Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Ethan Nadelman, and this is Psychoactive, a production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio and Protozoa Pictures. Psychoactive is the
Speaker 1: show where we talk about all things drugs. But any
Speaker 1: views expressed here do not represent those of I Heart Media,
Speaker 1: Protozoa Pictures, or their executives and employees, and d Heat.
Speaker 1: As an inveterate contrarian, I can tell you they may
Speaker 1: not even represent my own and nothing contained in this
Speaker 1: show should be used as medical advice or encouragement to
Speaker 1: use any type of drug. One of the most popular
Speaker 1: episodes the Psychoactive to date has been the one where
Speaker 1: I invited my friend Julie Holland to service my co
Speaker 1: host and answer questions with me from you the audience.
Speaker 1: So we're going to record another one of those episodes,
Speaker 1: and we need your questions. Leave us a voicemail with
Speaker 1: a question as d he tells us possible at one
Speaker 1: eight three, three seven, seven nine sixty, or you can
Speaker 1: record a voice memo and send it to Psychoactive at
Speaker 1: protozoa dot com. I'm sure it's going to be a
Speaker 1: great second go with this. Hello, Psychoactive listeners. So our
Speaker 1: guest today is Congresswoman Nancy Mays. She's a freshman member
Speaker 1: of Congress, she's a Republican, and she's recently introduced a
Speaker 1: bill to legalize marijuana at the federal level. Now, before
Speaker 1: I asked her to join us, I wanted to talk
Speaker 1: briefly with Kyle Jaeger, a journalist for the online publication
Speaker 1: Marijuana Moment who's been covering developments on Capitol Hill regarding marijuana. So, Kyle,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining me on Psychoactive. So here's
Speaker 1: Nancy Mays my guest today, who's introduced, you know, uh,
Speaker 1: marijuana legalization bill. First Republican, I think, first Republican to
Speaker 1: introduce such a bill and starting to be running with it.
Speaker 1: But there's other bills out there. Is There is that
Speaker 1: Schumer Bill, there is the Jerry Nadler More Act, or
Speaker 1: Safe Banking. What is the state of play? Can you
Speaker 1: tell us first on the marijuana legalization bills before we
Speaker 1: get into the banking stuff. So we do have these
Speaker 1: three major bills in play. Um. I think the more
Speaker 1: momentum that this issue has generated, the more we've seen
Speaker 1: divergent and increasingly bipartisan ideas about what a legalization framework
Speaker 1: should look like, and so you do have the bill
Speaker 1: from House Street to share you, Chairman jer Nadler Um,
Speaker 1: the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement Act or the MORE Act,
Speaker 1: which cleared the House historically in December and has since
Speaker 1: passed a committee this session in September one. Um. And
Speaker 1: then like you said, we have the bill from Senate
Speaker 1: Majority Leader Chuck Schumer um the KAWA or the Cannabis
Speaker 1: Administration and Opportunity Act, which we saw a draft version
Speaker 1: of that released last year and uh, and the Leader
Speaker 1: has talked about introducing it hopefully in in April. But
Speaker 1: then as you as as you mentioned, we had this
Speaker 1: Republican lead bill sponsored by Congresswoman Nancy Maze, her State
Speaker 1: Reforms Act, which really generated a lot of excitement just
Speaker 1: you know, by virtue of a Republican leading on this
Speaker 1: issue is you know, the main point there, and you
Speaker 1: saw cannabis stocks immediate rally. But in any case, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't we don't have the text of the Schoomer
Speaker 1: Bill yet, so it's kind of hard to say where
Speaker 1: you know, votes might lie on that issue. But yeah,
Speaker 1: those are the three main bills, and and they're fundamentally
Speaker 1: fairly similar. I mean all of them would remove marijuana
Speaker 1: from the Controlled Substances Act, they would deschedule it so
Speaker 1: that would enforce legalization on states. And then where they
Speaker 1: diverge is on you know, tax revenue issues. You know,
Speaker 1: who should be in charge of regulating the market, where
Speaker 1: would revenue go toward? UM. It's very NUANCEDNT, but like
Speaker 1: the overall objectives are are ultimately I would say the
Speaker 1: same UM. And so then you know, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: there's a Safe Banking Act which would very simply provide
Speaker 1: protections for financial institutions that work with state legal cannabis
Speaker 1: businesses against being penalized by federal regulators. And so that's
Speaker 1: viewed as a more industry friendly incremental reform. Although you
Speaker 1: know it's it's chief sponsor in the House, Congressman pro
Speaker 1: Motter has really made a point to to stress, hey,
Speaker 1: this bill is also about equity, you know, providing you know,
Speaker 1: provides opportunities and avenues for small and minority owned businesses
Speaker 1: to get the capital to participate in the market, which
Speaker 1: would help reduce this disparity that we've seen not just
Speaker 1: under critinalization but even in legal markets. And so the
Speaker 1: momentum here is clear. The fact that you're seeing this
Speaker 1: increasing bipartisan interest like that's that's a really encouraging sign
Speaker 1: for stakeholders, for advocates, for everyone. But that means more opinions,
Speaker 1: and that means coming up with passible legislation might be
Speaker 1: might become a little bit more complicated the more actor
Speaker 1: Nadler's bill that passed a couple of years ago, I
Speaker 1: think with all but five or six Democrats on board
Speaker 1: and all but five or six Republicans against, do you
Speaker 1: think it's going to pass by somewhat similar margins this
Speaker 1: time around, I would predict so, if not a little
Speaker 1: bit more. I mean they've had more time to digest
Speaker 1: to the various provisions and more time to to consider,
Speaker 1: you know, what this reform would accomplish, and the odds
Speaker 1: or that could happen sometime in March of this year.
