[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     DEVELOPMENTS IN STATE CANNABIS
                      LAWS AND BIPARTISAN CANNABIS
                      REFORMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL

=======================================================================

                                 HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                                 OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                               AND REFORM

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           NOVEMBER 15, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-108

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
      
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      

                       Available on: govinfo.gov
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
49-682 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                            
                   COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

                CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of   James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking 
    Columbia                             Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts      Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee                Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia         Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois        Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland               Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California                Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan              Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California             Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri                  Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio               Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois             Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida    Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont                 Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,      Pat Fallon, Texas
    Georgia                          Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California            Mike Flood, Nebraska
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts

                      Russ Anello, Staff Director
               Devon Ombres, Subcommittee Staff Director
                   Melanie Mpanju, Deputy Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                  Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
                                 
                                 
                               ------                                

            Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

                    Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Chairman
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Nancy Mace, South Carolina, 
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida        Ranking Minority Member
Robin Kelly, Illinois                Jim Jordan, Ohio
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts       Andy Biggs, Arizona
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of   Scott Franklin, Florida
    Columbia                         Byron Donalds, Florida
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Danny K. Davis, Illinois
                        
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on November 15, 2022................................     1

                               Witnesses

Paul Armentano, Deputy Director, National Organization for the 
  Reform of Marijuana Laws
Oral Statement...................................................     6
Eric Goepel, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Veterans 
  Cannabis Coalition
Oral Statement...................................................     7
Amber Littlejohn, Senior Policy Advisor, Global Alliance for 
  Cannabis Commerce
Oral Statement...................................................     9
Andrew Freedman, Executive Director, Coalition for Cannabis 
  Policy, Education, and Regulation
Oral Statement...................................................    11
Keeda Haynes, Senior Legal Advisor, Free Hearts
Oral Statement...................................................    14
Jillian Snider, Policy Director of Criminal Justice & Civil 
  Liberties , R Street Institute
Oral Statement...................................................    13
The Honorable Randall Woodfin, Mayor, City of Birmingham, Alabama
Oral Statement...................................................    16

Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are 
  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document 
  Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Articles supporting States Reform Act; submitted by Rep. 
  Mace.

  * Letters supporting States Reform Act; submitted by Rep. Mace.

  * Articles regarding Cannabis Research; submitted by Rep. Mace.

  * Minority Cannabis Business Association National Cannabis 
  Equity Report; submitted by Rep. Mace.

  * Journal of American Medicine article; submitted by Rep. Mace.

  * Smart Approaches to Marijuana Statement; submitted by Rep. 
  Higgins.

  * Questions for the Record: to Andrew Freedman; submitted by 
  Rep. Ocasio-Cortez

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                     DEVELOPMENTS IN STATE CANNABIS
                      LAWS AND BIPARTISAN CANNABIS
                      REFORMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL

                              ----------                              

                       Tuesday, November 15, 2022

                   House of Representatives
                  Committee on Oversight and Reform
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil LibertiesWashington, 
                                                        DC.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., 
via Zoom, Hon. Jamie Raskin (chairman of the subcommittee) 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives Raskin, Kelly, Pressley, Norton, 
Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Mace, Higgins, Sessions, and Biggs.
    Mr. Raskin. The committee will come to order. Without 
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the 
committee at any point.
    Without objection--do we have members who sought waiver on 
the committee? No, OK.
    Well, good morning, everyone. Welcome to our witnesses for 
being here. We've got some sensational witnesses who have 
joined us.
    Last month, President Biden announced that he was issuing a 
blanket pardon to people who had been convicted of simple 
possession of marijuana under Federal law, and he said that his 
administration would review the scheduling of marijuana under 
the Controlled Substances Act.
    And I applaud his announcement as an important and key 
first step in rectifying the many social injuries that have 
been inflicted on communities and our people across the country 
by the war on marijuana. It's just a first step, and we already 
know what the next step should be: Cannabis must be 
decriminalized at the Federal level as a matter of basic 
justice in the country and, I would say, to vindicate the 
antiprohibition principle that's in our Constitution.
    We tried prohibition of liquor, and all it did was lead to 
the growth of organized crime in the country. It pitted the 
government against the people. It eroded respect for the law as 
all of the prohibition laws were being honored only in the 
breach, and it basically set the society at war against itself. 
And we've seen the exact same thing with marijuana prohibition.
    It's not that marijuana is great for everybody in all 
circumstances, and I certainly discourage my kids from smoking 
marijuana or drinking alcohol, but the point is that the war 
against marijuana has ruined so many lives in our country, and 
we can do a lot better by treating all of these as public 
health questions and regulatory questions rather than questions 
of crime and putting people behind bars.
    Decriminalizing cannabis would benefit a lot of 
communities, including especially people of color, individuals 
incarcerated for nonviolent offenses, veterans, and Federal 
employees. It will also benefit the small businesses operating 
in states where cannabis has already been legalized by 
providing access to banking services. They will no longer have 
to operate on a cash-only basis, which is obviously dangerous 
and makes them ready targets for criminal gangs.
    We've already seen the benefits of decriminalizing in the 
states. As of May 27, 2022, 19 states, 2 territories, and the 
District of Columbia, where we sit today, have enacted measures 
to regulate cannabis for adult non-medical use. They've 
accepted and embraced the antiprohibition principle that's in 
our Constitution. In addition, 37 states, 3 territories, and 
Washington, DC, the vast majority of the country, allow the use 
of medical marijuana. What an extraordinary outbreak of 
commonsense in America.
    Despite efforts to legalize and decriminalize cannabis 
possession at the state level, cannabis arrests today still 
remain widespread. They account for 43 percent of all drug 
arrests. Nine in 10 of those arrests are for simple possession 
of marijuana. However, states that have reformed their cannabis 
laws have seen markedly fewer arrests between 2010 and 2018.
    Regardless of the status of legalization, racial 
disparities in cannabis arrests continue to persist nationally, 
although Black and White people use cannabis at roughly the 
same rates. In fact, Black people are nearly four times as 
likely to be arrested for marijuana possession as White 
citizens are.
    In many states, these arrests can have life-altering 
consequences: Parents lose children. Disabled and low-income 
recipients of public assistance may lose healthcare. Families 
can be evicted from public housing, and finding a job can be 
difficult or outright impossible for people who have a 
marijuana conviction on their resume.
    Black and Brown people disproportionately face these 
repercussions, evidencing the systemic problems in the criminal 
justice system. Decriminalizing cannabis will help to relieve 
these disparities. Allowing automatic expungement for 
nonviolent arrests and convictions would quickly help to 
reverse much of the damage being caused by the war on drugs. It 
would also benefit the thousands of veterans who suffer from 
chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder. Under current 
law, the VA is unable to prescribe medical marijuana to its 
patients, instead having to rely on traditional pharmaceuticals 
and opioids, and we know the dangers of opioids.
    Furthermore, decriminalization would benefit approximately 
2.1 million Federal civil--civilian employees and countless 
applicants for government jobs. Even in the states where it's 
been fully legalized, Federal employees and applicants are 
still vulnerable to being fired or rejected from their jobs 
even for having used a medical marijuana prescription in a 
state where that's lawful. We should not be denying our 
constituents the opportunity to serve in Federal office simply 
because they have used marijuana, as a majority of the country 
records that it has.
    In addition, the Federal cannabis prohibition hinders the 
operation of above-board cannabis companies and undermines 
communities' economic integrity due to lack of access to formal 
banking. It also leaves cannabis companies vulnerable to theft 
and burglary because they're forced to deal in an all-cash 
market. Moreover, entry into the industry is effectively much 
more difficult for historically disempowered groups, women and 
minorities, compared to more resourced competitors who dominate 
in this space.
    Legalization at the Federal level is a step that must be 
taken economically for the public health and for social equity 
for everyone in the country. To achieve true equity, marijuana 
should be descheduled and removed from the Controlled 
Substances Act scheduled categories altogether. The House has 
already passed the MORE Act this Congress. I call on our Senate 
counterparts to do the same and to end the absurd prohibition 
on marijuana in the 21st century.
    With that, I now get to recognize the very distinguished 
ranking member, Ms. Mace, for her opening statement. She has 
been a tremendous leader in this field. And, in fact, it was 
her idea for us to have this hearing today to collect 
information about what's taking place across the country and 
then to emphasize what needs to be done at the Federal level.
    Ms. Mace, you are now recognized for your opening 
statement.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the honor of putting 
together this hearing together, historic, bipartisan hearing on 
cannabis on the Oversight Committee. This is a great day in 
America, and it's a true honor to be here. And it's an honor to 
serve with you and to work together on so many issues. And 
we're--our Nation looks so divided on the outside, but today 
this is an example where we can work together.
    And I've shared this before, but this issue is not just an 
issue that to me is just--it's just a bill. This issue is 
personal. I was raped when I was 16 years old, and it was a 
devastating event in my life. It's trauma that I have lived 
with for almost my entire lifetime.
    I dropped out of school shortly thereafter. And my doctors 
at the time prescribed me antidepressants that made my 
depression worse. And, rather than end everything, I stopped 
taking those prescription drugs, and I started using cannabis, 
not realizing at the time that I was self-medicating for the 
trauma that I had experienced. And I used it for a period of 
time, and it cut my anxiety. I was able to sleep better, and I 
stayed alive.
    And I took that job at the Waffle House. I turned my life 
around. I learned some tough lessons during some tough times. I 
eventually would become the first woman to graduate from The 
Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina. I'm the first 
Republican woman ever elected to Congress from South Carolina. 
If I can make it, anybody can. And this plant literally saved 
my life. I don't know where I would be today had I not had that 
kind of experience that I can share with millions of Americans 
today.
    And so the only place that cannabis is really controversial 
today is here on the Capitol. In bright red South Carolina, 
medical cannabis is supported by the vast majority of South 
Carolina residents. And, in fact, in my very purple district, 
in South Carolina's First congressional District, even 
recreational is supported by the vast majority of constituents 
in that area.
    And so I have a lot to say about the problems with our 
cannabis laws, but more importantly, I have a solution. In my 
first year in Congress, we worked for nine months to create the 
States Reform Act that would be a bipartisan bill looking at 
the ways that we can come together, the left and the right, to 
put forth legislation that was smart, that was responsible, and 
can bring together ideas from both sides of the aisle.
    So the States Reform Act puts power back where it should be 
at the state level. There are 47 of 50 states that have some 
form of cannabis regulation or reform. The last three don't 
even have CBD. But South Carolina, we have CBD and hemp; 
Florida, for example, has medical cannabis; you have other 
states that have full adult recreational use.
    Every state is different, and the States Reform Act 
respects the laws of every single state in the country and 
respects the right of federalism. It empowers Governors and 
state legislators to choose the reforms that are best for their 
state and their constituents and what they support. And States 
Reform Act has the constituents' needs with oversight 
coordination and commerce in mind.
    The States Reform Act would bring about regulatory reforms 
which would enable us to tackle complex issues within the 
cannabis industry that we've seen over the last couple of 
years. The States Reform Act, in addition, would bring certain 
protections to children and veterans, something I'm extremely 
proud of.
    It looks at potency labeling--the consistency and 
concentration--in packaging. It looks at ensuring that we can 
reduce the proclivity of the illicit market by having very 
low--a very low Federal excise tax at three percent. It looks 
at sales to unintended customers like kids in coordination with 
the FDA. It looks and takes social equity and capital access in 
lending for small businesses through the SBA.
    It ensures that there's parity with alcohol regulation. The 
regulatory framework already exists today: commerce through 
TTB, medical through the FDA, growers through agriculture, et 
cetera, and the ATF.
    There's a safe harbor provision for veterans. There's no 
reason, with the rate of veteran suicide today, that any 
veteran in our country should be denied access to medical 
cannabis to prevent their suicides from happening.
    It also brings together much needed medical research, 
including research into PTSD, epilepsy treatments, for example, 
and it would include crucial research into driver safety and 
including truck driver testing as well. This landmark 
legislation treats cannabis like alcohol. And, in fact, 
cannabis is safer than alcohol and tobacco. I know this by 
talking to our law enforcement and our police at every level of 
government.
    It receives an entirely different treatment, though, under 
Federal law. As you mentioned, Blacks, Browns--Brown folks and 
African Americans are four times as likely to be arrested. So 
there's no time like the present to end this very expensive, 
very painful, very harmful war on a plant.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for our discussion 
today.
    I also want to thank President Biden for his executive 
order. I mean, he's looking at rescheduling cannabis.
    And I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter the 
following documents for the record.
    Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
    Ms. Mace. I have articles supporting the States Reform Act 
from various nonprofits. I have letters supporting and 
endorsing the States Reform Act from groups, including NORML 
and The Americans for Prosperity, law enforcement groups, 
veterans groups, et cetera. I also have articles regarding 
cannabis research, including the NIH-supported studies--we need 
data and research, more importantly--and also the Minority 
Cannabis Business Association's National Cannabis Equity Report 
for 2022 all right here for you today.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Without objection, they will be 
entered into the record.
    Ms. Mace, I want to really salute you for your intellectual 
vigor and courage with which you've pursued this question. And 
I hope that this extremely bipartisan hearing will be a 
harbinger of what can take place in the next Congress, 
regardless of which one of us ends up on top by one vote or 
two. And I thank you for the spirit with which you initiated 
this hearing.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Mr. Sessions. I'd seek time if the gentleman were to allow 
that?
    Mr. Raskin. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Sessions. I would like to seek time if the gentleman 
would allow that.
    Mr. Raskin. Oh, sure. We were going to have the witnesses 
first, but we'll come to you immediately. Is that OK?
    Mr. Sessions. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. Great. All right.
    Well, welcome to all of the members of the committee, and 
thank you to our witnesses for being here.
    First, we're going to have Paul Armentano, who is the 
deputy director for NORML, the National Organization for the 
Reform of Marijuana Laws. Then we'll hear from Eric Goepel, the 
founder and CEO of the Veterans Cannabis Coalition. Then Amber 
Littlejohn, a senior policy adviser for the Global Alliance for 
Cannabis Commerce. Next we'll hear from Andrew Freedman, 
executive director of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, 
Education, and Regulation. Then Jillian Snider, the policy 
director of Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties in the R Street 
Institute. Next, Keeda Haynes, a senior legal adviser at Free 
Hearts. And, finally, we'll hear from the Honorable Randall 
Woodfin, the mayor of Birmingham, Alabama.
    So the witnesses will be unmuted so I can swear you in. 
Please, stand, if you would, and raise your right hands.
    Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to 
give today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth so help you God?
    Let the record show that all of the witnesses have answered 
in the affirmative. Thank you very much.
    Without objection, your written statements are going to be 
made part of the complete record, but each of you will now have 
five minutes to synthesize your testimony.
    And, with that, Mr. Armentano, you're now recognized as our 
first witness.

