As State markets mature, there is a lot of uncertainty on how cannabis will progress at the federal level. Will the federal government step in with control and influence over regulations? Or will they allow States to have autonomy over their markets? Our guest is Don Murphy, Director of Federal Policies at the Marijuana Policy Project. We discuss the STATES Act, MORE Act, SAFE Banking Act and what hurdles we still have to overcome.
Link to Email List sign up “Join our Community” and get insights we don’t share anywhere else.
Episode Transcription:
Don Murphy, Guest: Thank you for the invitation.
Wayne: Let's start with just context for listeners introduction. I'm assuming most have heard of the Marijuana Policy Project, but if they haven't, a quick introduction to what you do as an organization, and then your role there and how long you've been working with them and you know where you're at right now and what you're focusing on?
Don: Well, let me start with my history, because my history and MPP sort of intertwine. 20 years ago, I was a Maryland state legislator. Member of the House of Delegates, I was introduced to a gentleman who was using marijuana for medical purposes. I am a, or was a, law and order Republican. I got elected in part on the platform of law and order after my wife was held up in an armed robbery. I won an election, I got put on the Judiciary Committee and honestly, I was gonna lock up everybody. And I met this gentleman named Daryl Putman. He was a Green Beret Special Forces Vietnam veteran. He said to me, he was using marijuana with his doctor's approval. And, uh, you know, he said, Do you think I'm a criminal? And I hesitated, but I was pretty firm. I said, No, I don't. My dad he'd just passed away from from cancer, but I didn't know anything about marijuana as an alternative to cancer treatment or as a part of cancer treatment. That was - wasn't something that was ever suggested. And this was back in 2000, actually 1999. So he said, "Do you think I'm a criminal?" I said, "No". He said, "Well, the law does. And you're a lawmaker. So unless you do something to change the law. You know, you really do think I'm a criminal". And he had a point. So from that point on, I became the unlikely advocate for marijuana policy reform for medical patients. 20 years ago, I was introduced to the Marijuana Policy Project they were doing ballot initiatives and working in the States, they were just a brand new organization just a few years old at the time, but since then MPP is the leading advocacy group for ballot initiatives for both medical and adult use. In those states that have adult use, we're responsible for, I think, eight of them, maybe nine and a half depending - we've run all those ballot initiatives and most recently, we worked to pass through the legislature in Illinois, their adult use program.
Wayne: How many years with MPP did you say?
Don: MPP is been around almost 25 years and while I was in the legislature, I work with them and then I didn't run for reelection in 2002. And I received a grant from them to go in and mostly talk to republicans around the country about why marijuana policy reform was consistent with conservative values. And we did that off and on for a dozen years or so. And then, recently I came on board full time to work just on Capitol Hill.
Wayne: Got it. Right. And now you're mostly focused just on the federal policies, and less on individual states? I mean, that all ties together, obviously, but?
Don: Right, that's correct.
Wayne: Okay. So yeah, I thought for today's conversation, and we talked a little bit beforehand, from you know, who listens to this podcast, our background here - you know, we're small, medium sized craft businesses, and all these things, how they move around in the government, or, you know, they're confusing and a lot of uncertainty. So I wanted to get some clarity at the federal level where we're at now, you know, what the future might look like? And it seems from what I read and articles and what's going on, there's kind of a few acts that are competing, potentially to get pushed through or legalized and so you have the STATES Act, which you know, seems like initially that had some traction, more recently the MORE act and then another one, the SAFE Banking Act - between those three, and maybe none of them go through in the future, and there's a different act potentially that could come about - where do those stand? I mean, how do you compare those? Is there one that's better than the other? And I think we just start with a general overview. And then we could go deeper into each one and the details and you know, what the interests are, why it'll pass, why it won't pass. But could we do a summary of each of those and kind of clarify for listeners what each one just is exactly.
Don: Sure. So the SAFE Banking Act - You asked the question is, is one better than the other, the better - the best one is the one that passes and becomes a law. Everything else is just noise. But when you're an advocate in a space that is so new as this one, everything is historic. So we use that word too much, because everything we do is historic, right? We have, we have a bill hearing - oh, it's a historic bill hearing. We have a vote, that's historic. It passes, even if it doesn't pass - it's still historic. So we joke about that a little bit. But the point is that everything we do is kind of new here. So the SAFE Banking Act would fix the banking system, for the most part and allow folks to use financial institutions to bank their proceeds, for people to use credit cards, that sort of thing when buying cannabis in a retail shop. That has the most traction. It is a bill that was originally drafted about six years ago by Ed Perlmutter from Colorado. He's been working on it forever. When democrats took over the house, they - they finally had a hearing. They passed it out of committee. It took about four months to get it to the floor. Because the truth is, advocates - criminal justice advocates - were unhappy that, that this bill was moving and it was really just perceived to be a sop to industry and the banks. Great. What does this have to do with criminal justice and equity and all that stuff? So I will say, Marijuana Policy Project took the position that incrementalism is better than no -ism at all. Right? So we were, we were somewhat happy with this thing moving because I actually think that in order for federal policy to change the industry, the issue has to be viewed as legitimate. And an industry is not legitimate when it's cash only, right? That's a nefarious industry just on its face - it has to be right? It's under the table. It's cash. It's, it's everything you don't want in a legitimate industry. So we think fixing that is important. We also think that when you deal with the issue of equity, and social justice, there are a lot of folks in this, in this space - who aren't in the space because they don't have access to funds, right? We hear it's mostly a white industry, rich white industry. Well, the truth is there, it's not so much about race - it's class, right? You cannot just walk into this, get a license, and then go to the bank and borrow money to open up a dispensary or facility of any kind. So the SAFE Banking Act would assist with that, would help move that ball forward. So when you ask which one's better - they all are different, but the one that is most likely to pass in the near future could be viewed as the SAFE banking Act. Now, that wasn't always the case. Well, recently, we had the STATES act...