Speaker 1: That's what we're hearing. Yeah, we're hearing that the floor
Speaker 1: votes on the more, which would be the second time
Speaker 1: that it's reached the House floor, will be aligned fairly
Speaker 1: similarly with the formal introduction of the Schumer Senate version
Speaker 1: there Kawa call you use the acronym before Kawa. What
Speaker 1: does that mean, the KAWA is the bill from Majority
Speaker 1: Leeker Schumer, the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act. As for
Speaker 1: the Senate bill, what's the prospects with that going forward?
Speaker 1: It's hard to make any kind of predictions about what's
Speaker 1: achievable in the Senate. I would say we're likely looking
Speaker 1: at requiring sixty votes here, and there's been earlier reporting
Speaker 1: on some moderate Democrats still expressing some level of skepticism
Speaker 1: about the just the very concept of legalization. But I
Speaker 1: think will understand a little bit more of the breakdown
Speaker 1: once we actually see the legislation like filed at. Schumer
Speaker 1: and his colleagues have been engaging very actively with advocates
Speaker 1: and stakeholders as they find wise this legislation. So I think, well,
Speaker 1: we'll know more in April. And can you imagine any Republicans,
Speaker 1: I mean the Alaska Senator Murkowski or anybody actually signing
Speaker 1: onto it. I could see that's just without the actual text.
Speaker 1: That's kind of the go to response from from these
Speaker 1: you know, both on the fence Democrats and Republican senators.
Speaker 1: You know they need to see the bill text before
Speaker 1: they make a decision. But I do think, you know,
Speaker 1: the just the fact that we have a Republican led
Speaker 1: alternative introduced in you know, building the momentum in gaining interest.
Speaker 1: It shows that, you know, there is an avenue potentially
Speaker 1: maybe room for compromise um as they merge or discuss
Speaker 1: the opportunities to incorporate different provisions of these varying bills.
Speaker 1: It seems like a major divide between Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 1: is that the Democratic bills really insist on racial equity
Speaker 1: measures being included, or the Republicans really get their backs
Speaker 1: up against anything like that. Is that your perception, I
Speaker 1: think so. I think that's right. This has been an
Speaker 1: ongoing conversation like as they've as they've drafted this. I
Speaker 1: think that the more focus that you put on equity provisions,
Speaker 1: you know, there's this calculus of, you know, how much
Speaker 1: Republican support might you be losing. I think Congressman Matt
Speaker 1: Gates has kind of articulated that position on these more
Speaker 1: Cannabis friendly members of Congress um. He was one of
Speaker 1: the republic Republicans who voted for the More Act, but
Speaker 1: expressed a lot of skepticism about the extent to which
Speaker 1: it addresses and and provides funding for these equity provisions
Speaker 1: that advocates are really pushing for. Whereas the mace bill,
Speaker 1: you know, has attracted both It has attracted by partisans
Speaker 1: support but hers. But it's a lot of focus on
Speaker 1: respecting state autonomy and making sure that they're the industries
Speaker 1: that they've built over time, and so that's an appealing
Speaker 1: point for for both parties. I think. I think Nancy
Speaker 1: Macee has only attracted a half dozen or so co
Speaker 1: sponsors among the Republicans, and she says she wants to
Speaker 1: focus there before going on to Democrats. What's your broader
Speaker 1: take on where the Republicans are in the House. I mean,
Speaker 1: are there in fact? You think many dozens who would
Speaker 1: support marijuana legalization if it was Masis bill as opposed
Speaker 1: to a Democratic bill. That's sort to say, I mean it.
Speaker 1: I think that Republicans might be more inclined to support
Speaker 1: something that was very very bare bones that, you know,
Speaker 1: something like a simple de scheduling bill that would promove
Speaker 1: cannabis from Schedule one. But her bill, you know, is
Speaker 1: being pitched as this middle ground approach, you know, a
Speaker 1: lower tax rate than some of the Democratic lead bills
Speaker 1: that we're talking about out and like I said, a
Speaker 1: more industry focused approach to these this issue. So in
Speaker 1: terms of dozens of Republicans, you know, I I'd be
Speaker 1: skeptical about that, but I do think that she's done
Speaker 1: a good job of of of towing the line on this.
Speaker 1: It seemed like Nancy Mace came out of almost nowhere
Speaker 1: to introduce this bill and nobody was expecting it. Why
Speaker 1: do you think she's doing it and what's your sense
Speaker 1: of how other Republicans are responding. I think that Nancy
Speaker 1: Mace has has done in you know, and she has
Speaker 1: a history both in the South Carolina legislature of of
Speaker 1: of backing medical cannabis reforms, so she's familiar with this issue.
Speaker 1: I think she, like many of her colleagues, recognized the
Speaker 1: unpopularity of criminalization and she sees this opportunity to to
Speaker 1: take the lead on something that might you know, hopefully
Speaker 1: be passable from from her perspective legislation. Why do you
Speaker 1: think so many Republicans remain opposed even when you have
Speaker 1: polls showing a majority of Republicans at a strong majority
Speaker 1: of young Republicans in favor. That is the million dollar question, Ethan.
Speaker 1: You know, I can't I can't say. I mean, it's perplexing.
Speaker 1: It's you know, there can they hear from their constituents.