    STATEMENT OF PAUL ARMENTANO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 
         ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS

    Mr. Armentano. Thank you. I wish to thank the members of 
this distinguished committee for allowing us to have the 
opportunity to speak to you today.
    For nearly 30 years, I've worked professionally on cannabis 
policy reform. I've witnessed seismic shifts in scientific, 
cultural, and political opinions during this period of time.
    In the summer of 1996, about one year into my career, there 
were no states that regulated the possession or use of 
cannabis. Public support for legalization hovered around 25 
percent, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had just 
introduced legislation to impose the death penalty upon those 
convicted of importing as little as four ounces of cannabis 
into the United States. That's where we were then. My, how 
times have changed.
    Today, 21 states have policies regulating the production, 
use, and retail sale of cannabis to adults, and 37 states 
authorized the use and dispensing of cannabis for medical 
purposes.
    In the past 25 years, not a single state has ever repealed 
or rolled back their cannabis legalization laws. This is 
evidence that these policies are working primarily as both 
voters and as state officials have intended.
    In addition, more than two-thirds of Americans, including 
majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, now say 
that cannabis use by adults should be legal. As more states 
have embraced legalization, public support for these policies 
has increased in parallel. There is no buyer's remorse among 
the American public. They see that legalizing and regulating 
cannabis works and that this policy is preferable to one of 
criminalization, discrimination, and stigmatization.
    America now enjoys a quarter-century real-world experience 
with state-level cannabis legalization laws. The data gathered 
from this experience is plentiful and reassuring. A keyword 
search of PubMed, the repository for all peer-reviewed 
scientific studies, identifies over 42,000 published studies 
specific to cannabis and its effects. Over half of these papers 
were published just within the last decade. This literature 
establishes that, although cannabis is not all together 
harmless, it most certainly is not so dangerous as to warrant 
its Federal classification as a prohibited Schedule 1 substance 
like heroin.
    President Biden recently acknowledged this reality when he 
publicly criticized Federal cannabis criminalization as a 
failed approach and called for a review of its prohibitive 
status under Federal law. On two recent occasions, the House 
has reached a similar conclusion when it voted to pass the 
Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act--which, 
among other changes, removes cannabis from the U.S. Controlled 
Substances Act in a manner similar to that of alcohol. This 
policy is known as descheduling. It eliminates the existing 
state/Federal conflict by providing state governments with 
explicit authority to establish their own individual cannabis 
policies free from the threat of undue Federal intrusion.
    Descheduling is necessary in order to close the growing and 
untenable divide between state and Federal cannabis laws. By 
descheduling cannabis, tens of millions of Americans who reside 
in states where cannabis is legal in some form, as well as the 
hundreds of thousands of people who work for the state license 
industry that services them, will no longer face needless 
hurdles and discrimination, such as a lack of access to 
financial services, loans, insurance, Second Amendment rights, 
tax deductions, certain professional security clearances, and 
other privileges. More importantly, these millions of Americans 
will no longer have to live in fear of Federal prosecution.
    Nearly a century ago, the Federal Government wisely decided 
to repeal the Federal prohibition of alcohol. Then, much like 
today, a growing percentage of politicians recognized that 
criminal prohibition was a politically unpopular law that was 
running afoul of the policies of many states.
    Congress' solution? Respect the 10th Amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution and empower states, not the Federal Government, to 
be the primary arbiters of local alcohol policies. This path 
made sense in 1933 and makes equal sense today.
    Our Nation's Federalist principles demand that the Federal 
Government respects voters' decisions to legalize cannabis. At 
a time of record public support for legalization and when a 
majority of states have adopted this policy, it makes no sense 
from a political, fiscal, or cultural perspective for Congress 
to try to put this genie back in the bottle or to place its 
collective heads in the sand. It is time for the government to 
end its nearly century-long experiment with cannabis 
prohibition.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Armentano. I appreciate that 
very much.
    Mr. Goepel, you're now recognized for your five minutes.

STATEMENT OF ERIC GOEPEL, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
                  VETERANS CANNABIS COALITION

    Mr. Goepel. Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, and 
members of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties, good morning.
    My name is Eric Goepel, founder of the Veterans Cannabis 
Coalition. I served in the U.S. Army for seven years, including 
two tours in Iraq, providing communications and intelligence 
support in a special operations unit. I am also the son and 
grandson of veterans, all now passed, who have served this 
country since World War II.
    In my capacity with the Veterans Cannabis Coalition, 
alongside my fellow Iraq war veteran and cofounder Bill 
Ferguson, we have been working for close to five years on this 
nexus of issues. On behalf of our community and all patients 
who rely on cannabis as a medicine, we thank you for holding 
this hearing and gathering a variety of perspectives on this 
knot of state and Federal challenges.
    We greatly appreciate the bipartisan work the chair and 
ranking member have put into making this happen and look 
forward to the day when Congress comes together to end cannabis 
prohibition and restores those harmed by government action once 
and for all.
    Every death by suicide, overdose, and toxic exposure is not 
a tragedy. It is a policy failure. It is not just a dereliction 
of Congress' duty to provide for the general welfare of the 
Nation but a betrayal of the explicit promise this country has 
made for hundreds of years to care for those who have borne the 
battle.
    Each passing of family, friends, and brothers and sisters 
in arms leaves a void and, for those of us who go on, a 
lingering question: Could we have done more?
    We are here to provide an answer: Yes, we could have done 
more. We can do more, and we should do more. We could've done 
more for the 127,560 veterans who have died by suicide in the 
last 20 years, despite billions of dollars spent on studies and 
interventions. We could've done more for the hundreds of 
thousands of Americans lost to overdose, made worse by 
crackdowns on legal prescribing and a tainted drug supply.
    Congress, most of all, must do more to acknowledge, stop, 
and care for the generations of servicemembers, families, and 
host communities poisoned by toxic exposure caused by the 
Department of Defense.
    So many veterans have served, suffered trauma, received 
care that they found lacking, and, teetering on the edge of 
crisis, discovered cannabis. Commonly, they pointed to how 
cannabis helped with pain, sleep, and stress where the 
pharmaceuticals and therapies fell short. For all, cannabis 
served as a catalyst that assisted them with regaining lost 
function and improving their quality of life.
    The case is clear that change is needed, but where should 
we start? We have worked to apply those lessons in California 
where we have brought together nonprofits, educators, and 
licensed operators to raise awareness of a unique state law, 
the Dennis Peron and Brownie Mary Act, commonly referred to as 
SB-34. The law allows regulated companies to donate to eligible 
patients at no cost, eliminating a major barrier to access.
    Our allies in Canada, who American servicemembers have 
fought side by side with since World War I, have provided their 
veterans with a medical cannabis reimbursement program since 
2011. In the most recent year, Veterans Affairs Canada 
subsidized the purchase of $150 million in legal cannabis for 
more than 18,000 veterans.
    In contrast, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs have 
opposed every congressional attempt to expand research, make it 
easier for veterans to access state legal medical programs, 
codify protections for veterans using cannabis, or provide them 
safe harbor. Their counter arguments always boil down to the 
simple fact that cannabis is a Schedule 1 substance.
    That is one of many reasons that the cornerstone of any 
Federal reform must be removing cannabis from the Controlled 
Substances Act entirely. Keeping cannabis on the schedule keeps 
the plant criminalized. Even if you were to move it to Schedule 
5, possession without a doctor's prescription would still 
remain a Federal felony. Deschedule is decriminalization.
    Once cannabis is descheduled, Congress must also mandate 
the Department of Veterans Affairs--excuse me, the Department 
of Defense initiate an automatic review and upgrade process for 
veterans with an other-than-honorable discharge linked to a 
cannabis offense. Elements of this are in the States Reform 
Act, for which we would very much like to thank the ranking 
member. Far too many veterans have been stripped of their 
benefits because they self-medicated to manage trauma. The 
Federal Government must make veterans who have been doubly 
punished over cannabis whole again.
    We are canaries in the Nation's public health coal mines. 
We suffer disease and disorder across the board at greater 
severity and frequency than our peers. We have been the target 
of some of the most focused--excuse me, of some of the most 
focused healthcare interventions in U.S. history but are dying 
at rates never before seen.
    So, if cannabis is helping some of the most severely 
injured and ill people in our society who have been failed by 
traditional care achieve a better quality of life, then why is 
the Federal Government determined to deny the reality and 
deprive them of their liberty? To everyone gone, could we have 
done more for them? The answer has always been yes. What 
remains to be seen is whether we will summon the political will 
and resources to do.
    Thank you for this time, and we hope we can be a resource 
to the committee going forward in helping understand how 
prohibition is harming veterans.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    Ms. Littlejohn, you're now recognized for your five 
minutes.

 STATEMENT OF AMBER LITTLEJOHN, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, GLOBAL 
                 ALLIANCE FOR CANNABIS COMMERCE