Wayne: Could I hit on that, so a couple of questions there? (Yeah) I really liked that point of, you know, the industry equity and social justice. And I think, you know, you've heard things thrown around, trying to support people that were impacted by the war on drugs, and I look at states and I always thought, well, how easy do they make it for businesses to launch in a state? I mean, if a license is really expensive, there's a cap that just I mean, you're talking about class, right? You have a lot of money to be able to do this. But with the SAFE Banking Act, if that passed, that means it wouldn't de-schedule cannabis, no federal legalization, but it could set up where another act could still come along and be passed after that to fix all those other things that are not addressed by the safe Banking Act. Is that accurate?
Don: That's correct. (Okay.) It's somewhat counterintuitive, because you're like, "Wait a second, you're going to allow banking of the ill-gotten gains from this federally illegal sale of the substance? Right? So I actually once had a member who had voted for the banking amendment when it was in appropriations back in 2014. Yet he voted against the the Rohrabacher Amendment - so he was opposed to the underlying nature of this, right? So I said, "Well, I appreciate your vote for the banking amendment, but where exactly are you expecting folks to bank these proceeds - in the federal 50 ATM machine in the federal prison you think they should be in?" It was just, it was illogical that you would be for one yet not the other. And that's kind of what's happening here. But, you know, said Congress was consistent? So I - I'm happy to take what I can get on Capitol Hill.
Wayne: Okay - yeah. Yeah. So you mentioned the STATES Act next?
Don: The STATES Act basically says, if your state is - if you have a legal program in your state, whether it's a medical or adult use, you are free from federal interference. It's still - it's still federally illegal. Still in schedule one, but but you know, it's a pure state rights play. Now, some of us have problems with this notion that in Colorado, it's not federally illegal, but right next door over the line in Kansas it is, that is. That's, that doesn't make sense to a lot of us. But again, we've got to play the hand we're dealt. So most Republicans seem to be pretty okay with a state's rights view of this right, they kind of have to be, because that's what they talk about, right? They are for - in theory, are for smaller, less intrusive government. So it becomes difficult for them to justify why they think marijuana should be illegal in Colorado when Colorado voters have adopted it. Right? It just - it's inconsistent with pretty much everything they talk about. So that's, that's how we get them. They they are quick to say, "Hey, we're not pro marijuana. We're just pro 10th amendment." Like, I'm okay with that. I don't care how you - I don't care how you get the Yes. Just - let's get there.
Wayne: Yeah, and the 10th amendment is really saying giving any rights that the state establishes or the federal gun is setting - it puts more control and oversight into the states power, is kind of the idea behind the 10th amendment?
Don: Correct. Correct. Yep. (Okay.) So now, I will say that the STATES act had momentum about a year ago, when, when what happened was - and God bless Jeff Sessions. Now I know you never thought you'd hear a federal policy guy say that. But the truth is, what Jeff Sessions did in repealing the Cole Memo is unleashed both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill to, to act - because up to that point, it was fairly they were all fairly comfortable with the status quo. Nobody was really getting arrested. No - you know, in their states, legitimate operators were not getting raided. The only guys getting raided where the guys who were getting fingered by legitimate operators, right? You know, if you are a legitimate operator, you wanted a federal government - you wanted the state to come in and bust the cartel folks, right? If you aren't operating legitimately, you wanted those folks out. So. So, up to that point, everything was fine until - until Jeff Sessions repealed the Cole memo. And look, he did it because, A. that's what he believes and B. It's an Obama era directive. Right? If you're Trump and you're Sessions, you're repealing all that Obama stuff, right? It wasn't even so much it was about pot. It was about Obama, I think was - was the issue for them. So, you know, I've had a number of people say, Trump is bad because he picked Jeff Sessions. He picked Jeff Sessions, because Jeff Sessions picked him. Right? Like Jeff Sessions was an early endorser, like probably the first I think, in the Senate to endorse Trump, which was a really big deal when you think about it, because Jeff session sat on the Judiciary Committee, along with other candidates who were wanting like, like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, right? They were They will seatmates of his, yet he was endorsing Trump. So Trump picked him to be the Attorney General. And the rest is kind of history. So, but the STATES Act gained momentum because the President acknowledged to the press that he - he supported a states’ rights position like the STATES act. (Yeah. Yeah.) So, so think about it this way. So we've got republican president endorsed the STATES Act, a Republican Senator, in the republican controlled Senate, and then Republicans controlled the house and they had people on that side, so so why wouldn't you take the STATES Act and run with it? Is it perfect? Nope. But whoever thought we could pass any bill with Republican president? Like, you know what, you know, they just thought everything was going to go to hell, in November of 2016 when Trump won, yeah, and that just that just hasn't been the case at all.
Wayne: So the STATES act was really to - it was almost like what the Cole Memo was, but it was formalizing it into an actual act. It wouldn't have de-scheduled it, it still would have been schedule one if the STATES Act passed, but it would've gave the control and autonomy to the states to run their state programs?
Don: That's right. I mean, but the Cole Memo did outline eight ways to stay above the law, so to speak - or, you know, not get, run afoul of the law. And most of those things are incorporated into the STATES Act, okay. Or into those state bills, and the state laws. So anyway, but the STATES act is is sort of falling out of favor, because it doesn't go far enough. Right? So, enter the MORE Act, which comes along in July of this year. Sponsored by the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler. Suddenly everybody's like, "Whoa, this is way better." And people started like distancing themselves from the STATES Act. Like, honestly, Elizabeth Warren, who was the lead sponsor, didn't even show up to a press conference for the STATES Act. So, you know, it's like - well, that's that doesn't go far enough. So the MORE Act is a much more comprehensive bill. And so, the other part of that was, is there were advocates who didn't want the banking bill, the SAFE banking bill to move. They've tried to hold that up until the MORE act moved, because they wanted social equity. They wanted restorative justice, they wanted those folks who had been most harmed by the drug war, to benefit before bankers and rich guys. That was - that was the notion there. So there was some infighting between the advocacy community about all this and it really wasn't until it became apparent that the MORE Act was going to move. I think there were probably some negotiations in the back room like, okay, the banking bills going to move because we're going to move it and it's been four months. And you had your chance. And the Financial Services Committee was not going to be held hostage by the Judiciary Committee. And finally, one said, we're going to move this MORE Act too, so that freed up SAFE banking to go to the floor and get 321 votes of victory.