Speaker 1: They they see these the same pollings that we're we're
Speaker 1: covering and following and um, and so it's you know,
Speaker 1: Congress has always been a few steps behind the public
Speaker 1: on on this issue, but it's just so overwhelming and
Speaker 1: increasingly bipartisan that it's hard to square any signs that
Speaker 1: Biden and the White House might get more supportive this year.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I mean, the last time that
Speaker 1: I remember, Fresh Secretary Saki asked about this, she she
Speaker 1: made it very clear the president's position on this issue
Speaker 1: has not changed. And it's you know, perplexing by the
Speaker 1: fact that you've seen within this first year of him
Speaker 1: in office unfulfilled promises on more modest and incremental reforms,
Speaker 1: whether that's hardens for for people in federal prison for
Speaker 1: past cannabis convictions, or you know, taking steps to at
Speaker 1: the very least rescheduled cannabis as he promised to do
Speaker 1: on the campaign trail. It doesn't exactly give a lot
Speaker 1: of hope that there's gonna be a one eight here
Speaker 1: and he's gonna openly and publicly back this issue, let
Speaker 1: alone fulfill the more modest reforms that he campaigned. Well, Kyle,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining me on Psychoactive, and
Speaker 1: I just have to say that the writing that you
Speaker 1: and the co founder and your co editor of Marijuana Moment,
Speaker 1: Tom Angel had been doing and covering marijuana issues, including
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill, has been immensely helpful to me, and I
Speaker 1: encourage our listeners to subscribe and take a look at
Speaker 1: Marijuana Moment if you want to follow this. Thank you
Speaker 1: very very much. Thank you for having me. We'll be
Speaker 1: talking more after we hear this ADM. Well, now that
Speaker 1: Kyle has provided the broader context for us, I want
Speaker 1: to invite on Congressmen Mace to talk about the marijuana
Speaker 1: bill she's introducing Congress, why she did it it, and
Speaker 1: how's it going. So Cosman Mace, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining me on Psychoactive, and thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: You know, I feel like cannabis the only place is
Speaker 1: really controversials in d C. I don't know why we
Speaker 1: haven't done it yet, and it's one of my it's
Speaker 1: a big frustration of mine in Congress, So tell me
Speaker 1: why you did it. I have been a supporter of
Speaker 1: cannabis reform. Long before I went to Congress, I was
Speaker 1: a state lawmaker for a few years, and in South
Speaker 1: Carolina there's been a push for medical cannabis, and I
Speaker 1: was one of the co sponsors when I was in
Speaker 1: the state legislature. But this goes back further than that.
Speaker 1: When I was young and growing up, I was sixteen
Speaker 1: and I was raped by a classmate of mine in school,
Speaker 1: and I dropped out of school, out of high school
Speaker 1: shortly thereafter, and I had a lot of issues trying
Speaker 1: to overcome the trauma that I had been through, and
Speaker 1: I was prescribed antidepressants at the time, and not long
Speaker 1: into that um, I felt like the prescription drugs I
Speaker 1: was given was making my depression actually worse and making
Speaker 1: me feel suicidal, and so I stopped taking the medicine
Speaker 1: that was prescribed by my doctor and I started using
Speaker 1: cannabis unbeknownst to me because I was young, and you know,
Speaker 1: I didn't really know a lot about it, but it
Speaker 1: cut my anxiety and helped me get through some really
Speaker 1: really difficult times emotionally, mentally, physically in my life. And
Speaker 1: I use it for a limited period of time, but
Speaker 1: I saw the benefits that it had, you know, with
Speaker 1: moderate use for me personally to get through those times.
Speaker 1: It was better than doing other drugs and drinking, etcetera.
Speaker 1: But it got me through and cut my anxiety and
Speaker 1: helped me manage some of the feelings that I had
Speaker 1: in order to survive basically this really traumatic period of
Speaker 1: my life. I mean, how did you even come up
Speaker 1: with the idea to try cannabis back then? I mean
Speaker 1: it was a friends who suggested it, or had you
Speaker 1: read about it or what was key? No, I mean,
Speaker 1: it was just I needed something to get through the
Speaker 1: challenges that I had and then I faced and I
Speaker 1: had access to it and I used it. And you know,
Speaker 1: at the time it was really young. But you know,
Speaker 1: you sort of I'm forty four now and you look
Speaker 1: back on your life and you understand why some of
Speaker 1: the experiences that you have. But emotionally, like, for instance,
Speaker 1: I'm only passionate about veterans issues, and so when I
Speaker 1: talked about veterans, about PTSD and the high rate of suicides, like,
Speaker 1: I feel that pain because I've been in that pain.