    Ms. Littlejohn. Good morning, Chairman Raskin, Ranking 
Member Mace, and members of the committee. Thank you for 
allowing me to testify today on challenges for small and 
minority-owned cannabis businesses, the impact of Federal 
prohibition, and opportunities for bipartisan reform.
    My name is Amber Littlejohn, senior policy adviser for the 
Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce. GACC is the leading 
cannabis trade association advocating to end Federal 
prohibition. We seek policies that create an open and 
sustainable industry and true second chances for those harmed 
by prohibition. I am before you today as a witness, lawyer, and 
a testament to the transformative power of economic 
opportunities that can ripple for generations.
    In 1927, my grandfather, Ben Littlejohn, was born in 
Gaffney, South Carolina, to a family of sharecroppers. In the 
1970's, after a distinguished career in the U.S. Army, he had 
the opportunity the enter the emerging personal computer 
industry. This opportunity changed the trajectory of his life, 
the lives of his children and grandchildren, and generations to 
come.
    Today, we stand again at the forefront of a new industry 
with a chance to provide intergenerational opportunities that 
can impact lives in Gaffney, Baltimore, Chicago, Boston, and 
also Birmingham. The legal cannabis industry in some form 
exists in 48 states. The medical-and adult-use industries 
employ over 400,000 Americans, and last year alone contributed 
$3.7 billion in state tax revenues.
    Cannabis is now the sixth largest legal cash crop in the 
U.S. Despite these significant contributions to our economy, 
Congress has failed to implement sensible cannabis reform. 
Under the threat of criminal penalty and forfeiture, the status 
quo of Federal cannabis prohibition continues to balkanize 
state marketplaces and raise insurmountable barriers to entry 
with devastating consequences for small and minority-owned 
businesses.
    Consequently, minority-owned cannabis businesses are in 
decline. Black Americans bear the brunt of the disparate 
enforcement of cannabis laws. They now also bear the brunt of 
failed state policies and the devastating impact of Federal 
prohibition on the legal cannabis industry. Black Americans 
comprise just two percent of owners in the legal cannabis 
industry despite representing 13.6 percent of the population.
    To promote economic opportunities and restorative justice 
objectives, 15 states have implemented cannabis social equity 
programs. However, without addressing the barriers made 
insurmountable by Federal prohibition, no program is sufficient 
to enable small businesses to compete in an industry dominated 
by large operators and the unlicensed market.
    Ending prohibition is a critical step toward addressing the 
failed impacts of failed Federal drug policy. Today, less than 
10 percent of Americans support continuing the status quo. The 
majority of Democratic and Republican voters favor ending 
Federal prohibition, which requires descheduling. Rescheduling 
is recriminalizing; descheduling is decriminalizing.
    President Biden took a laudable step toward meaningful 
reform by prompting the review of the status of cannabis under 
the Controlled Substances Act. However, it was Congress that 
codified prohibition and the vast machinery of antidrug laws 
that sparked decades of disparate enforcement. Now Congress has 
the power and the obligation to comprehensively and 
thoughtfully correct it by focusing on sensible regulation and 
harm reduction.
    Fortunately, Congress has substantial opportunity for 
bipartisan reform. The three leading comprehensive proposals--
the States Reform Act, Cannabis Administration and Opportunity 
Act, and the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement 
Act--differ in their approach to ending prohibition but provide 
a sound basis for progress.
    The bills reveal common bipartisan aims to intentionally 
deschedule and not reschedule cannabis, provide true second 
chances for those impacted by prohibition, ensure low barriers 
to entry and support for small and minority-owned businesses, 
define a role for the Federal Government that respects diverse 
state regulatory frameworks, and thoughtfully and expeditiously 
transition to an interstate marketplace with support for new 
opportunities for small and minority owned businesses.
    From these areas of agreement, Congress can move forward to 
end prohibition and enact sensible cannabis laws. The American 
cannabis industry provides too many jobs, too many economic 
opportunities, and supports too many social and economic 
initiatives for Congress to remain at impasse.
    On behalf of GACC, thank you, Chairman Raskin, Ranking 
Member Mace, and committee members for this hearing on 
exploring bipartisan opportunities for reform.
    Last, thank you, Ranking Member Mace, for your thoughtful 
approach to protecting existing small businesses in the SRA and 
helping build this bridge for bipartisan collaboration.
    I look forward to the committee's questions.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Littlejohn, thank you very much for your 
testimony.
    And, Mr. Freedman, you're now recognized for yours.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW FREEDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION FOR 
           CANNABIS POLICY, EDUCATION, AND REGULATION

    Mr. Freedman. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member 
Mace, and distinguished members of the committee.
    As the former cannabis czar for the state of Colorado and a 
policy professional having advised nearly 20 governments, it is 
an honor to join today's discussion on the need for Federal 
cannabis reform.
    When Colorado voters approved a ballot initiative in 2012 
legalizing adult-use cannabis, the Then-Governor and present-
U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper appointed me to lead the state's 
efforts to implement its new law and to oversee the medical 
cannabis and hemp programs. I have had a front row seat to one 
of the most remarkable political phenomena and federalism 
experiments in modern American democracy.
    Last week, as we marked the 10th anniversary of Colorado's 
passage of its adult-use cannabis initiative, we saw voters in 
two more states legalize adult-use cannabis, including in the 
very red state of Missouri. Today, roughly half of Americans 
live in the 21 states and the District of Columbia that have 
legalized adult-use cannabis, and there are a total of 37 
states that have legalized cannabis for medicinal use. 
Prohibition is no longer the law of the land even as it remains 
Federal law.
    While voters from across the political spectrum agree that 
Federal prohibition has failed as badly as alcohol prohibition 
did a century ago, other motivations for legalization vastly 
vary. In the last 10 years, I have advised rural counties that 
were interested in licensing cultivation facilities so their 
farmers could participate in the market, large East Coast 
cities that were concerned with ensuring minority-owned 
businesses were first to get licensed, and states that 
prioritize safe access for medical cannabis patients. 
Throughout this work, one fact remained constant: states were 
critically hampered in achieving their goals and mitigating 
their concerns without Federal reform.
    So, in 2020, we founded the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, 
Education, and Regulation, or CPEAR, to embrace a simple 
reality: Cannabis reform is here to stay, and it is time for 
the Federal Government to institute regulatory, public health, 
public safety, and criminal justice policies that respect and 
align with the states.
    The coalition consists of members representing regulated 
industries, think tanks, government associations, public safety 
officials, medical and mental health professionals, financial 
services firms, and social equity organizations. Together, this 
coalition strives to be a trusted, data-driven resource for 
lawmakers and the larger stakeholder community.
    CPEAR does not advocate that a state should or should not 
legalize cannabis. States should remain free to determine what, 
if any, form of legalization they wish to pursue. But where 
states have decided to pursue cannabis reform and even in 
states where cannabis remains illicit, the Federal Government 
should provide regulatory guardrails. States are demanding 
this.
    This committee is asking the right question: How can 
changes to Federal law help the cannabis policy landscape? For 
instance, to combat driving under the influence of cannabis, 
Federal policy is critical to augment and improve drug 
recognition expertise, create universal intoxicating standards, 
and to fast track the implementation of new impairment 
detection technologies.
    Congress can combat youth misuse by supporting youth 
programming networks, establishing a national minimum 
purchasing age of 21, drawing upon best practices of point-of-
sale age verification, and restricting advertising that targets 
youth. To combat the illicit market, states have implemented 
track-and-trace inventory control systems to monitor cannabis 
products throughout the supply chain.
    Reform requires a unified Federal and state response. That 
means Federal reform efforts should supplement and integrate 
with existing state systems.
    There are dozens of issues where Federal engagement is 
critical, including addressing mental health concerns, 
conducting research, restricting unproven health claims, 
preventing substance abuse, known as cannabis-use disorder, and 
maintaining safe access for patients and veterans.
    This is not to say the entire Federal Government isn't 
paying attention. Ranking Member Mace, present today, has 
championed the States Reform Act, which provides a Federal 
regulatory framework for cannabis. Representative Ocasio-Cortez 
co-leads the Harnessing Opportunities by Pursuing Expungement, 
or HOPE, Act, an important bill for those impacted by 
prohibition. Both of these bills have CPEAR support.
    Ranking Member Comer has championed the Federal effort to 
provide regulatory clarity to the U.S. hemp industry. As 
Kentucky's commissioner of agriculture, he implemented hemp 
pilot programs permissible per the 2014 farm bill. He has 
secured provisions in 2018 farm bill for fully legalizing the 
crop. He has since conducted regulatory followup and oversight 
of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
    Today's hearing is a testament to your further commitment 
to get bipartisan Federal cannabis reform done right. To aid 
the committee in discussing cannabis reform, CPEAR has entered 
four policy papers into our written statement. These present a 
framework for small and minority-owned businesses, solutions 
for mental health and substance abuse, a plan to prevent youth 
misuse, and policies to combat driving under the influence of 
cannabis and other drugs.
    I thank you for your time today and look forward to 
answering any questions you may have today or in the future.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Freedman, thank you very much.
    I now recognize Ms. Snider for five minutes of your 
testimony.

   STATEMENT OF JILLIAN SNIDER, POLICY DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL 
         JUSTICE & CIVIL LIBERTIES, R STREET INSTITUTE

    Ms. Snider. Good morning, Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member 
Mace, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 
invitation to speak at this hearing. My name is Jillian Snider, 
and I am the policy director of Criminal Justice & Civil 
Liberties at the R Street Institute, which is a nonprofit, 
nonpartisan public policy research organization.
    In addition to my current role, I'm also a lecturer at John 
Jay College of Criminal Justice and a retired New York City 
police officer. I'm here to speak to you today about the 
critical nature of and growing bipartisan support for cannabis 
reform at the Federal level.
    For more than five decades, the United States has 
prioritized the prohibition of cannabis, but these efforts have 
been futile. As it stands, cannabis is the most widely used 
illegal substance in the United States. It is estimated that 55 
million Americans currently use marijuana. And recent polls 
indicate that more than 90 percent of the American public, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, support legalization for adult 
use of medicinal or recreational cannabis.
    Proposed Federal legislation indicates increased support 
for alternatives to Federal cannabis prohibition, which is 
critical to provide clarity on the overall legal status of 
cannabis. Currently, cannabis may be legal in one state and 
decriminalized in another, but because it is still prohibited 
at the Federal level, users or possessors of the substance are 
subjected to criminal penalty. This dual legality is 
problematic. It not only confuses the average citizen, but it 
also results in extremely varied approaches of policing.
    Federal prohibition and related enforcement efforts have 
intensified racial disparities, clogged court dockets, 
contributed to mass incarceration, devastated communities and 
families, proliferated an illegal drug market, diverted police 
resources from substantial threats in the community, increased 
the number of negative police-citizen encounters, produced an 
associated distrust of the police, and continues to weaken the 
police community relationships that are integral to reducing 
more serious and violent crime.
    Of course, the legalization of cannabis alone cannot solve 
all these issues, but the potential benefits of smart Federal 
legalization policy would outweigh the established consequences 
of prohibition.
    The widespread use of marijuana in the United States and 
its distinct lingering odor makes the substance especially 
prone to initiating police contact. During my policing career, 
I worked with the street-level narcotics enforcement unit and 
served on the anticrime unit which proactively looks to deter 
violent crime and illegal weapons possession.
    The smell of marijuana was often the predicate for the team 
and I initiating a citizen stop. And, while on rare occasions 
we uncovered additional crimes, many of them low level in 
nature, such as driving on a suspended license or having a 
warrant for an unpaid summons, the fact remains that most of 
these encounters did not result in the seizure of more serious 
drugs or dangerous weapons.
    Continued cannabis prohibition has contributed to the 
evisceration of community confidence in police and the criminal 
justice system. A 2020 poll found that, for the first time in 
27 years, the majority of Americans do not trust the police. 
When citizens lack faith that the police can keep them safe, 
violence escalates, street-level justice becomes preferred over 
police intervention, and public safety is sacrificed.
    Compounding the issue of low levels of community trust is 
the diminishing view of police legitimacy, which refers to the 
public support for their officers' authority to manage and 
resolve conflicts. The core principle of this mutual 
relationship is that the police have trust and confidence that 
the officers are honest and working diligently to keep them 
safe.
    If the police have the support of the public, citizens are 
more willing to defer to the authority of the police and 
believe that their actions are morally justified and 
appropriate to the circumstance. When police and the 
communities they serve collaborate, citizens are more willing 
to cooperate in efforts to prevent and respond to crime. This 
dynamic has the capacity to reduce neighborhood levels of crime 
and decrease opportunities for potential harm to police.
    Considering recent crime trends, focusing on anything other 
than violent crime is a distraction of law enforcement 
priorities. The United States must prioritize violent crime 
reduction in lieu of the emphasis on low-level cannabis 
enforcement to improve public safety. Smart, thoughtful 
cannabis legalization that is attune to the demands of the 
market and the needs of the people has the capacity to 
revolutionize our communities and their interactions with law 
enforcement.
    The Federal Government has the opportunity to end the war 
on cannabis. Ending cannabis prohibition can disrupt illegal 
drug markets, reduce violence, enhance public safety, lessen 
negative police/citizen interactions while restoring police 
legitimacy, and allow for reallocation of resources to quell 
the recent surge in homicides and other serious crime. 
Regardless of personal or moral perspectives, the Federal 
prohibition of cannabis is bad public policy.
    Thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Snider, thank you very much for your 
testimony.
    Next is Keeda Haynes. You are recognized for your five 
minutes.