Wayne: In the House, the MORE Act did recently - that was a few weeks ago, was it? November?
Don: That's right. Right. The MORE Act passed just out of committee. Yeah, but it has not gone to the floor yet. And it may be a while for it to do so. It was also sent to a number of other committees, whether they claim jurisdiction or not remains to be seen. I think they're - they may want to slow walk this one a little bit. And, you know, we'll see.
Wayne: Yeah, so it sounds like to me, the - you mentioned, you know, incremental progress is better than no progress. And the way we went through those, those each sounded like a stepping stone, like the SAFE Banking Act is kind of on the finance side, the STATES Act gets protection, and then the MORE Act goes the furthest with what we all ultimately want to see. And, but then it seems a little confusing, because is there an issue with walking through those one at a time or, you know, first starting with the SAFE Banking Act, then the STATES act? When you said, the MORE Act comes along, and people are like, "well, we don't want those other ones now, those aren't good enough." But if you're not going to get nothing, I mean, is there a way to try pushing them all through together? Or does just really one have to be chosen, and then the other ones can't as well?
Don: Yeah, I think part of the problem is, is that some of the folks on the progressive wing of the Democrat Party want more than - more than will pass the Senate, right? Like see to me, it's not a victory if the bill doesn't become law. Right? It's incrementalism if you sort of creep along and okay, now we got it this far and got this far. But that doesn't mean much to the people who are going to get arrested tomorrow. Right? Like I would - I would like to do something that keeps those folks from, from suffering, whether you're a patient or your consumer, or a processor you know, anyone in the industry, who is subject to federal arrest, prosecution and incarceration, you want to fix something sooner rather than later. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, right. And so the MORE Act, in some respects, is the perfect, but we can't get it over the finish line. So what can we get over the finish line that helps fix this problem sooner rather than later? (Yeah.) And that's where that - we watch all these candidates debate on the stage and we've had some of them say, look Bank - In fact, many of the incumbents senators who are running for president have actually said no bill should go forward that doesn't include these restorative justice provisions. That means the SAFE Banking Act isn't good enough for them and they wouldn't support it. I think that's unfortunate. I think that's short sighted. For what it's worth, we did hear some of that same concern on the health side, yet all, virtually all the democrats, all but one voted for the SAFE Banking Act in the House. So that may be just something that people just say out on the campaign trail, but when push comes to shove, they take what they can get.
Wayne: Yeah. Yeah. And it's, you know, it's confusing for us, you know, operators, you know, we're busy as hell already. I mean, these things hugely impact us, but it's very confusing. We don't fully understand it. So I was under the impression. Well, maybe if the SAFE Banking Act passes or the STATES Act, then the MORE Act can't pass and you're just never going to get those things.
Don: No, no, no, no, no, I will - I will say there are folks who believe you only get one bite at the apple. Meaning, okay, once we take up the SAFE Banking Act or STATES act or you know, something that is not the full complement of legislation that they want, it'll be another generation before they get to fix it. I'm not sure I believe - I'm not sure I believe that. But I understand their concern.
Wayne: Well if the SAFE Banking Act or the STATES Act, if neither one of those moves cannabis from schedule one, I mean, there's clearly a lot of more progress that still needs to be made if either of those passed that I don't think would take a generation. There's such momentum behind this now and it feels like it's still picking up, it doesn't - I don't think it's going to slow down. It just seems like a time thing.
Don: Yeah, well and with every passing election, we get more folks coming into Washington who agree with us. Not because the politics so much, but this is generational. Right? The old guys who have been there and been part of that drug war for as long as they've been in office, they don't just wake up one day because they met me in the hall. You know, I make some comments and they go, "Oh, you're right, maybe I was wrong all those years." They are invested in this, right? They would rather - they would rather retire or lose than change their mind on this. So when they do retire, they're replaced by new folks, those new folks are not, they are not - their fingerprints aren't on the drug war, right? They are not responsible. And that's what I've said about President Trump. He could pretty much on his own, decide this is - we're going to end this now. This is not my drug war. This is not my war. However, if you stay in office for four years or another four years and you do nothing to fix it, then it does become yours.
Wayne: Hm, I see. Yeah. The people that are still in power making those decisions. I mean, they're at all - it's not one person. It's all that momentum, you know, that's in his cabinet or whatever it might be. And then it becomes yours. Yeah.
Don: Right. Now speaking of elections and Trump and all that. The dirty little secret here is, there are reasons to not pass this that are not policy driven. It's all politics. Right? The number one target for Democrats right now is a combination of Cory Gardner from Colorado and Martha McSally from Arizona. She's on the banking committee. He's leading the effort on the SAFE Banking Act - even if it weren’t to pass, does that help him in the election? Does that help her in the election if she votes for it? Probably. You know how much it remains to be seen, but it doesn't hurt. It helps them right? We you're a Democrat, you want to pick up those seats. You're like, why don't we wait on this one? You know, if, if you think this is a win for Trump if he ends the drug war, or fixes - marijuana is descheduled, or whatever. So ends the war on marijuana. Is that good for him politically? I think so. So do democrats want to give him an advantage? No. Now, the same thing works in reverse, by the way, so it's not - this is just not Democrats doing this. But there is a reason not to act just yet for some folks, and that's unfortunate to hear. Yeah, but but you know, let's be honest. I don't think I'm telling you anything you haven't probably either heard or thought but I just wanted to be honest about it.
Wayne: Yeah. With the MORE Act then, so it would remove it from schedule one, would it deschedule cannabis completely? (Yep, yep.) Okay, so it's federally legal, and then would it leave the autonomy to the states to run their programs, or is there a situation where the federal government says, we're going to decide on the regulations or have some control over this?
Don: Well, they - they do a little bit. That's what the, you know what the MORE Act stands for. He talks about, its "marijuana opportunity reinvestment and expungement". Now, just to be clear two things that people don't seem to, they seem to misunderstand - you cannot, this does not expunge all criminal records in the States, where most of these are. This is just federal, right? This - this Act does not do that. Now, it does create some provisions for people to get their records sealed and expunged at the state level, helps him with that, but it doesn't mean that the way it does at the federal level. The other thing is this, this does not legalize marijuana. Right? If your state is a no, it's still a no, but it ends federal prohibition. Right? So it's no longer illegal at the federal level, but it could still be illegal at the state level.