Speaker 1: I felt those kinds of emotions, and so for me,
Speaker 1: it's an issue that I'm personally very passionate about but
Speaker 1: you sort of learn it by trial and error, right
Speaker 1: for me anyway back in those days, which is one
Speaker 1: of the reasons. You know, if you want to study
Speaker 1: it thoroughly for medical if you want to study at
Speaker 1: marijuana for medical purposes, you've got to reschedule it. And
Speaker 1: to deschedule it, you have to decriminalize it. There's a
Speaker 1: whole process here that has to happen. And so it's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons I'm just so passionate about getting
Speaker 1: this done and doing it in a way that respects
Speaker 1: the rights of states because every state is different and
Speaker 1: it's kind of a patchwork, and ensure that we have
Speaker 1: comprehensive legislation that has something for both Republicans and Democrats
Speaker 1: in there that we can work on it together. I
Speaker 1: wanted to prove that it can be done well before
Speaker 1: we get into the bill itself. I just want to
Speaker 1: have another sort of personal question, which is you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, you first came to some tension in the
Speaker 1: media years ago because you were the first woman to
Speaker 1: graduate in the Core Kids program at South Carolina is
Speaker 1: state funded military college to Citadel, but also your father
Speaker 1: is a general he was the head, the commander, I
Speaker 1: guess at the citadel at that time. He's a highly
Speaker 1: decorated Vietnam War veteran, he's a former general. How did
Speaker 1: your dad respond to a you're doing that when you
Speaker 1: were a teenager recovering from the rape and also more recently,
Speaker 1: how does he feel? And even as part of that,
Speaker 1: I'm curious about how other people in the middity mean,
Speaker 1: you obviously been part of this kind of military world
Speaker 1: in at least indirectly for quite some time. What kind
Speaker 1: of reaction do you get from your father and from
Speaker 1: others in that world? You know, if when it comes
Speaker 1: to veterans issues in cannabis, my father, you know, it's
Speaker 1: sort of he has mixed feelings about it. He's sort
Speaker 1: of more traditional and and is and I think more
Speaker 1: concerned about I think long term effects and whether or
Speaker 1: not it's a it's a gateway product or not. I
Speaker 1: do know that he has been supportive of CBD in
Speaker 1: South Carolina, but when it comes to products with TCH,
Speaker 1: he's got more hesitation. And he's older, he's what is
Speaker 1: eighty two, But my mom, who's eighties, she's like, if
Speaker 1: I ever get sick, please you know, she is, you know,
Speaker 1: much more supportive, and she understands the federalism part of it,
Speaker 1: in the states rights part of it. And so in
Speaker 1: my house with my parents is sort of a toss up,
Speaker 1: I guess. And so I'm gonna take that as a win.
Speaker 1: If my father, who is eighty two and sort of
Speaker 1: twenty eight years in the military, and then my mom,
Speaker 1: this retired school teacher, I'll take that as as a win.
Speaker 1: And but you know, I leaned in on this issue.
Speaker 1: I lean in on issues I really care about. You know,
Speaker 1: I endorsed cannabis when I was running for this seat
Speaker 1: in the general election. I means something that I ran on.
Speaker 1: And I think it's bullshit that when you hear people
Speaker 1: run for office and they say they care about these
Speaker 1: things and they're going to do something about it, and
Speaker 1: then they don't do anything about it. And this is
Speaker 1: an easy win. I mean, this is not difficult. This
Speaker 1: is something that the vast majority of Americans, Republican or Democrat,
Speaker 1: they support. I mean, I've seen the data I've pulled.
Speaker 1: I've even my own district, and I've seen statewide South
Speaker 1: Khanta data. But even in like bright red South Carolina,
Speaker 1: this is a hugely popular issue, and with veterans, but
Speaker 1: with people from all walks of life, all colors, all
Speaker 1: zip codes, all income levels. This should not be a
Speaker 1: difficult thing to do. And I think my dad understands
Speaker 1: like the PTSD side of it. I mean, he's seen
Speaker 1: it firsthand too, and I think he understands that part
Speaker 1: of it and why I'm passionate. But he doesn't like
Speaker 1: me leaning in on things that he thinks are controversial.
Speaker 1: I see. I think it's for Republicans, especially when we
Speaker 1: are so divisive, we have to find places to lean
Speaker 1: in we can bring people together. And I've done a
Speaker 1: lot a lot of work on Dr Fauci's abuses with
Speaker 1: beagle puppies and labs, and I've done a lot of
Speaker 1: cannabis work, and those are places that I've found far
Speaker 1: right or far left people agree and it shouldn't be difficult.
Speaker 1: This is a multi billion dollar industry and it shouldn't
Speaker 1: be that difficult of affix. And certain candidates ran on
Speaker 1: it and it didn't do anything about it, which is
Speaker 1: why I think I've taken the wind out of a
Speaker 1: lot of people's sales on the issue because we're doing it.
Speaker 1: I love the fact that you've introduced this bill, and
Speaker 1: you know it's got a lot of something that's obviously
Speaker 1: the Schumer Bill out there with you, with Booker and Widen.
Speaker 1: And then there's Jerry Nadler's More Act in the House,
Speaker 1: which is probably gonna come up been March and could
Speaker 1: pass in a very partisan vote. Right. I think the
Speaker 1: last time that the More Act went through, I think
Speaker 1: only a half dozen Democrats voted against it. Only half
Speaker 1: dozen Republicans voted in favor of Schumer doesn't even have
Speaker 1: enough Democrats to get this thing through, and it's unlikely
Speaker 1: that almost any Republicans will support it. You've put this
Speaker 1: thing out there, right, and I'm just understand it. Like
Speaker 1: both your bills and Schumer's bills, they both remove marijuanna
Speaker 1: from controlled Subsidact. They both end the federal ban on marijuana.
Speaker 1: They both allow the states to create implement their cannabis laws.
Speaker 1: They both make provisions for interstate cannabis commerce. They both
Speaker 1: allow cannabis company success traditional financial systems. You've made clear
Speaker 1: you want to lower tax. You put some other provisions
Speaker 1: in there. You said you want this to be a
Speaker 1: talking point. You've also said that you that You've talked
Speaker 1: to some Democrats who have said that you could you'll
Speaker 1: get a hearing on this, and I wonder is that
Speaker 1: going to happen, And is there any kind of quid
Speaker 1: pro quo where you might vote for the More Act
Speaker 1: and return for getting a hearing. No, I didn't have
Speaker 1: to do. There was no quid pro quo and getting
Speaker 1: a hearing. Personally, you know, I want to respect the
Speaker 1: process and more is going to come up again, and
Speaker 1: let let Democrats do More Act. It will die in
Speaker 1: the Senate, and so when that's done, we will do
Speaker 1: our hearing. And um, there was nothing done in exchange
Speaker 1: for it. I just made the ask, and uh, we're
Speaker 1: making it happen. I mean, that's the thing. Like when
Speaker 1: I ran for office, one of the things I said,
Speaker 1: I would be willing to work with anyone who is
Speaker 1: willing to work with me. And as a freshman Republican
Speaker 1: in the minority, I passed three bills out of the
Speaker 1: floor of the House last year, and so I have
Speaker 1: a precedent of reaching across sale where I find agreement
Speaker 1: with the other side and working together. And one of
Speaker 1: the recent things I heard about Schumer's bill, which is
Speaker 1: very encouraging is that he wants to treat cannabis like alcohol,
Speaker 1: which is what my bill does, and that is a
Speaker 1: very promising prospect. His taxes are too high, it'll fail.