  STATEMENT OF KEEDA HAYNES, SENIOR LEGAL ADVISOR, FREE HEARTS

    Ms. Haynes. Good morning. First of all, I would like to 
start by thanking Chair Raskin and Ranking Member Mace for 
inviting me to speak today, and to all the members of this 
subcommittee for your time and consideration of this important 
issue. My name is Keeda Haynes, and I am the senior legal 
adviser for Free Hearts, which is a national-based nonprofit 
that provides support, education, and advocacy for families 
impacted by incarceration.
    I'm also the Federal policy analyst for the National 
Council of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and 
Girls. I'm a former congressional candidate, and I served my 
national community as a public defender for over six and a half 
years.
    But, prior to that, I was 00017-011. While in college, my 
boyfriend asked if I would accept packages for his cell phones 
and pager company because no one would be at the store when the 
packages would be delivered. Turns out, those packages never 
contained cell phones and pagers but instead marijuana. I was 
indicted with 28 others. And, after a lengthy jury trial, I was 
acquitted of the actual marijuana conspiracy and other various 
charges. But, unfortunately, I was found guilty of aiding and 
abetting that conspiracy to distribute 100 to 400 kilograms of 
marijuana, and I was sentenced to seven years in Federal 
prison, two years above the mandatory minimum.
    After several appeals, I was finally released on December 
1st of 2006, after serving almost four years for a crime that I 
did not commit. Unfortunately, I had become a statistic, but I 
refused to become a permanent casualty. I attended law school, 
I passed the bar exam, and I eventually became a licensed 
attorney in the state of Tennessee.
    As a public defender, I regularly represented Black and 
Brown clients whose lives were turned upside down because of 
disproportionate marijuana arrests and convictions, giving me a 
view firsthand of the harm that was caused to them, their 
families, and our communities. Because of this, and my own 
personal experience, decriminalization of marijuana is 
extremely important to me.
    It is evident that the country has changed course with 
several states legalizing marijuana, President Biden's recent 
executive action, and bipartisan support in Congress for 
decriminalization. I applaud this shift, but more definitely 
needs to be done.
    The racial disparities in marijuana arrests and 
prosecutions and the harms inflicted upon Black and Brown 
communities is well documented. As Congress considers 
comprehensive marijuana reform, these racial disparities must 
be acknowledged where policies are created that alleviate the 
harm that has been caused, because marijuana reform is racial 
justice.
    Those of us with convictions on our record experience a 
range of collateral consequences that impact the ability to 
acquire jobs, housing, education, licenses, the right to bear 
arms, the right to vote, and, frankly, an individual's overall 
quality of life because of outdated and excessive prosecution.
    To correct the decades of injustice experienced at the 
hands of marijuana prohibition, our criminal records should 
automatically be expunged, restoring our rights to participate 
in society where we are no longer subjected to a host of 
collateral consequences or relegated to live as second-class 
shadow citizens.
    As for the thousands more still sitting in prison with 
marijuana convictions, some serving life, they should be 
released and have their records expunged or at the very least 
giving an opportunity to have their sentences reviewed and 
reduced.
    Most of us with Federal marijuana convictions have 
extremely complex cases. Some have convictions for conspiracy, 
distribution, manufacturing, or continuing criminal enterprise, 
where others may be convicted under RICO statutes or even 
money-laundering statutes, and still more, like myself, may be 
convicted under 18 U.S.C., section 2, the aiding and abetting 
statute. Without fully understanding the complexity of 
marijuana offenses and including adjacent offenses in marijuana 
reform, the full scale of harm that needs to be repaired will 
not be reached.
    I have experienced and seen firsthand the destruction of 
lives and the devastation of communities by marijuana 
prohibition, and I urge this committee and Congress to go 
beyond decriminalization and make a concerted effort to 
actually repair the damage that has been done. It is time for 
the United States to move past these failed marijuana practices 
of the past and to restore dignity and freedom to millions who 
have suffered under this prohibition.
    And, on a final but important note, again, I want to say 
thank you for including me and my directly impacted community 
in this hearing. The directly impacted community's voices are 
extremely important, as we have distinctive experiences, 
narratives, and perspectives resulting from our involvement 
within the criminal legal system, and we deserve to be heard 
and part of the healing and justice for our communities.
    So thank you again, and I look forward to any questions.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Haynes, thank you so much for your 
testimony.
    And I come now finally to The Honorable Randall Woodfin, 
who is the mayor of Birmingham, Alabama. You are recognized for 
your five minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RANDALL WOODFIN, MAYOR, CITY OF 
                      BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

