Marijuana industry groups urge Congress to act amid vape-related injuries

by



[ad_1]

Mark Sanford, a former congressman who was also governor of South Carolina, announced on September 8, 2019 that he was organizing a major challenge against President Donald Trump.

The third candidate to run the GOP race, aside from the incumbent president, Sanford's election record and his comments on the marijuana policy indicate that, as president, he would support efforts to at least protect States that have legalized cannabis from any federal intervention. Here is an overview of Sanford's position on marijuana.

Legislation and political actions

During his time in the House of Representatives, Sanford co-sponsored five cannabis laws, including legislation to protect states that resold cannabis for law enforcement purposes under the Canada Health Act. controlled substances.

It has passed legislation to promote marijuana research, legalize industrial hemp, and change the internal revenue governance code so that cannabis companies can access tax credits and benefits. deductions.

Sanford has always voted in favor of House amendments to cannabis reform, with a few exceptions. In addition to his two votes in favor of protecting medical cannabis states (and one for states composed solely of the CBD) from federal interference, he was also one of 45 Republicans to support a measure that would extend that protection. to states for adult use.

In 2014, 2015 and 2016, he supported amendments allowing US Department of Veterans Affairs physicians to recommend cannabis for medical purposes to veterans.

Sanford also voted for a 2014 measure to provide marijuana companies with access to banking services.

On four occasions, the congressman voted in favor of hemp measures, although he voted against a hemp measure in 2015 for reasons that are unclear. On the day of the vote, there were two similar proposals. An amendment came from one Republican he supported and another from a Democrat against whom he had voted.

In another extraordinary vote that does not match his latest record, Sanford voted for a resolution in 1998 meant to express "Congress's sense that marijuana is a dangerous addictive drug and should not be legalized for any purpose. medical. "

As governor in 2010, Sanford signed a sentencing reform bill aimed at "reversing the trend of incarcerating non-violent criminals with little or no risk to the public, discouraging recidivism in the future." providing prisoners with a more supervised transition to society once their sentences are over. " were served while saving taxpayers more than $ 400 million over the next five years. "

Previous citations and social media posts

Although the former congressman did not spend as much time and energy discussing his views on cannabis as most Democratic presidential candidates, he made it clear that his position on the issue was influenced by a federalist perspective that emphasizes the importance of upholding the rights of states.

After the Attorney General of the day, Jeff Sessions, overturned the Obama-era guidelines outlining the federal government's priorities in marijuana enforcement in 2018, Sanford It is before the House to explain how the move violated the principles of federalism.

"This is another example of the harshness of democracy. I guess it could be easier if a king decided everything for us. But that's not the American way, "he said. "We are an independent group based on the traditions given to us by our founding fathers. Each of us had a voice. We have our say.

"Washington should not dictate how our coast grows, nor determine which companies are illegal in a state like Colorado."

In a 2017 Facebook publication on his support for legislation that would give cannabis companies access to federal tax credits and deductions, Sanford said the principle is simple: if a state legalizes something, it must be addressed. an equal footing. other legal enterprises in the state. "

The concept of federalism "very specifically applies to marijuana policy, in which many states have legalized its use for medical purposes, and yet, federal policy always goes against it. that states have decided, "he wrote.

"Whether you are for or against the medical use of marijuana is less important than actually endorsing the founders' belief in federalism … because it was one of the main tools for balancing the federal government. In short, even with ideas that we may not like, it is important to join federalism if you believe in limiting the size of our federal government. "

"Yes, I voted accordingly," Sanford said in 2017 after being questioned about support for state law to legalize marijuana.

In 2015, Sanford complained about federal barriers preventing hemp producers in South Carolina from taking full advantage of this crop after the state legalized industrial hemp.


"Industrial hemp is not a drug, it is used as a raw material in paper products, textiles and plastics," he said. "In fact, the United States imports more industrial hemp than any other country in the world, but the current ban imposed by the federal government means that domestic industries are struggling to grow."

"I do not believe that the federal government should penalize someone who respects the laws of the state, and I hope this bill will become law," he added, making reference to federal legislation on the legalization of hemp that he sponsored.

Following a vote on an amendment to allow banks to serve cannabis companies in accordance with the law, Sanford again linked the problem to federalism.

"Some say that because marijuana is illegal at the federal level and that banks are regulated by the federal government, the federal government should use its powers under the interstate commerce clause to prevent banks from doing business with them. these companies, "he said. "In my mind, however, the genius of what our founding fathers expected, and which was explicitly stated in the Constitution, was that most powers should be left to the state and to individuals rather than to the state. federal government."

"Regardless of the debate you engage in for marijuana to be illegal, the application of the founding principle of federalism suggests that states should not be limited by the federal government in areas that are illegal. most concern their businesses and their citizens. The beauty of the great American experience and the wisdom of the founding fathers to include federalism lies in the fact that it allows states to pioneer in matters of ideas. We see if they work or fail and how they do it. This is part of what allows our republic to innovate and change and when these amendments were proposed last night, I could not help thinking that we would be wise to preserve this concept … that we are agree or not with the local perspective. other States concerned. "

In 2018, Sanford condemned a vote in the House in favor of expanding the Attorney General's power to add drugs to the list of federally controlled substances. The state-level legalization of marijuana is an example of the problem.

"I do not know exactly where it's going, but if we believe in the principle of federalism, it is important that an Attorney General does not have an exclusive discretionary power to thwart the efforts of the states." on this front, "he said.

He also used federalism to explain his vote in favor of an amendment to the spending bill authorizing AV doctors to recommend cannabis for medical purposes, saying his vote "boiled down to a question: Should the federal government usurp all state laws? ? "

"The beauty of the American experience lies in the fact that it includes" federalism ", which allows states to launch pioneering ideas," he said. "Some may agree with others, no … but the key question in this case is whether the federal view should always prevail over that of the state."

He made the same remark in a post after voting for a similar measure in 2015.

Sanford criticized the federal drug classification system in an article published on Facebook in 2016, in which he noted that cannabis oil was in a more restrictive category than cocaine and prescription opioids.

"It's strange, given that opioid analgesics are currently causing an epidemic that kills about 50,000 Americans a year and is at a crisis level such as Congress recently passed a bill dealing with of this problem, "he said, adding that the classification of Annex I hinders the search for substances.

"This is a problem.Many people at home have contacted me about the cannabis oil being part of the treatment for epilepsy and, in other cases. chemotherapy-induced nausea, whether these things are true or not can be debated, but why would you put this medicine on a list that would prevent research so that we can close the debate? will not do it, but it seems to me that we are burying our head in the sand to say that we will not allow any research to determine these things. "

Personal experience with marijuana

Sanford has repeatedly said that he "never used drugs" and did not want his children to take drugs either.

Marijuana under the presidency of Sanford

If Sanford always has one thing in common, it is because it values ​​the principles of federalism and has tied many votes in favor of the reform of marijuana to the rights of states. Although there is not much in his record to indicate that he would necessarily adopt comprehensive legislation on federal legalization, it seems likely that he opposes any federal crackdown on legally responsible if he is elected to the White House.

Where does the presidential candidate, Joe Walsh, take a position on marijuana

The moment of marijuana is made possible thanks to the support of the readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly promise from Patreon.

[ad_2]

Source link