Speaker 1: In that regard. Everything is negotiable except for the taxation
Speaker 1: part of it, because if you don't have a very
Speaker 1: low futile exercise tax, you're only going to guarantee an
Speaker 1: illicit market. And we've seen that in other states where
Speaker 1: state taxes are just way too high, where their implementation
Speaker 1: of cannabis reforms has been troublesome because they're just tax
Speaker 1: it way too high and they're like an organized for example,
Speaker 1: the black markets run wild. And you want to make
Speaker 1: sure that there are provisions in there where taxes are low,
Speaker 1: and I think that's where you can get Republicans on board.
Speaker 1: And then my bill too has some expungement and release,
Speaker 1: which is important, social equities important. I don't have that
Speaker 1: in there, but I leave it up to the states
Speaker 1: to determine if and how and when and where they
Speaker 1: do that sort of thing. It's very much federalism driven,
Speaker 1: states rights driven, which is a hugely popular Republican ideal.
Speaker 1: On the same hand, if you can take that republican
Speaker 1: ideal and work with Democrats, which you know, cannabis legalization
Speaker 1: is popular everywhere its democrats. I mean, it's the best
Speaker 1: of both worlds. And so you've gotta respect what states
Speaker 1: are doing, because there are only three states in the
Speaker 1: country that have zero cannabis reforms whatsoever. And so for
Speaker 1: an example, when I use that statistic, like my state
Speaker 1: has CBD and him I'm using that is one of
Speaker 1: the forty seven states, and then Florida has medical and
Speaker 1: you know we have other states with full adult use,
Speaker 1: and so every state is different and we respect that patchwork,
Speaker 1: but have the you have to have interstate commerce constitutionally.
Speaker 1: But putting that framework together, I want to show a
Speaker 1: proof of concept that would work. And I don't care
Speaker 1: who gets it done. But if I can be a
Speaker 1: part of the conversation and drive that change, drive that message,
Speaker 1: then I want to be a part of it. Because
Speaker 1: this bill, the States Reform Act, has written about every
Speaker 1: single week. I mean, people are desperate to get this
Speaker 1: done and there's never a better time than the present.
Speaker 1: Let me press you on this because you know, obviously
Speaker 1: this has now become a very partisan issue at the
Speaker 1: elected officials level, right I mean you have the Democrats,
Speaker 1: who you know, I was always frustrated for many years
Speaker 1: during my advocacy that they were hanging back, hanging back,
Speaker 1: taking forever. But now they're almost all on board. I mean,
Speaker 1: certainly in the House with the More Act. You see
Speaker 1: in the Senate there's a whole bunch who aren't that
Speaker 1: keen on it. But you're seeing the Republicans still holding back.
Speaker 1: And as you pointed out, you know you already have now.
Speaker 1: I mean years ago you had a majority of young
Speaker 1: Republicans in favor. You know you now I think have
Speaker 1: a majority of all Republicans in favor. But when you
Speaker 1: look at elected officials, they're not there. Right. You look
Speaker 1: at the Republicans representing the states that have legalized marijuana,
Speaker 1: and I think, with one exception, Maurkowski, they're not back
Speaker 1: in marijuana legalization. You look at the House Act, they
Speaker 1: they're not getting behind it. You see in in South
Speaker 1: Dakota where the Republican governor Christie no went out of
Speaker 1: her way to try to get rid of a legalization
Speaker 1: initiative that had passed by an overwhelming margin in the election.
Speaker 1: Is it that the Republicans of the House, they just
Speaker 1: don't want to give the Democrats a victory while they
Speaker 1: still have it. Is this going to change dramatically assuming
Speaker 1: the Republicans take back power in the coming election. I mean,
Speaker 1: are there, in fact many dozens and dozens of Republican
Speaker 1: members of Congress who actually are in favor of this
Speaker 1: but just don't feel ready to, you know, stick their
Speaker 1: head up yet and join you on this thing. What's
Speaker 1: going on there? Yeah, And I would say, um, it's crazy,
Speaker 1: and it's sort of like, yeah, I had the head
Speaker 1: of my own party in my state attacked me over
Speaker 1: this bill, and I was like, dude, you didn't read
Speaker 1: the bill. Like, if that's your position, you clearly didn't
Speaker 1: read the bill and don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: In the state of South Carolina. Bright right, South Carolina,
Speaker 1: it is Republicans who are leading cannabis reforms in our state.