    Mr. Woodfin. Chair Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, and members 
of the subcommittee, good morning, and thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on this important issue of reforming our 
cannabis laws.
    I serve as mayor of the city of Birmingham, Alabama, a 75-
percent Black city with a historic legacy of fighting for civil 
rights. And I accepted this invitation to testify because I 
believe that mayors have a very unique role to play in how we 
address this issue of ending the prohibition of cannabis.
    You know, ending the prohibition of cannabis has taken far 
too high of a human toll on Black and Brown communities. I also 
wanted to use this opportunity to urge Congress to pass during 
this lame duck session commonsense reforms that will expunge 
criminal records, normalize banking and financial services, and 
expand our ability to research cannabis.
    As mayor, I've taken action on this issue by using my 
pardon power to pardon over 23,000 individuals charged with 
possession of cannabis in the city of Birmingham. I've also 
encouraged our state government to take action on moving 
forward with cannabis decriminalization and the expungement of 
past convictions.
    I've commended Alabama's effort to move forward with a 
medical cannabis program, but I will also urge Alabama to go a 
step further in providing full adult recreational use for many 
of the reasons I will explain in detail.
    Mayors across our country have a meaningful role to play as 
many of us continue to push for cannabis legalization. As 
mayors, many of us can prioritize the enforcement of minor 
cannabis offenses, use our executive authorities for pardons, 
eliminate from consideration prior cannabis convictions from 
employment applications for city employment, and embrace 
cannabis as both the moral imperative and economic development 
opportunity that we know it can be.
    As mayor, I work closely with law enforcement in my city. 
And some of them may disagree with me on this issue, and I 
understand and respect their perspective, but I believe that 
our position on issues like cannabis legalization should be 
guided by the facts and the science. There is no evidence that 
legalization leads to appreciable increases in any form of 
crime. There is no evidence of increased drug use by teens in 
states that have already legalized cannabis.
    If anything, legalization actually frees up law 
enforcement's resources to pursue violent crime, a priority for 
every mayor in any urban core in our country. And legalization 
also provides state and local governments with sales taxes, 
business license fees, and property taxes that we can use to 
reinvest in our communities. And, while mayors can do a lot, 
truthfully we can't do it all. We need help from Washington.
    The Biden administration made a good first step in urging 
the Department of Justice and HHS to consider rescheduling or 
descheduling cannabis, and I firmly believe that descheduling 
is the best path forward. If cannabis is descheduled, it will 
make the legal status of cannabis clear across the country, 
effectively legalizing and disproportionately benefiting Black 
and Brown communities that have paid the human costs for the 
war on drugs.
    Any such relief of the cannabis industry should also come 
with robust restorative justice provisions. The Biden 
administration took the right first step, but it should be 
followed up with the Department of Justice aggressively 
processing the thousands of delayed clemency petitions for the 
thousands of Americans that have been unjustly incarcerated.
    There are other ways to incorporate equity considerations 
into this space, including research partnerships that give our 
land-grant HBCUs the same opportunity that the University of 
Mississippi has had for decades to research the medical uses of 
cannabis and license their research to pharmaceutical partners, 
providing special capital access programs for home-grown micro 
businesses and collectively owned cannabis, and leveraging 
entities like the Small Business Administration and the 
Minority Business Development Agency to provide capital access 
and technical assistance to minority-owned cannabis firms.
    As I've stated, mayors can do a lot, but we can only do so 
much. The state-by-state patchwork leaves too many Americans 
out of reach from the promise presented by ending the Federal 
prohibition on cannabis. Congress must act now during this lame 
duck session to get SAFE Plus done, because we need 
expungements, normalized banking and capital market access, and 
more research now. And Congress must push the Department of 
Justice to process far more clemency petitions such that every 
American unjustly incarcerated is released and given an 
opportunity to participate in this new industry.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I look 
forward to answering any of your questions.
    Mr. Raskin. Mayor Woodfin, thank you very much for your 
testimony.
    What awesome testimony across the board from all of you. I 
know the ranking member, Ms. Mace, and I both have a million 
questions for you, but we're eager to hear from our members, 
who are also champing at the bit.
    So I'm going to defer first to my distinguished colleague 
from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley. You're recognized for your 
five minutes.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, for your 
leadership. And I agree with you, excellent panel.
    Thank you, everyone, for lending your insightful expertise 
to this issue.
    Clearly, the failed war on drugs has sustained a mass 
incarceration crisis that has ravaged Black and Brown 
communities, destabilized our families, and inflicted truly 
intergenerational trauma. With marijuana arrests accounting for 
nearly half of all drug arrests, today's hearing really does 
underscore the need to combat this crisis by legalizing 
marijuana and repairing the harm of incarceration by providing 
pathways into the legal cannabis industry for those directly 
impacted.
    As the cannabis industry is projected to raise revenues of 
over $50 billion--that's with a ``B''--dollars by 2026, a 
recent report found that less than two percent of the industry 
is owned and operated by Black entrepreneurs. This is certainly 
a grave injustice.
    Ms. Littlejohn, would you just enumerate, for the purposes 
of the record, what are some of the top challenges that Black 
and Brown folks continue to face when seeking access to the 
cannabis industry?
    Ms. Littlejohn. Thank you, Congresswoman Pressley.
    Barriers to entry exist really from the outside. New 
entrants to the market commonly find that licenses are not 
available to newcomers, and if they are, they are rendered 
nearly impossible to secure due to tensions between state and 
Federal law.
    For example, in one state, to secure an adult-use cannabis 
license, you would need to come up with $3 million, but you 
would also need to meet low-income requirements at the same 
time. Many applicants are required to secure commercial 
property at 4 to 10 times the going rate and hold that property 
indefinitely with no promise of actually securing a license. 
And they do all of this without access to capital and Federal 
loans and services for small businesses.
    If they can actually get their doors open, they would face 
an effective tax rate of 70 to 90 percent, a lack of access to 
banking, insurance, and Federal IP protections. And together 
this makes it nearly impossible to navigate in a market that's 
made incredibly volatile both by Federal illegality and 
competition from unlicensed and unregulated operators.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Ms. Littlejohn. I appreciate you 
enumerating that and offering those very specific examples, 
which really does just speak to the fact that, first, we need 
laws that center healing and prioritize equity, but every law 
is only as good as its enforcement. And, also, it seems that, 
even with some of those laws, we still see these inequities 
being perpetuated. So thank you so much for your testimony.
    And I will lift up that, representing the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, that we did create the first in the Nation 
social equity program which does provide residents who are 
disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs with access to 
critical resources grants and low-or no-interest loans.
    Ms. Haynes, so good to see you, and thank you so much again 
for your testimony. Why is it beneficial to mandate equity 
provisions which help formerly incarcerated individuals?
    Ms. Haynes. Thank you for your question, Representative 
Pressley, and it is good to see you again as well.
    Again, as I stated in my testimony here and even in my 
written testimony, those of us that are directly impacted, we 
experience a host of collateral consequences. And just imagine, 
you know, being subjected to these collateral consequences 
while you were seeing particularly White men make billions off 
of the cannabis industry and to also see people freely using 
something that you are relegated to live as a second-class 
citizen for.
    And so it is with those things in mind, and so, you know, 
no, Congress will not be able to give me back the four years 
that I lost or any other time that anybody has lost, but by 
automatically expunging these convictions, again, like I said, 
so that we no longer have to live in the shadows in our 
community, will be able to help us to secure jobs where we can 
have meaningful jobs.
    It will help us to secure housing. It will help us to be 
able to get into the marijuana business if one so chooses, and 
it--and just to various other things. It will help us be able 
to regain our right to vote to participate in our democracy 
fully in this country. And so there's just a lot of things 
that, like I said, we are relegated to live as second-class 
citizens in this country because of marijuana convictions.
    And so it is just extremely important that it is automatic 
expungement, not something that we have to go through the 
courts for, because some people might not be able to afford 
lawyers and, you know, all of those different things. It is 
something that should be automatically done for those of us who 
have, you know, experienced collateral consequences because of 
the prohibition on marijuana.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you for being as precise as the laws 
that caused the harm. So I appreciate your being so instructive 
there and comprehensive in your response.
    Ms. Littlejohn----
    Mr. Raskin. Actually, the gentlelady's time is expired. 
We'll see if we might be able to do a second round. Thank you, 
Ms. Pressley.
    Ms. Pressley. OK. All right. I'll stay tuned.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. Stay tuned. I know everybody has got 
a million questions here.
    I'm delighted to come to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas.
    Mr. Sessions, you are now recognized as the first 
questioner on the minority side for your five minutes.
    Mr. Sessions. Chairman, thank you very much. I did request 
that time a few minutes ago, and I appreciate the gentleman 
living up to that.
    We talk about this issue as being bipartisan, but I think 
we also need to include all the facts of the case. If you look 
at CDC, provisional data from CDC indicates that there were an 
estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States 
during a 12-month period ending in April 2021, a 28.5-percent 
increase from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year 
before. The new data that estimated drug overdoses to 75,000 in 
a 12-month period ended April 2021, up from 56,000 the year 
before. So we're now headed to increase that substantially.
    Marijuana and drugs are crippling. They cause addiction. 
They cause crime, and they cause mental issues. And today I 
think it's important for us to know as people attack the police 
department, police are there to help secure communities to save 
people, to save people from criminals and dangerous products. 
During my lifetime, we've gone to where we stopped allowing 
cigarette smoking in public but now openly allow marijuana to 
be just used all over the place in communities that cause harm.
    In the state of New York, in the year 2000, they 
implemented criminal justice legislation whereby it eliminated 
cash bail for nonviolent felonies, and yet a man was arrested 
just a few weeks ago with 20,000 fentanyl pills--each of the 
pills would be expected under that man's thinking to be broken 
up and used a number of times, but 20,000 fentanyl pills--was 
arrested. No bail. He was let free.
    It is important that we look at the facts of the case about 
what marijuana does to children, to families, to women.
    Last year, more drivers experienced serious crashes or 
deaths with cannabis in their system than any other drug. In 
2020, 27 percent of drivers who were injured or killed in a 
motor vehicle crash tested positive for marijuana. The bottom 
line is it is addictive. It is addictive in causing people to 
live their daily lives not only with marijuana but with these 
dangerous potencies.
    Cannabis potency rose every year on an average by 0.29 
percent from 1970 to 2017, meaning, it is true, when I was in 
high school, that it was far, far less, hundreds of times less 
potent. Today there are marketplaces that increase THC to 
increase not only the high but also that rate that would cause 
addiction.
    Mr. Sessions. It is important for us to know that the most 
popular strains in Colorado ranged from 17 percent to 28 
percent THC by 2017--a 400 percent increase from 1970.
    The product is being marketed, the product is being sold, 
the product is being advocated by people who are in it to make 
money. Slavery made money also and was a terrible circumstance 
that this country and the world went through for many, many 
years.
    I began watching ``Drugs, Inc.'', which is a 6-year or 7-
year program that is on National Geographic, and they talk 
about both sides of the drug industry. They talk about how 
these drug dealers go make money: They carry weapons; they 
threaten people; they kill people; they kill families.
    This is what the industry is. It is not the pretty 
opportunity that has been presented today. Over 300 people 
between the ages of 18 to 35 die every day of drug overdose.
    We hear today veterans. And I appreciate the gentleman for 
his service and other veterans who have taken time to be here 
today to present their story, and we do respect you for your 
service. But it is important to note that the reason why the VA 
does not want to allow this is because no more than they do 
want to do surgery or help a drunk person. They require a 
person to dry out.
    It takes about 30 days before marijuana is out of your 
system. And many of the issues that these people deal with with 
the VA are related to receptors, things that cause pain in 
their body. Marijuana THC directly affects receptors, which 
means that false positives or not the real circumstance would 
be understood by a treating physician at the VA.
    And so they don't, just like they don't want to treat a 
person who's drunk, they don't want to treat people and get 
something that is not the actual occurrence.
    So, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that next time that there 
would be one of these hearings that more facts of the case 
about the open harm to our children, to our communities, to 
this country, of the people who are able to go to work, of the 
people who provide transportation.
    And all I can tell you is I got involved in this years ago 
when there were many deaths on our highways and in our train 
systems because people were high. And whether it's high off 
alcohol or high off marijuana or high off heroin, people lose 
their life.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Sessions, for all those 
provocative insights. And I hope we'll get to address them----
    Mr. Sessions. Well, I still have 1:58 remaining.
    Mr. Raskin. No, I think you're 1:58 over.
    Mr. Sessions. Oh, 1:58----
    Mr. Raskin. But that's all right.
    Mr. Sessions. Well, I thank the gentleman very much.
    Mr. Raskin. We wanted to hear from you, and we thank you 
for your thoughts.
    Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. The chair of the full Oversight Committee has 
joined us. Mrs. Maloney is here.
    I'm going to recognize you for your five minutes.
    Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 
for having this important hearing.
    I would like to ask Mr. Armentano, although there is no 
Federal law that prohibits banks from serving the cannabis 
industry, current regulations require extensive and costly 
reporting and impose fines for procedural missteps. This 
obviously discourages banks from working with businesses in the 
cannabis industry, leaving many of these businesses without any 
access to banking services.
    So, Mr. Armentano, can you expand on why banks are so 
reluctant to take on above-board cannabis companies as 
customers?
    Mr. Armentano. Thank you for that question. I am happy to 
expound upon that.
    Banks and other financial institutions and credit unions 
are largely discouraged from working with these cannabis-
related businesses that are licensed at the state level by the 
simple fact that cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled 
substance. And it is that categorization that has been in place 
since 1970 that discourages these institutions from taking on 
these businesses. They are worried that at some point in time 
they may run afoul of Federal law, they may be prosecuted for 
things like money laundering.
    Look, in even my own personal experience there have been 
times where NORML, a nonprofit advocacy organization that 
simply works to reform cannabis laws, has struggled to obtain 
banking and credit card services and has lost those services. I 
know other advocacy reform organizations that have as well. And 
we don't even touch the cannabis plant, and we certainly are 
not engaged in any retail sales of the cannabis plant.
    So that gives you some idea of what the environment is like 
and why, in fact, we know, according to the Department of 
Treasury, that currently only about 11 percent of banks and 
four percent of credit unions are willing to provide, 
transparently provide services to the literally thousands of 
state-licensed cannabis businesses and the ancillary services 
in this industry as well.
    Mrs. Maloney. Now, turning to you, Mr. Freedman.
    In your time as Colorado's first marijuana czar, what 
economic impact, both on companies and customers, did you 
observe when legal cannabis companies were unable to access 
banks?
    And also, you know that the Congressman from Colorado, 
Congressman Perlmutter, has advocated a Federal law to allow 
banking services to those states that have legalized marijuana.
    Could you comment on both of these issues please?
    Mr. Freedman. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    So at the beginning of us instituting or implementing 
cannabis legalization in Colorado, it was the situation where 
there would literally be duffel bags full of cash that could 
not get paid--that could not be entered into depository 
institutions. We had to get a larger window for receiving cash 
for state taxes.
