In a recent development, GOP Congressman Chuck Edwards (R-NC) expressed his strong opposition to a provision in a spending bill that would offer limited protections for banks working with state-legal marijuana businesses. Edwards declared his concerns during a markup of the Fiscal Year 2025 Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations measure, indicating his intent to propose an amendment to eliminate the section.

The cannabis banking section, secured in the base bill by subcommittee chairman Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH), aims to prevent federal regulators covered under the FSGG bill from penalizing financial institutions that provide services to state cannabis businesses. However, Edwards argues that this provision is not relevant to an appropriations bill, as it represents an "affirmative authorization disguised as a limitation" on the use of funds.

The primary contention raised by Congressman Edwards lies in the policy substance of the measure. He maintains that the country has never allowed federally illegal activities to be banked, emphasizing that marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I drug despite legalization efforts in some states. Edwards further asserts that marijuana should remain illegal, highlighting its potential dangers, particularly to younger individuals.

Edwards alleges that the provision amounts to a selective provision of the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act sponsored by Rep. Joyce. He believes that its inclusion in the appropriations bill would significantly alter the way business is conducted in America and deviate from federal law.

Although Edwards acknowledges that proposing amendments at the current level may not be in order, he plans to raise the issue at the appropriate time, either during the full committee or on the floor. He assures committee members of his intention to engage in additional discussions and seeks to avoid surprising them regarding his upcoming amendment proposal.

It is worth noting that Congressman Edwards has a history of opposing marijuana-related legislation. Last year, he introduced a bill that sought to reduce federal funding to states and Indian tribes that legalize marijuana. Additionally, he has expressed opposition to legislation preventing the denial of federal employment or security clearances based on past marijuana use. Moreover, he has criticized the Biden administration's move to reschedule cannabis, arguing that it may increase youth access despite its intent not to legalize the substance.

On the other hand, Rep. Joyce supports the cannabis banking section, stating that forcing cannabis businesses to operate solely in cash attracts violent crime. He believes that his legislation safeguards the safe adult use of cannabis while ensuring the safety of cannabis businesses and their employees.

The spending bill under consideration, apart from the cannabis banking section, also omits a long-standing rider introduced by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) that has blocked Washington, D.C. from utilizing its local tax dollars to legalize recreational marijuana sales. This omission highlights the importance placed by Rep. Joyce, the subcommittee chair, on removing the cannabis rider specifically.

The current version of the bill includes several drug policy provisions that advocates have criticized, including language preventing the use of D.C. local funds to manage a syringe exchange program. The bill also interferes with various other local policy matters in the District of Columbia. These matters range from abortion, contraceptives, and assisted suicide to voting by non-citizens, firearms regulations, vehicle emissions, and right turns at red lights.

As discussions continue surrounding the spending bill and its cannabis banking provision, lawmakers and advocates in Congress are also pursuing other drug policy amendments. These include authorizing U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) doctors to issue medical marijuana recommendations to military veterans and supporting psychedelics research and access at the VA. Republican members of Congress are also seeking to eliminate a provision in a separate defense bill that would prevent military branches from testing recruits for marijuana as a condition of enlistment.

The 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) currently includes these proposals, and they will require approval from the Rules Committee before potentially reaching the floor. These developments highlight the ongoing efforts by lawmakers to shape drug policy reforms at both the state and federal levels.

In conclusion, the debate over the cannabis banking provision in the spending bill continues to divide lawmakers. While Congressman Edwards vehemently opposes its inclusion, arguing that it deviates from federal law, Congressman Joyce maintains that the provision safeguards the safety of cannabis businesses and their employees. The outcome of these discussions will have significant implications for the state-legal marijuana industry and the evolving landscape of drug policy in the United States.