Speaker 1: They did see biting in Hemp and hopefully, across my fingers,
Speaker 1: they're gonna get medical cannabis moved through. It was a
Speaker 1: Republican state Senator Tom Davis out of my district, and
Speaker 1: it's largely at the Republicans in my district in the
Speaker 1: low country of South Carolina that are leading on cannabis reform,
Speaker 1: but he's the one that's leading the medical cannabis side
Speaker 1: of it in the state, and its Republicans doing this
Speaker 1: in my state. Um, But then it's also you've got
Speaker 1: the Republicans that are pushing back, and like many other issues,
Speaker 1: people are worried about their base, which is why even
Speaker 1: after November sentence split as a four person majority margin
Speaker 1: in the House. That's you would think that Congress would understand,
Speaker 1: this is time for consensus, right This is not time
Speaker 1: to go far left socialist, massive spending help the race
Speaker 1: to inflation increasing the way it is. But this is
Speaker 1: not isn't for that moment. You would think that people
Speaker 1: would understand it's about consensus building right now because we're
Speaker 1: so divided. But the fringes and whether that's like far
Speaker 1: left progressives or far right Q and on people that
Speaker 1: base in your primaries, that's what I feel like, you know,
Speaker 1: people are afraid of. But my only thing is if
Speaker 1: you're not going to put it on a ballot referendum,
Speaker 1: pull it. I mean, it just pulls so high. And
Speaker 1: in fact, I did a poll race just a couple
Speaker 1: of days ago for my own reelection and I pulled
Speaker 1: Republican primary voters on cannabis reform and at the at
Speaker 1: states being able to do it themselves. And it is
Speaker 1: extremely popular and more wildly popular than I thought, and
Speaker 1: I obviously didn't do it for that, but it's surprising
Speaker 1: that there's so much push back. And you know, the
Speaker 1: ten percent of people that are strongly opposed to it, well,
Speaker 1: they don't vote on the issue. And I just don't
Speaker 1: understand some people think I'm controversial or take risks I
Speaker 1: don't need to, but I just you know, we need
Speaker 1: normal humans that are fiscally conservative, like don't waste my money,
Speaker 1: and are socially modern, right, and just like this is,
Speaker 1: everybody's doing it. They're doing it for different reasons. A
Speaker 1: lot of it's for medical reasons. And you've got all
Speaker 1: these drugs that are addicting that are being prescribed to people,
Speaker 1: and you have all this data out there and states
Speaker 1: that have an opioid crisis. When you have cannabis legalized
Speaker 1: there at any way, shape or form, you know, those
Speaker 1: addiction rates go down, morbidity goes down, everything goes down,
Speaker 1: and there's no rate of increased rate of violent crime
Speaker 1: when you have cannabis and your state. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just the data is there. But I think, you know,
Speaker 1: it's a taking it's about educating people who are elected.
Speaker 1: And it's like this is not controversial as controversial as
Speaker 1: you think. And even in the last four years, Republicans
Speaker 1: have come really, really far on these issues. But I
Speaker 1: think it's how we talk about it, you know, and
Speaker 1: understanding you know, the role of the federal government in
Speaker 1: the Royal States, and understanding that hey, bets need this.
Speaker 1: We have a huge veteran suicide rate. And if this
Speaker 1: could save a life, whether you're dying of cancer or
Speaker 1: you've got epilepsy, I mean, whatever it is, this is
Speaker 1: like a miracle drug for some people. And it's not addicting, right,
Speaker 1: They're not getting addicted to it. You're not, you know.
Speaker 1: And I talked to sheriffs and law enforcement and deputies
Speaker 1: and when they're being called into domestic violence or violent crimes,
Speaker 1: pot is not part of the problem. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just not. And so I would just incurdge elected Republicans
Speaker 1: is like find out, like where your constituents actually stand
Speaker 1: on the issue. That could be be a poll, that
Speaker 1: could be a ballot measure, ballot referendum, like the most
Speaker 1: popular issue. The data that I have on it I
Speaker 1: just got yesterday was just tremendous. I could not believe
Speaker 1: how popular it was. Let's take a break here and
Speaker 1: go to an ad I have to tell you. I mean,
Speaker 1: for me, you know, who pursued this in a bipartisan
Speaker 1: way as an advocate for many years, you know, going back,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean the two most famous conservative aellectuals,
Speaker 1: you know, the twentieth century, William Buckley and Milton Freeman
Speaker 1: were my allies. I had George Schultz and Frank Carlucci
Speaker 1: on the honorary board of my Drug Policy Alliance. You know.
Speaker 1: Gary Johnson, their former Republican governor New Mexico, was a
Speaker 1: great champion, know, way ahead of the curve. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, as you're pointing out, the Republicans keep
Speaker 1: hanging back in and fighting against this. And so I
Speaker 1: just want to go to your district, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: you're gonna be up for election, as all members of
Speaker 1: Congress are every two years now. Your district was really
Speaker 1: one of the few competitive ones, I think the only
Speaker 1: competitive one in South Carolina. A Democrat actually wanted, you know,
Speaker 1: back in twenty eighteen by one and a half points.
Speaker 1: You beat him by about one and a half points
Speaker 1: in the most recent election. Now, as I understand that
Speaker 1: there's been a redistrict thing in your state, the governor
Speaker 1: just signed it. It means that your district is now
Speaker 1: going to go from being somewhat competitive to being a
Speaker 1: fairly safe Republican district. And I know the state endu
Speaker 1: a CP is suing to try to fight that, but
Speaker 1: let's assume that doesn't change at all. Now, it seems
Speaker 1: to me you're now going to have a Republican challenger,
Speaker 1: and and Donald Trump has jumped all over you. You know,
Speaker 1: you're one of the Republicans who he's decided he's going
Speaker 1: to go after. And the Republican who's challenging the primary,
Speaker 1: she just put out an ad. You know what she says,
Speaker 1: is Nancy Mays high right now? Is there some reason
Speaker 1: that that to believe that she's gonna benefit from attack
Speaker 1: sacking you in this kind of under the belt kind
Speaker 1: of way. Yeah, it's really it's it's quite bizarre, quite frankly.