    There was a lot of good news. People were very happy about 
the amount of tax revenue that was coming in and how these 
businesses were doing. But there was certainly a scary time 
where merchant services hadn't stepped up.
    We, fortunately, did have a number of community banks in 
Colorado that have since stepped up and done that sort of 
banking. And merchant services now are largely taking care of, 
although at a cost, in Colorado as those community banks go 
forward. And Representative Perlmutter has really been the 
leader on this issue with safe banking and with other issues.
    And I think it points to a larger issue in cannabis, which 
is commonsense public health and public safety issues, such as 
banking, such as insurance, and even things like proper 
pesticide use. And none of those things can really be addressed 
because they're all overseen by the Federal Government unless 
we're dealing with the world of descheduling and regulation.
    Thank you for your question.
    Mrs. Maloney. OK. Thank you.
    And turning back to Mr. Armentano, many advocates argue 
that the Federal Government should regulate cannabis like 
alcohol and respect state decisions on their use and 
possession.
    Canada was the first country to develop national 
regulations to limit the potency of edible marijuana products, 
reflecting the wider concern about the potential for misuse 
from overconsumption of high-strength products. The U.S. has a 
nationwide cannabis industry which requires similar national 
regulations.
    So, again, Mr. Armentano, what are the strengths and 
limitations of existing U.S. policies compared to other 
policies like those in Canada?
    Canadian law also attempts to prevent children from 
accessing legal marijuana products. For example, they banned 
sales through vending machines and packaging that might appeal 
to you.
    So your comments please.
    Mr. Raskin. And the gentlelady's time has expired, but you 
can answer the question, Mr. Armentano.
    Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Raskin. You bet.
    Mr. Armentano. Thank you.
    So with respect to Canada's policy, Canada does provide 
some basic national regulations, but regionally the provinces 
make the bulk of the decisions with respect to how cannabis is 
regulated.
    For instance, in some provinces private retailers can 
engage in cannabis sales. In other provinces it's limited only 
to government. The equivalent in Canada is equivalent to ABC 
stores.
    Provinces set the age limit in Canada. The Federal 
Government does not. In some provinces the age limit is 21. In 
other provinces the legal limit to use cannabis is 18.
    So it's a very in some ways similar system to what we're 
seeing right now in the United States where it's a bit of a 
patchwork system, and that's because, again, in Canada 
provinces largely can set their own regional cannabis 
regulatory policies, much like in the United States. By 
default, states have been setting their own localized cannabis 
regulations.
    And, of course, these regulations are in place by the 
states to do things like discourage underage use. All of the 
states impose a 21 and older age limit. In fact, studies have 
been done in Colorado, in California, in Oregon where they test 
to see if regulators are actually checking for IDs before 
people enter retailers or are sold cannabis. In some of these 
instances, like in California, studies have found 100 percent 
compliance with these age impositions and ID restrictions, 
higher compliance than we see with alcohol.
    The final thing I would say with regard to potency is 
states right now certainly have the ability under a regulatory 
legal system to regulate the potency of certain cannabis 
products. Some states go ahead and do this. Montana has a 
potency cap right now. Vermont has a potency cap on THC right 
now. Connecticut imposes a potency cap. Other states, like 
California, don't necessarily impose caps on potency, but they 
impose caps on serving size, so there's only so many milligrams 
of THC allowed in certain products.
    Again, we want to have regulation----
    Mr. Raskin. I'm going to impose a cap on time, 
unfortunately, if that's all right, Mr. Armentano.
    Mr. Armentano. Of course. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. But thank you for that thorough answer.
    And now, by the forbearance of the ranking member, I am 
going to recognize our friend from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
    Mr. Higgins. I thank the chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I personally strongly advise young Americans 
that I speak to all the time, before Congress and as a cop, 
that it's a part of the narrative of our country regarding 
marijuana and its impact. And I personally strongly advise 
young Americans to refrain from even the limited use of modern, 
super-high THC marijuana in any form. It's just too powerful. I 
have seen scientific analysis showing THC levels as much as 
two, three, four thousand times the average THC level from 
marijuana of the seventies. It's just not your grandfather's 
weed anymore.
    However, that being stated, I'm a constitutionalist, and I 
support the freedom of individual Americans to determine their 
best course of action for medical treatment. So I publicly have 
supported for years the Veteran Administration's access to 
prescribe medical marijuana for our veterans.
    So, Mr. Goepel, I'm going to move to you in a second.
    Because, Mr. Chairman, you are a constitutional scholar. 
And we discussed before, we face a very real constitutional 
quandary in America. You have Federal restrictions of 
marijuana, it's a Schedule I drug, and yet we have our 
sovereign states have legalized marijuana or decriminalized it 
to some level across the country.
    We can just not continue to ignore the fact that we have to 
address this constitutionally. And, personally, I think it 
could be a very good idea, certainly it would be subject for 
debate, perhaps in the 118th Congress, perhaps in this 
committee, to talk about rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III 
or even IV.
    But for Mr. Goepel, I am particularly concerned about my 
veteran brothers and sisters having access to whatever medicine 
that they determine is best to treat their condition, whether 
it's pain management or PTSD, whatever the case may be.
    Marijuana is currently a Schedule I controlled substance. 
So just to clarify for America, it is currently unavailable to 
veterans through VA health facilities. Is that correct, sir?
    Mr. Goepel. Yes, VA doctors who are in the position of 
being Federal employees are barred from discussing--well, they 
can discuss, but they cannot do anything more than discuss----
    Mr. Higgins. Exactly. Thank you for clarifying that. But 
there are clearly potential benefits of medical marijuana for 
veterans. Again, we're not talking about high school children, 
we're not talking about young Americans in college that want to 
experiment and party. I completely discourage that behavior. 
We're talking about mature veteran men and women who have some 
form of service-related condition that they need to treat, and 
clearly there are potential benefits for medical marijuana for 
veterans who are suffering chronic conditions.
    Would you address, Mr. Goepel, like what happens in the 
real world on the street when a veteran figures out that it may 
be his best course of action to use marijuana medically to 
treat his condition, but he cannot access it from the VA 
legally? How does that veteran get his dope?
    Mr. Goepel. So it depends on their state of residence. I 
mean, if they are one of the 150 million Americans in a legal 
state, then there's a process by which adults can purchase THC 
products. Pretty much every veteran has access to----
    Mr. Higgins. Right, but technically that puts them in 
violation of Federal law.
    Mr. Goepel. Exactly.
    Mr. Higgins. Which brings us back to the constitutional 
quandary that we must address in this body. And I look forward 
to working with my colleagues across the aisle. It might be the 
one thing we can completely agree on.
    I have been advised that the States Reform Act protects 
states' rights, protects vets, regulates labeling for potency 
concentration.
    So having been a spokesman for my colleagues here, let me 
not forget to introduce on behalf of my colleague, 
Representative Biggs, if I may for the record, Mr. Chairman, a 
statement by an organization called Smart Approaches to 
Marijuana.
    Mr. Raskin. Without any objection at all.
    Mr. Higgins. So, Mr. Goepel, in my final 15 seconds here, 
do you have a word for America regarding what Congress should 
do for marijuana as it regards our veterans? Go.
    Mr. Goepel. I would say that because veterans are in that 
special quandary being a population that receives Federal 
healthcare, there is no other option other than descheduling, 
because without descheduling you are still criminalizing some 
forms of possession and denying veterans the access that they 
need.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I thank all the panelists. I very much appreciate you being 
here.
    And I yield, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Higgins, for your 
questioning.
    I am now delighted to recognize the vice chair of the Civil 
Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And 
we're going to see whether we can bring Mr. Higgins and Ms. 
Ocasio-Cortez together for a true harbinger of a different 
future.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, you are recognized for your five 
minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
thank you for convening a hearing on bipartisan consensus on 
cannabis reform. Check to see if there are pigs growing wings 
in this country, because I do believe that there actually may 
be some consensus here on the opposing sides of the aisle on 
this issue.
    But I do want to begin actually with President Biden's 
order, executive order, from last month. On October 6, 
President Biden announced that he would pardon some, not all, 
simple Federal marijuana possession convictions. And while the 
spirit of this executive order should absolutely be applauded, 
I do believe that issue experts have rightly pointed out that 
there is necessary action needed from Congress and state 
governments to actually fulfill the true impact and live up to 
the spirit of that order.
    In fact, the White House itself and the U.S. Sentencing 
Committee reported that there are currently actually only zero 
people currently in Federal custody for simple possession of 
marijuana.
    Now, Mayor Woodfin, an important distinction here is that 
President Biden issued pardons, not expungements, which is not 
necessarily within his purview.
    You, as mayor of Birmingham, have also issued a large 
degree of pardons and we thank you for that. But can you 
quickly explain the difference between a pardon and an 
expungement?
    Mr. Woodfin. Congresswoman OC, yes, ma'am, I can.
    And, Mr. Chairman, just briefly before I answer the 
Congresswoman's question, words matter. And while I'm on 
record, I would just like to say to you directly, your 
committee member's putting cannabis and slavery in the same 
category is patently offensive and flagrant. So I wanted to 
state that.
    But related to the Congresswoman's question, pardons, as 
you know, are at the executive level. So President, Governors, 
mayors. And that allows us to set aside penalties, or if one is 
actually incarcerated at any level, city, county jail, state, 
or Federal, that they can immediately be released.
    But the expungement is extremely important because that's 
more at the judicial level. And even if you pardon me, if I 
applied for a job, for instance, the record that I was--that 
this can still be on my record. But, more importantly, the 
arrest.
    So the expungement of the judicial process allows a 
person's entire record to be concealed. That's not only the 
actual charge, but that it also includes the arrest.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Thank you for both those 
points, Mayor Woodfin.
    And so for folks following at home, a pardon may reduce or 
decrease the penalty of a crime, but an expungement is actually 
what wipes that slate clean, correct?
    Mr. Woodfin. That is correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And if you have that criminal record 
without that expungement, it's harder to get a job, correct?
    Mr. Woodfin. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Harder to qualify for affordable 
housing?
    Mr. Woodfin. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Harder to access financial aid for 
education.
    Mr. Woodfin. Also correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And so what you're saying, Mayor 
Woodfin, is that a criminal record for marijuana use can still 
effectively bar you from participating in much of society 
without that expungement, correct?
    Mr. Woodfin. Unfortunately, yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
    Now, last year, to the chairman's point, I actually 
introduced a bipartisan bill with Congressman Joyce of Ohio to 
help fix this issue for the Federal Government to actually 
begin creating grants to hand to states and local 
municipalities to actually fulfill and carry through that 
process of expunging criminal records for the tens of millions 
of Americans who have been previously convicted of marijuana 
offenses. And I want to restate that number: tens of millions.
    That has impacts on our democracy, on our economy, on our 
state of housing, and our ability to participate in public 
institutions.
    Now, while President Biden's pardon is a step in the right 
direction, as we have just heard from Mayor Woodfin, it can't 
be where we stop. Past marijuana convictions must be expunged, 
federally and locally.
    But also I'd like to finish off with Mr. Armentano. I also 
want to discuss who was left out of that order, which was 
undocumented people who were charged with simple possession of 
marijuana.
    Now, we know that while pardons may not have the full 
benefit of expungement, Mr. Armentano, what is the difference 
to someone in an immigration proceeding and who possibly may be 
deported in having that pardon versus not having that pardon?
    Mr. Armentano. I'm not an expert on immigration policy, but 
certainly I'm well aware of expungements and their importance.
    I'm also aware of where this policy you're referring to 
comes from. It was a provision that was added in 1996 as part 
of sweeping antiterrorism legislation.
    This idea that we're somehow making America safer by giving 
the Federal Government the ability to deport people with green 
cards simply because they consumed cannabis, in some cases 
legally, in their state or because they're working in the 
state-licensed cannabis industry, that was an absurd policy to 
pass then. I believe it's still an absurd policy to have in 
place now. And I'm glad to see your leadership and efforts, 
Representative Mace's efforts to try to address this issue. I 
know there's provisions in the MORE Act that specifically speak 
to remedying this situation.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much.
    And I yield back to the chair.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
    Now I'm going to recognize the minority ranking member, Ms. 
Mace, for her five minutes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I have a few questions that I would like to get 
through. So I'm just going to ask our participants just to try 
to keep it as brief so I can ask as many questions as I can.
    My first question I'd like to direct to NORML, Paul 
Armentano, if you don't mind.
    There has been some discussion today about taking into 
consideration some of the issues when it comes to packaging. 
And so if you could just speak to the importance of legislation 
that's responsible, maybe at the Federal level, looking at how 
we can prohibit the marketing and advertising to kids, either 
in labeling or packaging, what that would look like and the 
importance of that responsibility.
    Mr. Armentano. Thank you.
    As you well know, right now those sort of decisions with 
regard to regulations on marketing and packaging, labeling, 
even testing, are a patchwork system. They're regulated by the 
individual states. So you will have some states that may have 
greater regulations or other states with lesser regulations.
    We would like to see uniform regulations when it comes to a 
number of these matters, such as labeling, such as testing, 
such as packaging, very similar to what we have right now with 
regard to alcohol.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    My next question goes to Mr. Goepel. I know that today 
already we've talked some of the increases, major increases in 
drug overdoses. Fentanyl, heroin, opioids, et cetera, would be 
those examples.
    But can you tell us today just exactly, every year since 
2017, basically, what has been the leading cause of overdose 
deaths, in terms of drugs? And how many deaths have there been 
from marijuana overdoses?
    Mr. Goepel. So I don't believe the CDC, DEA, NIDA, or any 
other Federal agency has ever directly associated a fatal 
overdose with cannabis.
    Ms. Mace. That means zero, right?
    Mr. Goepel. Zero, yes.
    Ms. Mace. Zero overdose deaths related to cannabis.
    Mr. Goepel. According to the Federal Government.
    Ms. Mace. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Goepel. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. And I would agree. Thank you.
    And then Ms. Littlejohn. And thank you, I love Gaffney and 
the Gaffney Peach.
    But can you talk to us a little bit about, I guess, in 
terms of commerce, how do we ensure that consumers know what 
they're buying and ingesting? We've talked in here a little bit 
about labeling, concentration, potency. Some thoughts on the 
importance of having some consistency there.
    Ms. Littlejohn. Well, that, the first step, is legalizing 
and creating a framework where there are standards. And so 
every state that has legalized cannabis has strict packaging 
and labeling requirements. And the primary purpose of these 
marketing and labeling requirements is to protect the public 
and keep these products out of the hands of children.
    And so the legalization process provides a mechanism for us 
to call upon the extensive experience that we have both through 
TTB and other agencies and really creating policies that cannot 
impede commerce while still keeping the public safe.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    Ms. Snider, I have a question for you this morning as well. 
The opioid crisis. Huge crisis. We've heard about some of that 
this morning. Some of the studies that I've read, including in 
the Journal of American Medicine right here that I'm going to 
hold up and ask that we enter into the record by unanimous 
consent momentarily, but what I have read were there's one 
dispensary in a state that stood up that opioid addiction, and 
morbidity could be decreased by upwards of almost 20 percent in 
the states where it was studied over a decade ago.
    So could you just speak to a little bit about the opioid 
crisis, the role of cannabis, and preventing some of those 
deaths in addiction via cannabis?
    Ms. Snider. Good morning, Congresswoman. Thank you for the 
question.
    So as you said, in states in which they have opened at 
