Medical MJ and other drug policy changes in Federal Funding Bill

Referring to “Federal spending bill gives Minnesota’s medical marijuana business some peace of mind”, our Drug War Facts editor Doug McVay reports:

As far as I can see, the section in question is this one, from pages 213-214:

SEC. 538. None of the funds made available in this
21 Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with re-
22 spect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Cali-
23 fornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Co-
24 lumbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine,
25 Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mis-
1 sissippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
2 New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
3 Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and
4 Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their
5 own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, pos-
6 session, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

I’m continuing to check in case there are other sections that mention medical marijuana enforcement – there aren’t, but I’ll doublecheck to verify. That language should definitely reassure state officials in those states.

The legislation allowing state governments and/or state universities to carry out pilot hemp production programs is also protected:

p. 214:
SEC. 539. None of the funds made available by this
8 Act may be used in contravention of section 7606 (‘‘Legit-
9 imacy of Industrial Hemp Research’’) of the Agricultural
10 Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79) by the Department of
11 Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Unfortunately there are a number of provisions that are anti-reform in the bill as well, including this:

p. 660:
SEC. 807. None of the Federal funds contained in
4 this Act may be used to distribute any needle or syringe
5 for the purpose of preventing the spread of blood borne
6 pathogens in any location that has been determined by the
7 local public health or local law enforcement authorities to
8 be inappropriate for such distribution.

and this:

pp. 660-661:
SEC. 809. (a) None of the Federal funds contained
17 in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law,
18 rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties
19 associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any
20 schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act
21 (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols de-
22 rivative.
23 (b) None of the funds contained in this Act may be
24 used to enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or
25 otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession,
1 use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the
2 Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any
3 tetrahydrocannabinols derivative for recreational pur-
4 poses.

and:

pp. 953-954:
SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in
20 this Act may be used for any activity that promotes the
21 legalization of any drug or other substance included in
22 schedule I of the schedules of controlled substances estab-
23 lished under section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act
24 except for normal and recognized executive-congressional
25 communications.

(b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply
2 when there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic
3 advantage to the use of such drug or other substance or
4 that federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted
5 to determine therapeutic advantage.

This is from page 921, in the Engrossed Amendment House version as passed by both Senate and House:

19 SEC. 521. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
20 Act, no funds appropriated in this Act shall be used to
21 carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or sy-
22 ringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.

Share

1 Comment

  1. There have been some in harm reduction who argued that the federal ban on funding for syringe exchanges was a good thing, because it meant that exchanges were able to avoid federal regulation and red tape.

    Dave Purchase for example, the then-director of the North American Syringe Exchange Network, made that very argument in a panel in 2007 at a conference in Salt Lake City that I was fortunate enough to attend.

Comments are closed.