Speaker 1: And when you compare records, for example, my my opponent,
Speaker 1: when President Trump was lowering taxes for the American people,
Speaker 1: my opponent was raising them. When President Trump was signing
Speaker 1: the First Step Act Prison reform bill and doing criminal
Speaker 1: justice reform. My opponent was working against me on criminal
Speaker 1: justice reform prison reform legislation in the state legislature. Because
Speaker 1: we served together, you know, I can be trusted with
Speaker 1: our nation's secrets. My opponent had her top secret security
Speaker 1: clearance revoked for allegedly leaking classified information. And it's kind
Speaker 1: of bizarre. I don't quite understand it. And with regards
Speaker 1: to redistricting and everything, I don't know that it is
Speaker 1: going to get that much more republican this cycle. We're
Speaker 1: waiting to hear what the court says, but they might
Speaker 1: stay the case and not do the case until later
Speaker 1: this year. And so at this juncture, we're not sure
Speaker 1: if we're running under the old lines, which is the
Speaker 1: area I represent today, or the new lines that both
Speaker 1: chambers of the state legislature passed. We just at this
Speaker 1: point we have no idea. But the interesting thing is
Speaker 1: from two thousand sixteen when Trump overwhelmingly in South Carolina
Speaker 1: to two thousand eighteen when my opponent was a nominee.
Speaker 1: Back in those days, there was a fourteen point swing
Speaker 1: in the wrong direction. And so this is really a
Speaker 1: swing district, and in a midterm election cycle, this district
Speaker 1: can swing fifteen points right from being a Republican majority
Speaker 1: to Democrat winning. And so I would say that my
Speaker 1: district is uniquely positioned there. Our voters are uniquely as
Speaker 1: stute on policy and on the issues, and we do
Speaker 1: march to the beaut of our own drum. They don't
Speaker 1: want someone who's going to tow the party line. They
Speaker 1: want someone who's bhyscically conservative, um socially moderate on these issues.
Speaker 1: And so it's interesting to see the kind of campaign
Speaker 1: that's coming after me in the attacks, and I'm like, Okay,
Speaker 1: if that's what you really think, please talk more, Please
Speaker 1: tell everybody that's that's where you stand. So let me
Speaker 1: ask you about the other South Carolina politicians here right,
Speaker 1: I think there's six Republicans and one Democrat there, but
Speaker 1: I don't know that any of them have stepped out
Speaker 1: with you. Is yet the one the one Democrat, James Clyburne,
Speaker 1: who's enormously influential, you know, the black Democrat who was
Speaker 1: given all this credit for having put Joe Biden, helped
Speaker 1: him along in the primary. You know, he's part of
Speaker 1: that kind of group of I think Southern Black Democrats
Speaker 1: have always been kind of reluctant and just go along
Speaker 1: on the drug reform and marijuana reform, and they're pushed
Speaker 1: by the party. But you also have in South Carolina,
Speaker 1: I think the only Black Republican Senator Tim Scott, and
Speaker 1: you've been very out there pointing out the racial disparities
Speaker 1: and marijuana arrest the fact that blacks are four times
Speaker 1: more likely to get arrested you've acknowledged as a significant
Speaker 1: racial justice issue there. Have you talked with Senator Scott
Speaker 1: about this and is he showing any openness or have
Speaker 1: not talked to another Scott specifically about this bill. We're
Speaker 1: talking to other Senators UM in the Senate Chamber about
Speaker 1: having a companion bill filed over there, and so we're
Speaker 1: talking a couple of different offices about that. I tend
Speaker 1: to lan in on issues again for some reason, I
Speaker 1: think there's a reluctancy even in my party, UM in
Speaker 1: my state of folks to lean in on these kinds
Speaker 1: of things. I know, statewide, UM cannabis reform, at least
Speaker 1: medical is also wildly popular, like the population supports it
Speaker 1: statewide and Bright red South Carolina. But it's just a
Speaker 1: matter of I think, educating people and showing the value
Speaker 1: the benefit of doing it this way. I don't know
Speaker 1: why it's so it's such a controversial subject for somebody.
Speaker 1: I've not approached him because I just, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know that he would would be on board. I
Speaker 1: know that he and I do talk about criminal justice reform,
Speaker 1: and he's tried. He's worked so hard trying to make
Speaker 1: that happen in the Senate. But again, that's an issue
Speaker 1: where I would you think Republicans and Democrats can come together,
Speaker 1: and he's led so well on those issues, but even
Speaker 1: he's had a hard time in the Senate making that
Speaker 1: happen as well. Right, I've been wondering about Senator Murkowski.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's another one who Trump's going after her.
Speaker 1: She comes from a state that has legalized marijuana. Don Young,
Speaker 1: the kind of longest serving member of Congress who's from Alaska,
Speaker 1: has been out there a marijuana legalization forever. Have you
Speaker 1: talked to Murkowski and is she's somebody who might introduce
Speaker 1: the bill in the Senate that would be a companion.
Speaker 1: I am not. She's not on our radar for that
Speaker 1: we're looking at other offices. Um, but Don Young, he's
Speaker 1: an original co sponsor of my States reformat So my
Speaker 1: bill had the highest numbers five I believe original co
Speaker 1: sponsors on a Republican piece of cannabis legislation, and he
Speaker 1: was I think it was the first one to sign on.
Speaker 1: So I love some do some Don Young. I think
Speaker 1: he's great. He represents his district well. But we have
Speaker 1: not spoken to Murkowski's office about it. Yeah. My hope,
Speaker 1: Reary is is that you know, I think back to
Speaker 1: go to old Dana roar Backer. I mean when I
Speaker 1: am my staff started working on one of the first
Speaker 1: marijuana bills in Congress almost twenty years ago, and it
Speaker 1: was an amendment and it basically said to say, the
Speaker 1: Justice Department cannot spend any money going after medical marijuana
Speaker 1: the states that have legalized said And Dana Roorbacker was
Speaker 1: the Republican who was out there. He was teaming up
Speaker 1: with different Democrats. Uh Sam far from California where he's in.