least one dispensary, you have seen a substantial decrease in 
opioid-related deaths. And recent studies have shown that 
opioid-related hospital visits additionally have subsided 
substantially in jurisdictions in which recreational and 
medicinal cannabis have been legalized.
    Ms. Mace. Great.
    And then my last question will go back to Ms. Littlejohn 
this morning.
    Cartels and drugs, they're making billions of dollars every 
year. Some of your thoughts on how we can reduce the proclivity 
for illicit markets continuing in the United States, the 
importance of reducing that, maybe by lower taxes or by 
regulations and greater accessibility to higher quality 
cannabis for folks. But can you speak to the best way that the 
Federal Government can ensure that we crush the illicit market?
    Ms. Littlejohn. The two biggest factors perpetuating the 
illicit market--the unregulated or unlicensed market--are high 
Federal taxes--high taxes--and the lack of interstate commerce. 
Because the unregulated market has both. Our country is flooded 
with cannabis from the West Coast. And so allowing individuals 
and legal companies to compete in that environment and to 
compete with tax rates that are actually reasonable is critical 
to their continued existence.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to request unanimous consent to 
enter this article that appeared in the Journal of American 
Medicine that talked about the rate and reduction of opioid 
overdoses, mortality, and addiction with cannabis into the 
record.
    Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you for your questioning.
    And I will now come to the distinguished gentlelady from 
the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for your five minutes of 
questioning.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important 
hearing.
    Last month President Biden announced a blanket pardon for 
everyone with a conviction for simple marijuana possession 
under Federal and District of Columbia law. This is a very 
welcome announcement.
    But I would be remiss if I did not use this opportunity to 
once again speak about the unique and undemocratic position of 
the District of Columbia regarding both marijuana and clemency.
    Under current law there is an appropriations rider that 
prohibits the District of Columbia from spending its local 
funds on commercializing recreational marijuana. Recreational 
marijuana is legal in D.C., but Congress prohibits D.C. from 
taxing and regulating the sale.
    Prohibiting D.C. from creating a marijuana regulatory 
regime, just like the states and territories can do, is a 
violation of home rule and is harmful.
    Another violation of D.C. home rule is that the President--
the President--exercises authority to grant clemency with D.C. 
crimes. Like the states and territories, D.C. should have the 
authority to grant clemency for its own crimes.
    I'm grateful that last month this committee reported out my 
District of Columbia Home Rule Expansion Act, which would, 
among other things, give D.C. the exclusive authority to grant 
clemency for D.C. crimes.
    Ms. Haynes, as someone who has been directly impacted by 
the Federal criminalization of marijuana, I would like to ask 
about your reaction to President Biden's pardons. What is the 
effect of the announcement for people who were previously 
convicted? How will it change their lives.
    Ms. Haynes. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
    I think, pretty much like everyone that has talked about 
President Biden's executive action last month, it was a great 
first step, but I definitely feel that more needs to be done.
    It will be extremely impactful for those individuals who 
will be able to reap the benefits of this. They do have a 
pardon, but as it was explained, the difference between a 
pardon and an expungement. So we do need to go a little bit 
further and to expunge those convictions as well too.
    But it will open up some doors for people that have been 
closed simply because of all of the collateral consequences 
that those of us who do have marijuana convictions are 
subjected to.
    And, again, like I said, I would just urge the President, 
urge Congress to go further because this was a very limited 
number of people that are impacted, and there are so many 
others like myself and those that are still incarcerated that 
do have felonies on our record that are marijuana related, and 
we deserve to have the harm reduced to us as well as those that 
have simple possession misdemeanor marijuana offenses.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you.
    Mr. Armentano, while President Biden's pardons were an 
important step forward, there are remaining issues that would 
be solved by a full deschedulization of marijuana, as the last 
witness has just spoken, and expungement of past convictions 
for all.
    For example, under the blanket pardon, anyone who was not a 
citizen or permanent resident at the time of their conviction 
was exempted.
    So, Mr. Armentano, what are your thoughts on this 
exemption?
    Mr. Armentano. Like others, I do want to praise the 
President for taking the action that he took. I thought it was 
an incredibly powerful statement to have the arguably most 
powerful elected official in this country, if not the world, to 
call out marijuana prohibition as a 50-year failure.
    Look, at the end of the day, as has been said by others, 
there's been over 29 million Americans arrested for marijuana-
related violations in this country. The overwhelming majority 
of those arrests occurred at the state and local level.
    The President does not have the power to pardon or expunge 
those records. That needs to be done at the state level. And 
I'm very glad to see that now almost two dozen states have 
enacted specific legislation at that state level to facilitate 
that expungement process and that about 2 million Americans 
have had those records expunged under that process.
    We think there would be even more states taking these 
opportunities if marijuana was descheduled federally and if 
there was legislation enacted to provide better funding and to 
facilitate that process at the state level. Ultimately, that's 
what needs to happen to impact the overwhelming or the most 
number of Americans who are suffering from the stigma of a 
criminal conviction.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Norton, for your questioning.
    We'll now next go to the distinguished gentlelady from 
Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, for her five minutes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman Raskin, for this 
incredibly important bipartisan hearing.
    And thank you to our folks who are coming out to testify 
about this.
    I know despite states' efforts to legalize and 
decriminalize marijuana possession, arrests and criminal 
charges for marijuana possession continue in a significant 
number of states.
    And, Mayor Woodfin, I remember reading about, during the 
pandemic, that your state was trying to actually build a 
prison, if I'm not mistaken, with COVID dollars. I know, I 
think it was, I don't know, millions of dollars that they were 
pushing away from, obviously, public health during the public 
health crisis, the pandemic, toward building yet another new 
prison. Is that correct?
    Mr. Woodfin. Unfortunately, yes. I believe about 400 
million.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes. I think it's one of your top--the state 
budget is predominantly corrections, correct?
    Mr. Woodfin. Yes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes, in Michigan, the same thing. We're spending 
like $60,000 or more per person that we're incarcerating, 
something that we could actually be using toward other 
resources like education. We're having a lot of issues 
regarding public health disparities in our state.
    And I know our state, Michigan, is moving in the right 
direction. We have a Governor that is incredibly sympathetic 
and also leading with compassion and understanding the 
importance of decriminalization in this moment.
    You know, Alabama again ranks 16th in the Nation of the 
largest racial disparities of any arrests regarding marijuana 
possession. Can you talk about what that looks like for many of 
your residents right now?
    Mr. Woodfin. I think the city of Birmingham has attempted 
successfully to go in the opposite direction that our state is 
going in related to this topic.
    Prior to being mayor, I served as a lawyer and prosecutor 
for the city, so I saw it firsthand, the type of charges that 
came through our courts at the circuit level and at the 
municipal level.
    But since I've been in this position what we have tried to 
do is reverse course on that. That's why we did--we attempted 
to create a Pardons for Progress program at first, but what we 
saw is that the average citizen either didn't understand or 
want to participate in a process, which is why we then moved 
to, less than the year of starting that program, of just a 
blanket pardon.
    And so we are now going back to those same people we 
pardoned to assist in the expungement process because, again, 
expungement is a process and most of our citizens don't 
understand that. They believe the pardon gives them a free 
slate.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
    Mr. Woodfin. But if they literally go apply for a job now, 
that arrest record is still on their record that a potential 
employer can see.
    And so this is--it's been a journey and a process for us. I 
have shared with other mayors across the state that they should 
use their executive power to pardon their citizens within their 
individual cities. But in addition to that, I have also 
encouraged the Governor to, at a minimum, even if you don't 
want to legalize it, you should decriminalize it.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes, absolutely. I can't agree more.
    Even though I think some of our states are moving in the 
right direction, unlike Alabama, I know that--and I think this 
is why the committee is so important--I mean, 40 percent of all 
drug arrests right now nationwide is still around marijuana 
possession. I mean, that is still a significant amount of 
criminalization that is still happening across our country. And 
we need to really understand and pay attention, because see 
these ballot measures going on, people-driven? But the actual 
implementation is what's missing.
    And it's incredibly upsetting for me to see especially my 
Black neighbors continue to have impacts on their lives.
    And, Ms. Haynes, I know my good colleague from New York 
talked about the long-term impacts. But can you talk about--
because it's fines, it's a number of things. Because even when 
it's decriminalization, they still have to actually pay some of 
those fines and some of the things that they were--some of the 
punishment or whatever they did during the court process. Can 
you talk a little bit about that?
    Ms. Haynes. Yes. So some of the collateral consequences for 
having a conviction, and even sometimes in order to be able to 
apply for a pardon, is that you have to have paid up all of you 
legal debt.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
    Ms. Haynes. Which does include fees and fines that could be 
associated with these convictions. And sometimes if you do not 
pay these fees and fines that are associated with these 
convictions, in a lot of states you will lose your driver's 
license as well too.
    And so there are a lot of things that stem from the legal 
debt that people have to pay when it comes to the collateral 
consequences of a conviction. And it's important that we talk 
about that because, again, there are some mandatory fines that 
are associated with that. And a lot of times what we see is 
that people are not able to afford that. And so this continues 
to perpetuate this cycle of poverty within the criminal legal 
system that we are constantly fighting against.
    Ms. Tlaib. Well, thank you.
    And, Mr. Armentano, I met with the Unified U.S. Deported 
Veterans Resource Center out in Tijuana, and I could not 
believe I shook the hands of folks that grew up in the United 
States, served our country in the military, that was deported 
on some small amounts of marijuana. A number of issues. Again, 
green card holders, yes. But I was completely shocked.
    And, Chairman, I would love for our committee to actually 
meet with some of those veterans.
    Right across the border. It was horrifying to hear them, 
many of which have never set foot in Mexico, had served our 
country, sacrificed their life, and our country deported them 
on possession of marijuana. And I think it's something that we 
should all work together on to try to address.
    But it is something that I think we should continue to 
highlight, how unjust and really the targeting that happened 
in, I think, especially in communities of color.
    With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Mr. Raskin. And thank you for your eloquent statement.
    It looks like I'm next.
    Well, thank you all for really an extraordinary set of 
witness statements today.
    The country between 1919 and 1933 had its experiment with 
alcohol prohibition. And if you read some of the literature 
about it, for example, a great book I read called ``Last Call'' 
by I think it's Michael Okrent, you'll find that prohibition 
succeeded basically in building up organized crime in America 
and organized criminal groupings, which got very rich and 
succeeded in corrupting the police, the judiciary, and so on, 
and basically set the society at war against itself.
    And when we repealed prohibition, it wasn't because of a 
unanimous feeling that alcohol was good for everybody in all 
circumstances, but simply that the cost and the harms of 
criminalizing alcohol were far worse than giving people the 
right to make their own choices about their lives.
    And I think we're very much in the same place today, and 
we're also hearing some of the same propaganda and hysteria 
about marijuana that people invoked in a last ditch effort to 
save prohibition.
    Ms. Snider, let me come to you. Back to this point about 
overdoses, because we heard a lot about overdoses, and I had 
actually introduced the medical marijuana law in Maryland and 
decriminalization in Maryland. And one of the witnesses got up 
and cited an article saying that in the 24 hours after Colorado 
legalized marijuana, 37 people died of marijuana overdoses, and 
then proceeded to launch into a diatribe about the horrors of 
marijuana legalization.
    Well, it turned out that he was quoting from The Onion or 
another comedy website and a staff member brought me the 
article that he was quoting from.
    And I didn't want to embarrass him, but I did say, ``Would 
this change your opinion, if you knew that this article was 
false?''
    And he said, ``Well, I would certainly have to rethink my 
position a lot,'' but, of course, then went on to make other 
arguments.
    But I guess the question that I wanted to ask you, Ms. 
Snider, is to what extent have you thought about this analogy, 
culturally and socially and politically and legally, between 
what happened with liquor prohibition over a period of 15 years 
or so versus this marijuana prohibition which has been going 
on, at least from the state level, for a century, and at the 
Federal level for 50 years, which means that the harms have 
been even worse than the harms of alcohol prohibition? What did 
you see in terms of your work as a cop in New York?
    Ms. Snider. So prohibition of alcohol, we saw how the 
Nation responded. We saw that once it started to become more 
morally acceptable or more societally acceptable by general 
consensus, people were like, OK, we'll legalize it and regulate 
it.
    We're starting to see that now with cannabis. We're seeing 
over 90 percent of the population is just so attuned to 
thinking it's completely acceptable, completely normal. And 
that's what I was seeing on the street as a police officer. No 
one really discouraged--I don't want to say no one encouraged, 
but it wasn't looked at as taboo as it once was.
    Mr. Raskin. Right.
    And so, Mr. Freedman, let me come to you, because you've 
had a lot of experience with this at the state level and at the 
local level.
    Do you think the country is living through a transformation 
like the end of prohibition and we're discovering what it means 
to enter the post-marijuana prohibition era governmentally and 
commercially at the same time?
    Mr. Freedman. Thank you, Chairman.
    I would go as far to say they've already gone through that, 
the people of the United States. I think for the vast majority 
of consumers and patients who now deal with cannabis, they deal 
with it in what they view as a post-prohibition world. And the 
last people to consider post-prohibition is the Hill and 
Congressmen and the United States. The fact is kind of the only 
things missing now are the sort of commonsense regulation and 
science that our institutions of government can bring to it.
    Mr. Raskin. So, Mr. Armentano, do you think Congress can 
catch up with where a majority of the states are now in terms 
of medical marijuana and decriminalization and legalization as 
the mayor said? Do you think Congress will actually be able to 
do it? I know this hearing is a promising sign, but what do you 
think are the chances of our actually doing this in this 
session of Congress or the next?
    Mr. Freedman. Well, my business card doesn't say 
prognosticator, but certainly one would hope that Members of 
Congress see the need to act swiftly.
    Look, to use your analogy with alcohol prohibition, the 
Federal Government got out of the alcohol prohibition business 
when ten states chose to go down a different path. The majority 
of U.S. states have now chosen to go down a different path with 
cannabis. And it is untenable to keep this chasm going between 
where the states are on this policy and where the Federal 
Government is.
    At the end of the day, the Federal Government needs to come 
to a way to comport Federal policy with state policy, and 
that's by descheduling.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
    My time has expired. And I go to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman Raskin. And I appreciate 
this bipartisan hearing. Hopefully, we can have more of those 
in the future.
    Marijuana is not yet legal in Kentucky, but marijuana's 
friendly cousin hemp is, an industry very important to our 
economy and the history of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
    Throughout my time in Congress, and during my service as 
Kentucky's agriculture commissioner, I have supported policies 
that promote the hemp industry's growth and implemented the 
Nation's first hemp pilot program in the state of Kentucky.
    Then, during the drafting of the 2018 farm bill, I was in 
Congress and I offered language to federally legalize hemp for 
industrial and commercial uses. Hemp and related products, like 
CBD, which I take, hemp-derived CBD and fiber materials show 
great potential for Kentucky farmers, patients, and consumers. 
Innovative companies sprung up after legalization, and hemp is 
now a component of everything from car door panels to hardwood 
floors. And we have a really impressive hemp hardwood floor 
factory in my district in Murray, Kentucky.
    Unfortunately, the industry is currently struggling with an 