Wayne: Got it - even now, we have like dry counties, for example, it could long term play out that way?
Don: Exactly. And just for what it's worth, I mean, I've seen plenty of people who actually know better to use The L Word instead of the - you know, it's not legalization. You know, it's descheduling. And that does not necessarily mean that the states are going to change, although many of the states remain illegal, because, you know, it becomes very problematic to to have a law books that violates federal law. Sure. Right? You know, how do you, how do you do that? And I know your listeners know that way more than I did. Really, they understand it firsthand.
Wayne: Yeah. Yeah, seems like I mean, you know, talking about these incremental movements. Even if the MORE Act was passed, there's still so much to do on the back end of that, for another law or bill or act to account for like, you know, you said it doesn't expunge at the state level. So now there's another one. And it feels like we want to take as many steps, figure out what steps we can actually take. And if it's only the Banking Act, like let's make that first one. Because even if it's the MORE Act, there's still a lot of work to do.
Don: Yes, and let me give a little shout out to Chris Lindsey on our staff at Marijuana Policy Project, who ran the effort in Illinois. They just passed for the first time - speaking of historic, this is historic because it's the first time a state ever created a legal marijuana framework through the legislative process, not through a ballot initiative. So that bill was something like 600 pages and includes all of this, like from my perspective, I look at what Chris did in Illinois, and say the federal government does not need to get into details here, does not need to get into the weeds about how this is done. Look at what Illinois did. I don't believe that states going forward will allow for people to be still in prison for drug crimes that were committed that are very similar to the legal market that the state puts in place. Right? (Yeah.) It would be hypocritical for a state to do that.
Wayne: I think so.
Don: You know, let's not - let's not spend a whole lot of time at the federal level that we don't need to. Let - leave it to the states to do it. If a state does not want to do this, that's - that's their prerogative. I mean, I can't, you know, after 20 years of arguing for states’ rights, I can't turn around and go "oh, you've got to make them do it." No, no, that's, you know - you want to be a dry county, be a dry county, you want to be a dry state or whatever you would call it in this instance, that's fine. It's like, it's like casino gambling, right? There was a time when only Nevada had it. And then they lifted that prohibition. And now everybody can have it if they want. They don't want it, fine. But anyway...
Wayne: Yeah, yeah. I'd like to talk a little bit about how one of these acts actually moves through the process. Because to me, and I think our listeners, that is kind of a black box that we don't understand. So looking at the MORE Act, it passes the House Committee, what stages are left for it to go through? And what are the roadblocks? Because I've heard a lot of people say, you know, this was historic, like we've been saying, that it passed, but it has no chance. What's the rest of the process look like and where the major hurdles?
Don: Okay, well, whether it's the MORE Act, the STATES Act or the SAFE Banking Act, they would all basically go through the same process. But let's just - we'll talk about more because that's the one that you asked about, but, but the SAFE Banking Act is in a similar position, right? They were in separate committees, they came out of their committees - they were voted on by their, their respective committees. The SAFE Banking Act passed on the floor, went to - goes to the Rules Committee, and they set the rules for how this has to be done and the amount of time each side gets to debate. And then it goes to the floor, whether it is open to amendment or not. And then it's voted on the floor. And then it goes to the Senate. The MORE Act has yet to go to the floor. Now, some of these bills have to go through other committees, because there are committees of jurisdiction, which have issues that may or may not be written into the bill. You know, a banking bill might have a criminal justice aspect to it, so then it has to go to judiciary. SAFE Banking Act didn't have to do that, the MORE Act may have to do that, because it's got, it's got a tax in there - there's a 5% tax right? So that has to go the Ways and Means Committee then right. In less the Ways and Means Committee signs off on it and waves jurisdiction. Okay, and that would speed the process up. I'm somewhat ambivalent about this, but I'll tell you why I might like it to go to other committees, because the more often we have hearings, the more the public debate gets to be held, we get to have this debate about whether this is the right thing to do. And I believe it is. Right? So it gets more press, it gets more talked up. It's you know, it gets a lot of things. And it ultimately has a better chance of passing, it certainly the MORE Act would have a better chance of passing I think, if it went through more hurdles, most people wouldn't think of it that way. But I think in the long run, we'd be better off. Now, could they just pass this thing on the floor and send it over the senate where it would probably die? Yeah, they could do that. And then would we have made incremental change? I guess in some respects, we have had some incrementalism but as long as - if a bill doesn't get sign does it, does it still have an effect? Maybe, maybe not, and that, you know, other people would look at it differently. But in any event, so the bill has to go over to the Senate, it has to have a hearing, generally, has to have a vote in committee, has to have a vote on the floor, and those bills have to be exactly the same. If they're not, then they have a conference committee to work them out. But more often than not, these things just never happen. Like there are thousands and thousands of bills - I think there were like 9000 bills filed last year, and only like 400 of them passed. And that's, that's a pretty low percentage. Right? So when democrats say oh, there are all these bills sitting over in the Senate. Well, there are bills sitting around the House too. But for the most part, they don't get hearings and they don't get votes, which is why even though it's historic when we have a new piece of legislation that's got marijuana in it, we don't get too excited because the chances of that passing are pretty slim.
Wayne: Right? So on the MORE Act, the name I've heard if it went to the Senate was Mitch McConnell, the senate majority leader, would just kill it. Like you mentioned, it wouldn't even have any chance at all. Is it because of this priority in the - you know, where are we at on the priority list? Is it simply that in the, to them, you know, in their mind, it's not as much a priority, or at least on this MORE Act, is there a different special interest or something going on? Because it seems like the public the majority, I mean, you look at the acceptance and people that want to legalize, and you talk to the people I mean, it's, it's alarmingly high and still growing. But so something else is going on behind the scenes of why this isn't enacting and it seems like it should be a pretty big priority, and we're talking about major social impact here.
