What More Will the More Act Do?

By Sophie Lovering

In an article published by The Roundtable on November 22, 2020, I wrote that “[the] passage of Measure 110 demonstrates the public’s growing resistance to the American war on drugs” [1]. Just last month, Oregon passed Measure 110 with 55.8% of the popular vote and decriminalized the possession of small amounts of hard drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin [1]. This “war on the war on drugs” is spreading; on Friday, December 4, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would decriminalize marijuana and expunge nonviolent offenders with marijuana-related convictions [2].

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, or MORE Act, which won by a margin of 226-164 votes, represents the first time either chamber of Congress has ever endorsed the decriminalization of marijuana [2]. The bill would not only decriminalize cannabis, but also instate a five percent tax on the drug, with profits funding small business grant programs to aid the individuals most impacted by the criminalization of marijuana [2]. 

The MORE Act would remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act and thereby legalize many marijuana-related activities at the federal level [3]. While 15 states and the District of Columbia have removed prohibitions on recreational marijuana use over the age of 21, any activity involving marijuana remains a federal crime anywhere in the United States [3]. Although the MORE Act would truly decriminalize the use of cannabis in these states that have removed prohibitions, it “would not directly alter the status of cannabis under state law” in states where use of the drug remains a crime [3]. 

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, Black Americans are arrested more than three times as often as their white counterparts for possession of marijuana, despite comparable rates of usage [2]. Decriminalizing the substance, and more importantly expunging nonviolent offenders with marijuana-related convictions, would represent an active step toward dismantling systemic racism written into American policies. 

A majority of House Republicans denounced the bill, arguing that it was proposed to serve as a distraction from COVID-19 relief discussions [2]. Notably, however, five Republicans broke from their party alignment to support the bill, alongside Libertarian Michigan Representative Justin Amash [2]. Florida Representative Matt Gaetz, despite voting in favor of the bill, expressed several criticisms, including his belief that the decriminalization of marijuana should not be tied to a form of reparations toward minority communities [2]. 

While the MORE Act is currently pending in the Senate, it is unlikely to be passed by the Republican-led chamber [4]. The House’s historical vote, for now, remains a symbolic event demonstrating a turning point in American politics; but the House isn’t alone. President-elect Joe Biden supports decriminalization, and control of the Senate remains dependent upon two runoff races [4]. We are seeing a shift in American drug law and drug law enforcement, and will soon see its effect on those Americans who have been negatively impacted by discriminatory policy.

References
[1] Lovering, Sophie. “The War on the War on Drugs.” The Roundtable. November 22, 2020. https://www.pulj.org/the-roundtable/the-war-on-the-war-on-drugs.
[2] Edmondson, Catie. “House Passes Landmark Bill Decriminalizing Marijuana.” New York Times. December 4, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/us/politics/ house-marijuana.html. [3] “The MORE Act: House Plans Historic Vote on Federal Marijuana Legalization.” Congressional Research Service. November 25, 2020. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/LSB/LSB10556.
[4] Walsh, Deirdre. “House Approves Decriminalizing Marijuana; Bill To Stall In Senate.” National Public Radio. December 4, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/12/04/942949288/house-approves-decriminalizing-marijuana-bill-to-stall-in-senate.

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.