uncertain regulatory environment that has depressed its ability 
to expand and thrive despite clear demand for their products.
    In my opinion, the U.S. FDA needs to get to work in this 
space and provide regulatory certainly for hemp. We must also 
provide financial certainty and access to credit for 
entrepreneurs and farmers who operate legitimate businesses and 
are innovating within this new market opportunity.
    So, Mr. Freedman, are you aware that the FDA has failed for 
several years now to promulgate regulations that would provide 
certainty in the market for the hemp industry, especially with 
respect to products containing CBD.
    Mr. Freedman. Thank you, Ranking Member Comer.
    Yes, I agree with your analysis, first of all, that the 
rules and regulations regarding hemp will have a tie to 
cannabis. If we don't get hemp right, it's going to be very 
hard to get cannabis right.
    And that we did legalize hemp without the FDA so far has 
not created a pathway for the vast majority of products that 
are used for CBD, nor have they created regulations around 
intoxicating cannabinoids that are now coming out of hemp as 
well, and that there is a lack of leadership that is now needed 
from--that we now search to champions like you for that sort of 
progress for.
    Mr. Comer. And let me be very clear. I'm a Republican. I am 
against excessive regulations. But here we have an industry 
that all of the credible players want regulation. Because if 
there's a bottle of CBD at a gas station, there's no one that's 
there to determine whether that's CBD or not. When it says how 
many milligrams of whatever is in it, there's no agency that's 
looking into that to make sure that that's accurate reporting.
    So what I think we want with the CBD industry is we want 
that to be treated like a nutraceutical to where you go in GNC, 
Vitamin World, places like that, and you buy nutraceuticals as 
opposed to pharmaceutical, and you look on the label and it 
says exactly what's in that bottle of CBD. We don't have that.
    And the credible people in the CBD industry--and not 
everyone is credible. And that's the problem. That's why we 
need some type of regulatory certainty here.
    The credible CBD producers, which there are probably three 
dozen in my congressional district and in Kentucky, they want 
some type of regulatory certainty so they can move forward.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, here's a letter dated April 14 where I 
requested a committee hearing with Chairwoman Maloney with the 
FDA to talk about this specific issue, to try to get some 
regulatory certainty in this industry, because you don't go in 
a store where you don't see a bottle of CBD. But there's no 
guarantee that that's CBD. That may be snake oil. That may be 
something else.
    I take CBD from labs that I have been to in Kentucky where 
I know that they're producing a product that was grown on 
Kentucky farms and that has gone through a very credible lab.
    So can you elaborate on that, I've got 30 seconds here, as 
to what FDA is going to do in the future? And let me say this. 
I predict that there will be a hearing on CBD oil in the very 
near future in this committee. But go ahead.
    Mr. Freedman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    So my prediction is that so far all of that I have read 
coming out of the FDA is that they're going to be turning it 
back to Congress to solve these problems and people like you 
for leadership here in that.
    I think the problem is real, consumers don't know what 
they're getting, that some bad actors have turned to 
intoxicating cannabinoids.
    Mr. Comer. And we saw that in the pods for the e-cigarettes 
and things like that.
    Mr. Freedman. And people need rules of the road to get this 
right. And I believe it's not only critical for the hemp 
industry, but the burgeoning cannabis industry as well. These 
things are so interrelated at this point that you will end up 
seeing bad actors escape the cannabis industry and go to the 
hemp industry because the laws and regulations are looser and 
they haven't created a clear path to market.
    So I do believe this is a place where good actors and 
Republicans and Democrats alike can all decide, hey, there 
needs be to really clear rules of the road here.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Thank you very much for your questioning and for that strong 
argument for government regulation, at least in the CBD market. 
Just in CBD. Just the thing you know best.
    I will come now to the distinguished gentlelady from 
Illinois, Ms. Kelly, for her five minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    From the testimony we received today, it is clear that to 
achieve equity, marijuana should be descheduled and removed 
from the Controlled Substance Act altogether. However, there 
needs to be balance in the regulatory space between Federal and 
state government, especially considering the existent systems 
that many states already have in place.
    Mr. Freedman, what should be the appropriate balance of 
power between the states and Federal Government in regulating 
marijuana?
    Mr. Freedman. Thank you for your question, Representative.
    I believe that, in essence, it should be that states lead 
here and the Federal Government aids. And we are at a critical 
point where that really can come true. If you look at things 
like Representative Mace's States Reform Act, that's the exact 
sort of framework put together.
    And, by the way, congratulations on the one-year 
anniversary of the Reform Act.
    Really, what we're looking for here is one of the positives 
about the very strange way cannabis legalization has grown is 
that states have created very unique systems that meet the 
character and complexities of their own communities. That 
should not go away because legalization comes in.
    And so the ability to add, to layer onto that some amount 
of uniformity so that a consumer in one state knows they're 
getting the same product in another state, the correct science 
and data so if it turns out that having a history of mental 
health illness goes poorly with some sort of potency limit we 
can therefore start to roll back those products, having that 
basic level of science and data from the Federal side can aid 
the states in getting it right.
    And I think even if you talk to the states--and I have 
worked for dozens of them--even if you talk to them, they're 
actually looking for that from the Federal Government. That 
would not be an encroachment on how they want to do it. They 
still want to control the time, place, and manner, but they are 
looking to the Federal Government to add that basic level of 
commonsense guardrails.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Armentano, you've spent years creating effective state 
and Federal policy. So what should Congress do to effectively 
regulate the cannabis market?
    Mr. Armentano. Again, I think our experience with alcohol 
shows us the way. And when we look at the balance that 
currently exists between the powers and regulatory authorities 
states have with regard to the way they regulate the commerce 
of alcohol within their state, and we balance that with the 
role the Federal Government plays with regard to the interstate 
commerce and production of alcohol, the way it's marketed 
nationally, the way it's labeled is obviously uniform.
    But the way individual states treat alcohol in many ways is 
very unique. The way Texas, for instance, treats alcohol is 
very different than the way California treats alcohol, the way 
New York state treats alcohol.
    Again, in many ways it's because the way the system worked 
emerged out of a patchwork system. Because when the Federal 
Government repealed its prohibition of alcohol it did not wave 
a magic wand and tell states how to proceed. Some states 
continued to criminalize the production and sale of alcohol for 
many years post the Federal repeal. Other states, like New 
York, had already began with their own regulatory policies even 
prior to the lifting of alcohol prohibition at the Federal 
level.
    So, again, I think we have the roadmap. We have legislation 
that's been introduced, like the MORE Act, like Representative 
Mace's act that follows that model. And, again, I don't think 
we need to reinvent the wheel here. I think we know what the 
balance is and how to achieve it.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
    Ms. Littlejohn, in places like San Francisco and Washington 
state with thriving cannabis industries there have been 
disturbing patterns of violent robberies of cannabis companies.
    Can you give us some detail on how the lack of banking 
access and a need to hold large amounts of cash create 
dangerous obstacles for cannabis businesses?
    Ms. Littlejohn. Well, there are two factors in play.
    One, again, Federal banking laws make it difficult, 
especially for small businesses, to get access to banks, 
because what happens is their threshold for risk is--when they 
reach their threshold for risk with larger businesses that can 
bring them more profits, they don't really have room for small 
and minority-owned businesses. And so without access to a bank, 
a lot of companies end up stocking their cash in their 
facilities. And so, again, this becomes an attractive target to 
folks.
    The other challenge is that because of the continuing 
Federal illegality of cannabis, there is also a lack of access 
to insurance and a general risk environment that makes it 
really hard for companies to fund their businesses or take even 
adequate security measures to protect themselves and their 
employees.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
    My time is almost out, but there's still--we have to 
conquer the difficulty that historically disempowered groups 
have had in entering the cannabis business and how Congress can 
help.
    But thank you all so much.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Kelly, thank you for your questioning.
    We're now going to go to closing statements, and I will 
begin with Ms. Mace.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I first want to address Mayor Woodfin's comments earlier. 
There is absolutely no justification for anybody up here today 
in Congress to compare cannabis to slavery. And I condemn those 
words by all means necessary. And I know that, Mr. Chairman, 
that you do as well. It's a disgusting comparison and never 
should have been stated up here today.
    And more importantly is that prohibition of cannabis was 
created out of racism. The Federal Government used the 
prohibition of cannabis to investigate and raid communities of 
Black and Brown and African Americans across the Nation. They 
used it as justification to go after those individuals in those 
communities. And, in fact, still today we know that if you are 
Black or Brown or African American you are four times as likely 
to be arrested for cannabis over Whites and Caucasians in this 
country.
    And it's wrong. And we see inequities all the time. I'm 
from South Carolina where the difference between rich and poor 
is often Black and White.
    And cannabis is an area where we can work together on both 
sides of the aisle to prohibit more of those inequities from 
happening across our country and right the wrongs that have 
been going on for decades now.
    And I would encourage my colleagues, Republican and 
Democrat, on both sides of the aisle to get on board with this 
issue. The American people are asking for it. Seventy percent 
of Americans support medical cannabis. Half or more than half 
of Americans support adult and recreational use across the 
country.
    Whether they come from the red state of South Carolina or 
the blue state of the California, East Coast to West Coast, 
Americans from all communities, all colors, all ages support 
this issue. And the only place it is controversial is here in 
the Halls of the Capitol and it's wrong.
    And I would encourage Senator Schumer, Senator Booker, my 
colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle, with the 
divisiveness in our Nation today, show the American people how 
we can work together. We have so much opportunity. This is a 
multi-billion-dollar industry. It is not going back in the 
genie's bottle. It is here to stay. And we have got to work 
together.
    We heard today about the issue of drug overdose deaths. 
There's no doubt that because of COVID and the mental health 
crisis in our country the rate of addiction to opioids and the 
opioid crisis is higher than it's ever been. But one dispensary 
in one state anywhere in the country will reduce opioid 
addiction, it'll reduce morbidity by upwards of 20 percent--
anywhere in the country.
    We've got to use facts and data to back up the changes that 
are needed in this country. I have talked to doctors from 
Harvard University talking to the need for cannabis with 
regards to Parkinson's patients, the way that it protects the 
neurons in the brain and helps slow down the rate of 
Parkinson's. I know this. I have a family member suffering from 
Parkinson's right now. What it can do for cancer patients going 
through chemotherapy. What it does for addiction. What it does 
and can do for veterans with regards to PTSD.
    And I have--this is a huge problem, but we have the 
solution, the States Reform Act. I am going to say it over and 
over again. And I am willing to work with anyone who is willing 
to work with me. Finding common ground on this issue should not 
be difficult. Shutting the cartels down on this issue should 
not be difficult. Letting businesses be successful in the 
market, giving certainty to the market for those businesses who 
are operating today.
    This is not difficult. We should be able to protect the 
rights of states, protect our kids, protect veterans, look at 
labeling, regulation, consistency through labeling.
    The regulatory authority is here. It's turnkey. If we treat 
cannabis like alcohol, we have all the regulation that we need. 
We can do it overnight and have the greatest success in this 
country today, but we only can do that if we work together.
    So a message today to Republicans and Democrats alike on 
this and any other issue is that if you're willing to work with 
me, I am willing to work with you. It is past time that we get 
it done.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Mace.
    And I would begin by associating myself entirely with your 
remarks, beginning with your repudiation of the peculiar 
analogy between slavery, which is the most horrific mass crime 
in American history, with cannabis or cannabis use. So I think 
we can all disavow that. And we apologize that the lectern was 
used for that purpose at some moment today, and I hope there 
was some confusion there.
    I would also like to associate myself with your general 
leadership on this whole question of reforming marijuana laws, 
Ms. Mace. And I do think that this represents an extraordinary 
opportunity for bipartisan, nonpartisan, multipartisan 
convergence, because all of the major American values are 
implicated by this problem: freedom, the right of people to 
make their own decisions; public health; the interest of the 
states in regulating in the interests of their own people; and 
the use of science and reason in order to make the right public 
policy decisions.
    We've got 2.85 million Federal employees in America; in my 
state, more than 100,000 people. And people have been 
disqualified from Federal employment because they honestly 
admit on a security clearance form that they have once used 
marijuana, something that more than half of the country has 
done.
    And so I've had many constituents I've spoken to who have 
been chosen for a significant Federal position after an 
exacting process of interview who then are rejected in the 
security clearance process because they have admitted to having 
once used marijuana.
    Now, the Biden administration issued guidance that the past 
use of marijuana would not be an automatic disqualifier when 
applying for Federal employment, but too often I'm hearing from 
people who tell me that it operates just like that, as an 
automatic instant disqualifier for their employment. And this 
is obviously profoundly unfair to the individuals, but also 
it's a tremendous waste of human talent and unnecessary 
stigmatization and demoralization of our own people. This is 
one small aspect of a whole regime of injustice that has grown 
up around the war on marijuana.
    And I'm very cheered by our hearing today, Ms. Mace, 
because it shows that we've got the opportunity to advance a 
lot of excellent legislation, including your bill, which has 
been praised by a number of our witnesses and members today, 
the security clearance bill that I am going to be advancing to 
deal with that problem, other legislation that has come out of 
the Judiciary Committee. I think we have a lot of momentum to 
make progress on this.
    As in so many other cases in American history, the states 
and the people are leading the way before Congress. Congress 
gets the memo last, but the states, as Mr. Freedman observed, 
have really left prohibition behind and have established, as 
Ms. Littlejohn has testified, whole new commercial 
opportunities and endeavors that we want to make sure are 
equally accessible to all of our people.
    But the commerce has been leading the way. The states have 
been leading the way by reforming their laws. The medical 
profession, doctors and nurses and therapists, have been 
leading the way by demanding medical marijuana laws that now 
operate for the vast majority of American citizens. Congress 
needs to catch up, and that's what this hearing is about, and 
that's what I've learned today.
    If we knew our history better, if we all took the time to 
read into prohibition, we would see that America has been 
through this before. And it's not that alcohol is like birthday 
cake; it's not. We lose more than 100,000 people a year to 
alcohol-related illnesses, to alcohol-related fatalities on the 
highways. That needs to be regulated.
    But the country had its experience with trying to 
criminalize alcohol. It didn't work. And it caused much more 
severe problems, and we know that is precisely the history 
we're living through today again with marijuana. It needs to be 
regulated. It needs to be carefully controlled, but we should 
not be throwing people into prison for any period of time, for 
one day, because they smoke marijuana. It makes no sense. We 
should not be ruining people's lives over this. I think the 
country has made its judgment. It's time for Congress to catch 
up.
    I want to thank all of our panelists for their insightful 
remarks today.
    I want to commend my colleagues for participating so 
actively and intelligently in this dialog, all of our 
colleagues across the aisle.
    And, with that, without objection, all members will get 
five legislative days within which to submit additional written 
questions for the witnesses to the chair, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    Ms. Mace has announced that she will cosponsor the security 
clearance bill that I'm announcing today, and I thank you very 
much for that, and, again, salute you for your leadership, Ms. 
Mace.
    I ask our witnesses to please respond if we send you 
further questions.
    And the hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]