Don: Well, you would think but, you know, when we all talk about polling, like the polling on this is 60, 7o, 80%, whatever, depending on how you quantify it, right? If it's medical it's close to 90%, if its recreational it's in the 60s or 70s some places - but that support tends to be a mile long and an inch deep. It's not like there are, you know, people on Capitol Hill on a regular basis, other than me, trying to be on these guys to do something, right? The halls aren't clogged with - they're clogged with social justice warriors and climate change, you know, folks and and, you know, pro choice people and pro life people and cancer, all these other folks, but there are very few on this issue. And it's it's somewhat evident when you think about the fact that we've had hours and hours of debate on on the presidential debate stage from the Democrats, and we almost never hear this issue come up. Now, when you poll Democrats, it's off the charts, right? It's probably closer to 100% but they don't bring it up. Why? I guess it's just not priority for them. And that's unfortunate. So in a place like the Capitol, like DC, where time is short priorities are like, you know, everybody's got their own thing. Very few people care that much about this issue. And that's where - that's where your listeners come in, they have to make sure that their elected officials make it a priority. Right? So if you're not talking to your member of Congress about it, who is? You know, you can't blame your member of Congress for not making this a priority, if you haven't made them make it a priority.
Wayne: Yeah, yeah, definitely. We'll hit on that at the end, how listeners can help and support. That's so interesting. So thinking about that, why, you know, Democrats, maybe 100% would be for this, but it doesn't seem to be on the priority list. Is it, you mentioned some of the other lobbying and the interests that are there and it's not a lot around cannabis right now. Is it simply that, that the exposure and for them they're not as aware it might seem like a smaller priority? Is there something from the other side with, you know, other interests? We think of pharma, alcohol, private prisons, like is there lobbying on the other side? Where I can imagine they're looking at this and going, "cannabis is going to be legalized eventually, but the more we can delay it, the more we'll be able to continue to make our money on our systems." Is that a part of this too?
Don: Well, it's not - it's not overtly visible to me. But I do believe it happens, right? Like, I can tell you that when we did a ballot initiative in Arizona, one of the big pharmaceuticals wrote a big check to stop us, and we lost by like a point. So I know they've weighed in. I know, some of the, you know, law and order folks, they don't want - the status quo works for them. Right? They're on the receiving end of all that money, if all that money doesn't have a need to be appropriated because you're not, no longer arresting, prosecuting, incarcerating people for the simple possession of cannabis, then, you know, where are they going to get those funds? What are they going to do? How they get - like it just, it just, that's just the way it is. Now, the sad part here is, is that we're getting fragged by some of our friends in theory, right? If you're a medical marijuana provider, and along comes a ballot initiative to make it legal for adult use in your state, you may not think that's a good thing for you financially. And we saw that play out when we ran a ballot initiative in Maine. Some of the big opponents to our effort were the small mom and pop dispensaries that were providing cannabis to medical patients. So that's all part of this as well. So I didn't want to take a swipe at Big Pharma without being honest about (Yeah) you know how we're getting hit from the inside as well.
Wayne: Yeah, no, it makes sense. There's not the unified front on our end. And that's what a lot of you know, honestly, we are afraid of if it was federal legalization is, you know, who might be behind legalizing? What did these acts mean? And we're all looking like well, big business is going to want a piece of this. And we look at some states like Florida, where you have to have millions of dollars to even operate and the cap on the number of licenses is low, versus Oregon, which is very pro small business and an oversaturation. We're struggling now because there's just so many companies, but yeah, that that fragments that even further and can delay it and make it difficult. But I like how you kind of talked about the MORE Act being, you know, descheduling at the federal level, but leaving the autonomy with the states. So Oregon can be a pro small business state, maybe Florida just doesn't want to be and things could remain that way, but it wouldn't be like a sweeping regulations from the Federal Government and change everything upside down, right?
Don: Right, right, and as I like to point out, the federal government screwed this up, they should just get out of the way. They don't have any jurisdiction with fixing this in my opinion, right? So just like, just let the states do what they want to do. It won't be perfect. This is going to be very painful for a long time and you're seeing that with some of the companies and the stock prices and all that that's, that's happening now. You know, people look at me and they go, man, you got to be making millions or something. I'm like, first of all, I don't do any of that. I don't even have a stock in any of this. Sometimes I think I'm the dumbest man on the planet because when this goes you know, full blown legal where across the states, it's not going to affect me, in fact I'll probably be out of a job. So that, there's that but you know, between now and the time it is sort of rolled out all out. There are going to be a lot of people who make a lot of money and be a lot of people who are gonna lose a lot of money too. And you probably, you all know that probably better than I do. So I'll defer to you on that one.
Wayne: Well that's why I appreciate Marijuana Policy Project advocating for consumers or patients. Because that's always our fear is, you know, who's behind the scenes? What are their motives or interests? Because depending on who pushes an act or why it's legalized, you know, there is a lot of fear of that. And it's hard to know exactly what's going on all the time. Back to the MORE Act so, again, going back to that name, Mitch McConnell, would he just knock it down? Because it's doesn't seem to be a priority. Do we know specifically why it has no chance of getting past the Senate there?
Don: Well, first of all, I think the MORE Act goes beyond where most republicans feel comfortable, okay. There's a tax added. There's, there's an opportunity fund. It's a lot of government intervention. Now, a lot of us think that that probably is necessary because this is not your typical new industry that's being developed. This is not Uber. This is not Airbnb, this is something that was totally illegal, and people suffered because of it. But how do you fix that? How do you unring that bell? Very difficult to work out. But there are a lot of folks who think the MORE Act goes way too far. Right, now, talk about Mitch McConnell - who knew two years ago that Mitch McConnell was going to be hemps best friend, right? And suddenly, like hemp is now legal. And we're working all that out. And, you know, he's putting it on his campaign literature. So you just never know how things are going to change. But he may look at that. The President might look at the MORE Act and say, let's get this done. Let's fix this. Let's do it. Let's do let's do something now. And rightm and get the credit and take it away from Elizabeth Warren. Take it away from Bernie Sanders. Don't let them use that as a campaign position to beat on Republicans. You know, Every time I go to a hearing Democrats are blaming Republicans for the drug war. Nixon, Nixon, Nixon, right? Reagan, Reagan, Reagan. Hey, when Nixon was President and Reagan was president, they had democratic controlled Congresses, right? So, you know, own - own this a little bit, guys. Like that's, to me that's part of the problem, like people won't, won't be honest about how this got done, how this got started, why we are where we are. And maybe if, if people did that - look, I'm the first one to tell you, Republicans are wrong on this issue more often than not, right? They just don't seem to get it. And maybe because, when we talk about polling, everybody says, Well it's 80/20 - 80 in favorite and 20 against - you know who those 20 are? Those 20 are people who vote in Republican primaries. That's the problem for Republicans, right? They get no real benefit for supporting this, because most people in Congress only have to win their primary. And then they're done. Right? They don't have to win a general election. So they don't have to appeal to the opposite party. They just have to not be primary and have someone come into their, you know, outflank them on the right. Democrats, the same thing. Right? AOC came and she outflanked what's his name, and now everybody's afraid of being a primary, which may be part of the reason why we've seen some of these bills move as relatively quickly as they have.
