday. Democrats were largely happy with the spending bill, which will fund the government through September.

The budget placates Democrats who were worried about deep cuts to the EPA’s budget, or funds allocated to hard-line immigration programs, like a deportation force. And the renewal of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment should, at least in regards to medical marijuana, alleviate concerns that the Trump Administration will initiate a war on marijuana.

Sessions has made comments–before he was attorney general and when he was an Alabama Senator–that have given pro-marijuana advocates, and a growing number of Republican and Democratic lawmakers, cause for concern. He once said, “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” He has equated the dangers of medical marijuana and heroin. And he recently affirmed that it is illegal to use or distribute marijuana, “whether a state legalizes it or not.” But the inclusion of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment should, at least in part, temper concerns that Sessions is gunning for a major enforcement campaign.

Rohrabacher, a member of the recently established Congressional Cannabis Caucus, wrote a letter in April to members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, asking them to renew his eponymous amendment. “We believe such a policy is not only consistent with the wishes of a bipartisan majority of the members of the House, but also with the wishes of the American people,” he wrote. 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Provision in Spending Bill Protects States’ Medical Marijuana Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Congress reached an agreement over the weekend to keep the government running through the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. While a vote has yet to take place–the House is expected to take up the bill on Wednesday–the spending bill omits a number of President Donald Trump’s stated priorities, and generally preserves or increases spending to programs Democrats feared might receive steep cuts. To avoid a government shutdown, Congress must pass the bill by midnight on Friday.

The trillion-dollar budget is far from the austere outline Trump proposed earlier this year. The bill also does not block federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood, which conservatives have long threatened. The National Institute of Health, one of the domestic programs Trump sought to shift money away from, will see a two billion dollar infusion of cash.

Although the Trump Administration averted a shutdown, the spending bill is hardly the conservative blueprint Trump and GOP lawmakers had been seeking. For one, while it includes a $1.5 billion increase in funding for border security, it also contains explicit language barring further construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. Trump, during a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Saturday, reiterated his promise to build the wall.

Democratic leaders seemed pleased with the final agreement. Senate Minority Leader. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “The bill ensured taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall” and “increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), cheered the bill’s funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program.

White House and Republican leaders focused on the agreement’s increase in military spending, which was markedly less than what Trump called for. Vice President Mike Pence said the bill is a “bipartisan win” that will be a “significant increase in military spending.” Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Speaker of the House, said it reflects Trump’s “commitment to rebuild our military for the 21st century and bolster our nation’s border security to protect our homeland.”

In addition to preserving funds for Planned Parenthood and blocking money for a border wall, Democrats avoided other cuts they have feared since Trump’s proposed budget in March. The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget will only dip by one percent. There will be no funding for a deportation force. And, despite threats from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, funding to so-called “sanctuary cities” will not be reduced.

For some conservative members of Congress, however, the bill includes too many concessions to the opposition party. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “you’re going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation.” Jordan’s reasoning: “We told [voters] we were going to do a short-term spending bill that was going to come due at the end of April so that we could fight on these very issues, and now it looks like we’re not going to do that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Funding for Trump’s Border Wall in Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.