Oh Canada

By John Wagner and Matt Zapotosky, The Washington Post

WASHINGTON – A little-noticed document issued by President Donald Trump has put advocates of medical marijuana on edge, raising questions about the long-term security of programs now authorized in 29 states and the District that have broad public backing.

In a “signing statement” that accompanied Trump’s signature on the bill passed this month to keep the government open, the president noted a handful of objections on legal grounds, including to a provision that prohibits his administration from interfering with state-run medical marijuana programs.

White House aides indicated that none of Trump’s objections to Congress’s work signaled immediate policy changes. But given how vocal Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been toward relaxing marijuana restrictions, those who support the burgeoning industry are worried about what could come next.

“It just creates a lot of uncertainty, and that uncertainty is deeply concerning for patients and providers,” said Michael Collins, deputy director of the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization that has sought to roll back the nation’s war on drugs. “We had thought medical marijuana wasn’t really in play in terms of a crackdown.”

Such concerns are being voiced more broadly about the direction of marijuana policy under the new leadership at the Justice Department.

Sessions last week directed federal prosecutors to get significantly tougher on drug defendants than under the Obama administration. And a task force launched by Sessions is looking at changes in enforcement particularly regarding marijuana, a drug that remains illegal on the federal level despite significant movement in numerous states in recent years to loosen restrictions.

The eight states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use could be at greater risk for federal intervention than those that have only approved dispensing medical cannabis or cannabis-infused products to patients with a doctor’s recommendation.

As a candidate for president, Trump repeatedly voiced support for medical marijuana, a concept that has been increasingly embraced by fellow Republicans at the state level. Of the 29 states that have authorized programs, Trump prevailed in last year’s election over Democrat Hillary Clinton in nine of them.

Meanwhile, a Quinnipiac poll last month found that 94 percent of Americans – including 90 percent of Republicans – supported allowing adults to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctors prescribe it.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said earlier this year that he expects states to be subject to “greater enforcement” of federal laws against marijuana use, though he also said Trump sees “a big difference” between use of marijuana for medical purposes and for recreational purposes.

Sessions, however, said at an appearance in Richmond, earlier this year, that medical marijuana “has been hyped, maybe too much.”

A Justice Department spokesman declined to discuss what future steps might be taken related to medical marijuana but said the provision in the spending bill is of concern to officials.

“The Department of Justice must be in a position to use all laws available to combat the transnational drug organizations and dangerous drug traffickers who threaten American lives,” said spokesman Ian Prior, who wouldn’t discuss the issue further.

Justin Strekal, political director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the May 5 signing statement is troubling, even if a federal crackdown is not in the offing, because it could have “a chilling effect on a nascent industry.”

Of particular concern, he said, is the impact it could have on investors in dispensaries in states where programs are just coming on line. A prosecution of a single business in one state could have a devastating impact in that regard, he added.

The provision in question, which has been part of federal law since late 2014, prohibits the Justice Department from spending money to interfere with state medical marijuana programs. It was co-authored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who, by his own description, is “a very strong supporter” of Trump.

“I will treat this provision consistently with my constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” Trump wrote in the signing statement.

Signing statements became prevalent under President George W. Bush and have often been used to preserve objections rather than to signal new action.

President Barack Obama continued the practice, routinely citing provisions in spending bills that he said conflicted with authority granted to him under the constitution.

Trump also objected on constitutional grounds to several other sections of the first spending bill he signed, including one related to a program that helps historically black colleges and universities get low-cost construction loans. That prompted an outcry from African American lawmakers, prompting Trump to release a statement about his commitment to HBCUs.

Tom Angell, founder of Marijuana Majority, said comments from Trump and the Justice Department on medical marijuana “doesn’t necessarily mean a crackdown is coming, but it’s a concerning signal.”

“Essentially [Trump is] saying he reserves the right to ignore this congressionally approved provision,” Angell said.

If the administration moves in that direction, it won’t be without a fight, Rohrabacher said.

The congressman, who has used cannabis himself to ease pain from severe arthritis in his shoulders caused by years of surfing, said he’s confident his side would prevail in court because Congress clearly has “the power of the purse.”

Rohrabacher said it appears that members of Trump’s administration are working to “reposition” him on the issue of medical marijuana.

“I think there are a lot of people running around trying to paint the president into a corner on this,” Rohrabacher said, adding that he is eager to talk to Trump about it directly.

In August 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled a similar provision passed by Congress prevented the Justice Department from spending money on prosecutions in states where medical marijuana was legal – so long as those being prosecuted abided by state law.