Wayne: Yeah. Was the Farm Bill really surprising for you and legalizing hemp at the federal level?
Don: Well, yes, I will say - (it happened fast!) Yeah, because we, we stayed away from that. Like, I'm, I'm happy that that happened. But we did not, we did not lobby for it. In fact, I even said to the chairman of the two respective House committees back a couple years ago when republicans controlled everything I said, if you bring the hemp bill up, we will not mess with it, we will not try to have it amended to include you know THC cannabis, higher limits, all that - we won't do that. We thought, what's good for hemp is good for us. Right? Move hemp - you know the other beauty of hemp being illegal, I always said was, it just shows how ridiculous the federal law is, right? (God, yeah.) Same thing with schedule one, like marijuana is on schedule one, heroin is on schedule one - Fentanyl? No, no, it's not. But but they're on the same schedule. It's ridiculous and no one can justify it. Right? It's just not justifiable. So, you know, the one thing we haven't talked about that is, that is out there is this talk, a constant talk now of research. Yeah, you know, a lot of folks a lot of opponents use that is a reason to slow walk. You need some research. We need more research. You know what, it's been around for thousands of years right? You had your chance to research it. If you want to research it, fine, but in the meantime, stop arresting these people for it, right? Because by your own admission, if you think you need more research, then aren't you will also saying, maybe it's not prison worthy? And look, and I've had this conversation with Jeff Sessions who says "marijuana's bad". I said, I never said it was good. I just said it wasn't worth going to prison over. It wasn't worth having your life ruined, right? I'm a conservative, fiscal conservative, I don't want to pay for able-body welfare recipients who otherwise should be able to have a job and pay for their own families. And, you know, we often talk about, or we hear about, we don't like to talk about the money, right? Oh, the billions of dollars in tax revenue we're gonna raise. No, I don't want to talk about that because I don't think we should do this for the money. But if you want to talk about tax revenue. How about the money you're not going to spend arresting, prosecuting, incarcerating people? How about the money that comes in? Because Jimmy Jones has a job, and we don't have to pay him welfare to feed his family? How about, you know, looking at it from that perspective? So, you know, it's fun to talk to Republicans about that side of the coin, especially those guys who are like, close to to this, right? You can see them, you know, like, on their face, the anguish of trying to figure out, you know, what to say to me, in support of their current position. You know, they, you know, they're like, I'm like, I love you, but I could love you more. How could I think you're so great on everything else, but you just suck when it comes to this? How could you be so wrong about this, and so right about everything else? It's inconsistent!
Wayne: Yeah, I mean, to us, it just feels like the institutional momentum of the prisons and the budgets and the things that wouldn't be needed, that taxpayers are covering and there's interest in keeping you know that status quo going. I mean, that's how we always look at it from our end, where we're really unfamiliar with what's going on. I mean, this is just our surface level view. And we're guessing, you know, referring to myself, at least operators, you know, just running a business, at the federal and the government level. I just, it's always confusing and seems like a black box of why things are happening. But things don't happen overnight, either. I mean, it's amazing. We're at, we're at now where we actually are. I mean, when I told my parents I was starting this business, they couldn't believe it. They thought it was a terrible idea. Now they're open to it. And I asked them 10-15 years ago, they couldn't imagine this happening. So I mean, we have been making progress, but - but yeah, how we get to the next stage. I have a question-
Don: Just a second to say where we are now is we have, even our opposition sort of like concedes that, oh, people shouldn't be arrested. We should decriminalize it. So my response to that is - okay so you're okay creating this legal market, okay, this legal demand, but not illegal supply, right? I mean, if you think there is a disproportionate number of arrests now between black and white, imagine what it's going to be what it's okay to consume, but not okay to produce and to sell, right? So many drug dealers are going to jail, only growers are going to jail. But, but guys like us, who maybe just want to consume in the privacy of our own home, which is nice, but we have to depend on an illicit market. And we create an illicit market by by having decriminalization only and not having a free market commercial, capitalistic enterprise with interstate.
Wayne: Yeah, I mean, you look at the vaping crisis. People using pesticides, there would be no lab testing. I mean, from a consumer safety standpoint, that is a huge issue. Medical patients are consuming this that have compromised immune systems possibly. I mean, yeah, there's a huge gap there to not legalize the business side - and regulate it, I mean, we love regulations when they're fair.
Don: Right, and when, when people say, you know, oh - this is, this is the pushback that I get from opponents. Hey, this isn't your grandfather's marijuana, right? This is like, hundreds of times more powerful. And I'm like, all the more reason you shouldn't buy it in a baggie. Yeah. Right. Like you're right, it should be labeled. You don't go to a liquor store and just buy something in a brown bottle. Right, it's got a label on it. I have a friend that makes - I have a friend that makes wine. He will give me all the wine I want - do I like it, do I do I take it from him? No, because it's crap. Right? And for the same reasons, I don't want to buy, you know, the product from a street vendor. I want to buy it from a legitimate provider, where you have some sense of the risk because you know, "Oh, this was grown here, this is seed to sale. This is the way it works. These are the pesticides, these are all these." It takes a lot of the fear out of it. And, and that's a good thing.
Wayne: Yeah. But it seems like such a weird argument to me. I mean, yes, consumer education will need to happen, things are more potent, but nobody's dying from this, you can easily go out and buy bottles of everclear that are super potent, but consumers will figure out what works for them. And regardless of the potency now being much higher or lower. I mean, I don't hear any consumers complaining about that. I always hear it used as an opposition argument. But when you look at the markets and the people, like that doesn't seem to be a problem anywhere from what I can tell. Right?
Don: Right. You just, just consume a lot less of it.
Wayne: Yeah, yeah. Or by low - Yeah, people get, their preferences, they find out what they like and then the market adapts because our products need to sell. We can't be making something -you know, if you only make everclear, you probably got a pretty small market segment you're selling into right? (Yeah) Back to what I wanted to ask about, back over to the SAFE Banking Act, I think this was just yesterday I heard Mike Crapo, he's the Senate Banking Committee Chairman, basically said the SAFE Banking Act will not pass or he'll prevent it. And so the question I had is, is that the case now with him in the way, is it not going to happen, at least on the SAFE Banking Act? And some of the things he mentioned and why this is one of his quotes, One was, it doesn't address the high potency of cannabis. There's a lack of research on effects. He's worried about marketing to children. And I was thinking - this is just about banking. Yes, it doesn't address those things, because it's not made to address those things?
Don: That is almost verbatim what I said to him. When, when I heard weeks ago, that he had this interest in in potency limits. And I said, Senator, I said - I'm hearing some rumor that you may be interested in having some potency limits in his bill? He goes, do you really think there should be 100% THC? I said, Well, whether there is or isn't, it shouldn't be in this bill. Because you are basically taking a banking bill, one that is of interest to banks and realtors and insurance companies more than it is us, by the way, right meaning us as an advocacy group, and you're turning it into something that is way more involved than your committee has the jurisdiction to cover, you know, that should be somewhere else. And oh, by the way, the states have limits. And you know, this is just about making sure that legal enterprises within those states can bank I said, and by the way, if you put a - if you put a limit on it, thanks aren't going to be able to - it's going to be untenable, because no banks going to say, when you bring in your cash or you go, you know, to do your electronic transfers, are going to say, "and what was the THC potency on on this, the sales?" They're not gonna know, we already see this with hemp, right? The 3% rule right, if it goes over three, then it's marijuana, its cannabis, it's not hemp anymore and then it's queue people subject to arrest - gonna have the same problem. I believe - and just understand where Chairman Crapo is from, right next door you guys in Washington State - he's in Idaho, right? It's like the state with the least number of legal marijuana laws on the books. There are like three or maybe just one depending on how you count it, but Idaho is the worst. And there he is in Idaho. So he's got to be very - like, to me, He's already doing more than I would have expected from somebody in a state that has nothing. (Yeah.) So I think I think this has the ability to move along. I know the people that are working on this from outside of the cannabis space - bankers, realtors, insurance folks, this is like their number one thing. They want to get the fixed because it's a problem for them. They don't want to get caught up in this. And so they need it to be fixed. I think it's going to be fixed. But you know whether the industry - like from the advocacy perspective, thinks it's much of a win, we'll cheer about it. We're working on it, but it's not what we're ultimately trying to get to (definitely) because it doesn't - it doesn't keep people, really, from prison.
Wayne: Yeah, yeah, without a doubt. When I hear arguments like that, and you kind of pause and go, let me logically think about this. And then you think like, well, that reason doesn't really make any sense. And I think one of two things, either one, he's really uninformed, he's not thinking about it fully. And maybe it's a quick quote and he's just feel like he's got to say something about it, or two there's actually another incentive or motive going on behind the scenes, but this is the only thing he could scrape together to say why to justify what he might do. Is it a lot of times it just uninformed or is, again, we're kind of going back to those, you know, big interests or other things going on - is there something else and is he the ultimate hurdle, like can it still go around without his, you know, approving it I guess or wanting to pass?
Don: Well, he could, he could vote against it and it could still pass, but he sort of has - he sort of has the gavel to let it go or not. Yeah, right. If somebody further up the food chain wants it, then it probably happens. You know, that's how you get to be chairman. Right for, for delivering for others over time. So I don't think he's, I don't want to say he's uninformed, right. He's certainly not as informed as you are. Or maybe I am on this issue. But he has staff, he knows what's going on. And he is looking at a broader picture of things here. Like what else is going on in the Senate and where can we maybe make this work or not work? You know, I think he wants to deliver this for Cory Gardner, right? I mean, I don't know that for a fact. But you don't get to keep the gavel if you lose the majority. Right? And when the majority is as slim as it is, losing the Senator from Colorado could be the difference between you having a gavel or not. So does he want to help Cory Gardner? Certainly he does. Is this going to be the bill to do it? It won't hurt.
Wayne: Right? Yeah. Well, as we get wrapping up here, Don, again, I want to hit on where, how listeners can take action and help, but the last question I wanted to ask after hitting on all you know, STATES Act, MORE Act, SAFE banking. Is it possible - I mean, it really doesn't feel like one of these is going to go through in 2020. Something could always happen. Could another act come along and be something more or different - like are more going to be introduced? Like what's the next year to two look like, or kind of your predictions on the short-midterm forecast?