More broadly, James Cole, a deputy attorney general in the Obama administration, had directed prosecutors to enforce all federal drug laws – even in places that had legalized marijuana – but said they should look to states’ regulatory systems to determine whether their intervention was necessary.

Cole wrote that federal authorities should essentially stay out of states that had robust regulatory systems in place.

Cole’s memo is among the policies now being actively reviewed by the new leadership at the Justice Department.

The issue of medical marijuana will need to be revisited again by Congress in coming months. The provision sponsored by Rohrabacher expires on Sept. 30, at the end of the federal fiscal year, and would have to be adopted again to stay on the books.

By Kyle Potter and Linley Sanders, The Associated Press

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Top state lawmakers are trying to work out a system allowing Iowa residents to start buying medical marijuana oils and pills in Minnesota, a novel arrangement that could raise issues with the federal government.

Iowa could join more than two dozen states with medical marijuana programs under a bill awaiting Gov. Terry Branstad’s signature. That legislation would expand a limited 2014 law, allowing more patients to buy the low-dose medication from in-state dispensaries by December 2018.

But in the meantime, Iowa residents could look to Minnesota. A provision of the bill specifically references that state as a potential source of medication and directs Iowa regulators to contract with Minnesota’s two manufacturers of medical marijuana.

It’s the first half of an arrangement being worked out between Iowa House Speaker Linda Upmeyer and Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Daudt, friends who first explored the idea last year until the push to expand Iowa’s medical marijuana law fizzled out. Both lawmakers confirmed their discussions to The Associated Press this week.

Upmeyer said Minnesota could offer immediate relief to sick Iowans while the state works to set up its program over the next 18 months. Minnesota may even serve as a permanent back-up in case the state can’t secure its own manufacturer, a prospect she and others have feared.

“It’s providing access to Iowans and doing it as quickly as we can,” Upmeyer said. “I just want to be sure if we have a tough time finding a grower, we have another source available. It all just fits together.”

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad has been noncommittal on the legislation since it hit his desk earlier this month. He is expected to act on the bill before leaving office to become President Donald Trump’s ambassador to China, pending the U.S. Senate’s confirmation.

While several states with medical marijuana laws recognize cardholders from other states, sending residents across the border to buy their supply would be a new arrangement if both sides move ahead. The nearest of Minnesota’s eight dispensaries to Iowa is in Rochester, a roughly three-hour drive from Des Moines.

That arrangement could raise federal concerns. Despite its legal status in nearly 30 states, the federal government still considers medical marijuana a Schedule I drug that can’t be moved across state lines. And fears of a federal crackdown on states with medical marijuana laws have increased under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has repeatedly expressed his disapproval of the drug.

Upmeyer said she’s trying to meet with Sessions’ office to get greater clarity on how the federal government might treat Iowa’s arrangement.

Medical marijuana sales began in Minnesota in July 2015. If Branstad signs the bill, Iowa patients with a doctor’s certification could start registering immediately.

Both states would have restrictive programs that ban the use of the plant form and limit the availability of marijuana oils and pills to patients with just a handful of severe conditions. Iowa’s law goes farther by limiting the potency of the oils that can be sold.

It’s unclear how many Iowa patients might take advantage of being able to buy their supply in Minnesota, but Daudt said any patients from Iowa could help manufacturers in Minnesota, where the tight restrictions have led to lackluster patient enrollment, high medication costs and huge financial losses for both companies. Though Daudt voted against the 2014 legislation that created Minnesota’s program, he said he’s open to the arrangement.

“One of the problems that we have had here is that the manufacturers … have a limited number of customers, and it may become difficult to sustain their business,” Daudt said Thursday. “It may be helpful to our manufactures and ultimately to our jobs and economy here in Minnesota. I think it could be a mutually beneficial thing.”

It would require specific legislation allowing out-of-state residents to buy their medication in Minnesota, a measure that could be tucked into the massive budget lawmakers are working to finalize. Daudt said lobbyists for Minnesota’s two manufacturers, Minnesota Medical Solutions and LeafLine Labs, and medical marijuana advocacy groups have been working on crafting the language.

Minnesota’s regulators haven’t been involved in the discussions, nor has Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton, who was never a strong backer of Minnesota’s law. Michelle Larson, who runs Minnesota’s Office of Medical Cannabis, said they would need to figure out how to handle a new crop of patients from a different state in their patient registry system. And the prospect of Iowa residents facing problems for bringing Schedule I medication across state lines worried her.

“We’d certainly want to make sure people were aware of the risk,” Larson said.
___

Sanders reported from Des Moines.