Don: Well, we often say nothing happens in an election year. But I actually think the reverse could be true as well. Right? Like, this is, this is when in Maryland, we passed their medical marijuana bill in an election year. Why? Because people stood up and said, We want this, make it happen, and jammed it through. I mean, it was like an election year issue. And people didn't want to be on the wrong side of that. So if the president were to hijack the bill, or a bill, or the position, or the issue, something will happen. And there's no telling what the President's going to do, like we - you know, we've been through almost three years of that, right? There is no predicting this President. So, if you think it's not possible, that's probably when it happens. And it will happen just when you least expect it. Right? So I actually - now, understand, I'm pretty much an optimist when it comes to this stuff, if I wasn't, I would find it difficult to get out of bed, get on a train, go to Capitol Hill three days a week and lobby for an issue that was going nowhere, right, that sort of loses interest in a hurry. But I do think we're on the cusp of something very historical, and very beneficial for this issue. And for the people who are involved in it, not only as producers and from the industry side, but from the patients and the consumers as well. Everybody knows this drug war has been a disaster. Everyone knows. Now, I will say there are people who know it's a disaster and say we should double down. But, you know, at least they know we're not winning. Right? So it's time to do something different. I will say that what was disappointing to me is that yesterday, no sorry on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee had a hearing, another hearing, on the opioid crisis and what to do. And it went on for close to three hours, and no one brought up the issue of marijuana as an alternative to opioids. (Really? Wow.) It's just rarely rarely happens. And so, you know, I continue to be, you know, upset about the fact that we can let, you know, hundreds of people die every day of opioid overdoses. But we can't bring ourselves to say, is marijuana an alternative? There seems to be a number of studies that say, in states where it's legal, the opioid overdose rate is significantly lower than states that aren't. I've handed out that study to many members of Congress, and they just don't seem to want to embrace that as an alternative.
Wayne: That is crazy that it doesn't even come up. You know, obviously, I'm biased. I'm in the industry. I get a lot of emails from people that it's helped in their life. And you know, we've interviewed a PhD neuroscientist showing opioids can be used at a third of their dose, I think it was, with cannabis and have similar effects. I mean, to me, it seems like cannabis is maybe number one, that could potentially be the first steps to help this opioid crisis. I mean, what other ideas are out there? Is there anything else that can even compete with that? I mean, what, you know, lock down more drug laws and you know, hammer things down that way, but that normally just backfires then the other side ramps up. There's more crime, bigger cartels. You know, I don't know, it's interesting. What were some of the points that were discussed or brought up in that?
Don: They said - one of the responses was equine therapy, and yoga. I'm like, seriously, seriously?? It was all I could do stay in the room. So look, I would encourage your listeners who are leading the effort here, right? They are the folks who have an understanding of this issue, of the benefits that it provides for the patients - and the consumers, but you know, really patients. Nobody, nobody on Capitol Hill believes that patients should be arrested, yet they fail to act, right? So you need to put these people in front of them - whether they be patients, whether they be the providers. You don't have to come all the way to Capitol Hill, you all have, you know live somewhere or work somewhere that as a member of Congress, that if you do not invite them to your facility, they have no idea how legitimate it is. Right? They - all many of them know is what they see on The Wire. Right? That's what this is. And unless you change their opinion by sharing what you do with them - make them your biggest advocate. That's what you can do to change things on Capitol Hill. And, you know, if you got a guy who's bad, work to get them out of there - either change his mind or get them out of there. Yeah, if you guys don't do it, then the status quo just continues.
Wayne: So what's the call to action for people - if we're talking about business operators, is there a process? Or is you know, getting to Capitol Hill is really difficult for us, obviously we're busy. Money's always an issue. Do we just email a congressman and ask, "Hey, can you - would you like to come tour our facility?" Is there a specific tone or something to be said about, "here's what my values are". Like, what do you recommend that, basically a call to action for our listeners, on how they can actually take some steps that are practical for them?
Don: There are very few people, percentage wise within a congressional district, that interact with their member. I often say, if you want to be influential on Capitol Hill, well then go to Capitol Hill, but if you want to be influential, you have to know your member of Congress, and to really be influential, they have to know you, right? It's simpler than ever with social media to interact with your member of Congress. They all have a Facebook page, they all have a Twitter account. They all have an Instagram, that you can communicate, can just like them. Even if you don't really like them, you like them, right? And then you see that, you see their information come across their newsfeed and you just start the dialogue. And you make sure that they get a chance to talk to you at a town hall. You - it doesn't even cost any money, you do not have to go to a fundraiser. It's not like that. Right? Like, like if you're guy's really bad, do you really want to go to a fundraiser for them? Do you want to give them money? No, that would probably send the opposite message right? You can, you can be terrible - I'll still give you money. So why would you be good? But you need to you need to educate that person. That person does not know what you know. They have no clue what you know. Right? So share with them the reason that you're in this - you're not in this business to make money. You could do any other business and make money. Why are you doing? Why are you doing this one? Right. Why are you doing one that has so much risk. You are subject to federal arrest, prosecution, incarceration, yet you still do this - Why? So if I'm willing to do this kind of work, as a processor or a cultivator, or dispensary, the least you can do is not put my customers and my patients in risk of federal arrest. Don't make them criminals. All those veterans you talk about, how you sneak veteran should have access to this, thank the veterans you know, thank you for your service - really? You think I should be in jail because I'm using marijuana for my PTSD. That's inconsistent. Yeah, you know, I, I believe veterans will do more to advance this cause than anyone else. So if you've got, if you've got customers in your dispensary, or your facility that are veterans that are benefiting from this, and they're not talking to their elected officials, that's a loss. That's a missed opportunity.
Wayne: Yeah, yeah. I love those points. We're gonna actually - We talked about this in the past with others, you know, what can people do. But I think we're going to make a case study out of this and at least try to, you know, we're going to reach out, maybe get someone to come here and take a tour and we'll document this process. So for people that listen to the podcast and follow, we're going to make some attempts at this. I really like what you said. And I think we need to try to lead by example, and do those things. So getting someone out here and so we'll be sharing that coming up, whether we're successful or not. Either way, so hopefully we can, you know, at least be a - be an example for others that want to do the same thing. So those are really good points. Where can people find you or follow the Marijuana Policy Project if they want to stay up to date on what you are doing?
Don: Well, we have a web page, it's mpp.org. My email address is dmurphy@mpp.org. And we're on Facebook I would, I would suggest you check us out there. If you ever want to come to DC and Get the tour - happy to do that, you know, happy to introduce you to members of Congress. And and you - give you an opportunity to share your story, because your story is more impressive than my story. Right? Like, I'm not in, you know, I'm at a 30,000 foot level here. I'm not on the ground fighting this thing. And so, yeah, I'd love to have you come out and do the tour.
Wayne: Awesome. Well, thanks again, Don, for the time. I think someone can be really helpful for listeners and some clarity around what's going around at the federal level and really appreciate the time. Thank you.
Don: Thank you.