Speaker 1: She from upstate New York. And every year you know
Speaker 1: that Amocrats would get seventy eight hundred hundred twenty and
Speaker 1: the Republicans would go six ten twelve fourteen, and it
Speaker 1: never really kind of popped through with the Republicans, even
Speaker 1: on medical marijuana. But more broadly, can you see there
Speaker 1: being a kind of sudden break, a sudden jump where
Speaker 1: it goes from being a half dozen Republicans in the
Speaker 1: House to being many dozens and dozens, especially if the
Speaker 1: Republicans regained power in the in the coming election. I
Speaker 1: would say anything is possible after the primaries are over.
Speaker 1: That's the thing. Everyone you know, they've got their primaries,
Speaker 1: and so that's why you're going to see I think
Speaker 1: Democrats do more in March right before their primaries take off,
Speaker 1: and while you'll see Republicans more Republicans come onto the
Speaker 1: State's Reformact after their primaries are over. So I would
Speaker 1: say politics plays into this on both sides. I have
Speaker 1: a very unique district where we have more of an
Speaker 1: independent kind of streak. We march the beat of our
Speaker 1: own drum and the issues that I that I lean
Speaker 1: in on, our issues that my constituents care about, and
Speaker 1: so I know that I'm in the right place. I'm
Speaker 1: in the right spot. I mean, even adult recreational use
Speaker 1: in my district is the overwhelming majority of constituent support.
Speaker 1: So for me, it's a it's not a controversial play
Speaker 1: down here. But for others I can see where maybe
Speaker 1: they'd be more hesitant about it, but not that's not
Speaker 1: the case in my district, I guess. And if you're
Speaker 1: against cannabis in my district, you know you're not on
Speaker 1: the right side of history. You know, it's nice seeing
Speaker 1: Charles Coke and his Americans for Prosperity organization really get
Speaker 1: behind you on this sort of thing. And this is
Speaker 1: one of these issues where you see Charles Coke and
Speaker 1: George Searles going hand in hand. I mean, there's a
Speaker 1: few issues like that. But if Coke said he's going
Speaker 1: to spend either his people said they're going to spend
Speaker 1: millions of dollars to help move this forward. I mean,
Speaker 1: have you been in contact with M and DVID he
Speaker 1: says how they're gonna wait America for Prosperity. They supported
Speaker 1: me in my election in and we definitely, you know,
Speaker 1: took some of the information and research that they had
Speaker 1: when we're formulating this bill. This bill was my brain child,
Speaker 1: uh and I passed it off to my staff almost
Speaker 1: a year ago. I guess it was March of last year.
Speaker 1: It took us about nine months, but talking with different stakeholders.
Speaker 1: But I have Republican groups like a FP involved in
Speaker 1: support of and endorsements bill. I've got Normal also on
Speaker 1: the other side that has endorsed the bill, and then
Speaker 1: we've got companies like Amazon that support the bill for
Speaker 1: different reasons. There's progress that is happening on the right
Speaker 1: and a FPS involvement and leaning in on the issue
Speaker 1: I think will really be helpful too Republicans and encouraging
Speaker 1: them to get on more of the responsible cannabis reform.
Speaker 1: And that's the least we could ask for. And if
Speaker 1: you want to do it in a responsible way, then
Speaker 1: both sides have to be have to have a seat
Speaker 1: at the table, and that includes us and our party.
Speaker 1: If we turn our backs on it, then we've missed
Speaker 1: a huge opportunity to serve our constituencies. Hmm. What about
Speaker 1: Crover Norquist? Does he leading on UM. I know that
Speaker 1: they've put out I believe some information on the tax
Speaker 1: side of it, and they support the bill as well
Speaker 1: because it's obviously very low taxes at three federal exercise
Speaker 1: tax and so a lot of the conservative tax groups
Speaker 1: are supportive of the bill in that regard as well,
Speaker 1: which is pretty awesome. That's that's great. I mean, has
Speaker 1: been a long time ally and drug policy reform stuff,
Speaker 1: so I hope he'd be on this. So I'm gonna
Speaker 1: let you go in a moment, just I have a
Speaker 1: question here. There's another issue that's really gaining a lot
Speaker 1: of traction recently, and that's about the issue of psychedelics.
Speaker 1: And you know, there's a very good chance the FDA
Speaker 1: is going to approve m d M A for ptsd
Speaker 1: UH in the next year or two. There's all this
Speaker 1: evidence about, you know, psychedelics being helpful for veterans suffering
Speaker 1: from this. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry and a former
Speaker 1: Trump Cabinet minute has been out there. Texas just recently
Speaker 1: passed a law. You know, there's a fellow named Jesse Gould,
Speaker 1: the veteran with his Heroic Hearts project who's making trying
Speaker 1: to make psychedelic therapy available to veterans. Is this an
Speaker 1: issue you've looked at? Have you spoken about? Can you
Speaker 1: see getting involve deeply into the issue. About two years ago,
Speaker 1: I had a friend who's a veteran that started participate
Speaker 1: in one of these m d m A studies with PTSD,
Speaker 1: and so I am still learning about the issue and
Speaker 1: some of the opportunities out there. But again, these things
Speaker 1: need to be studied, like we need to be able
Speaker 1: to do this kind of research and understand the benefits
Speaker 1: or the positives and the negatives, what the outcomes could be.
Speaker 1: Because some of the pharmaceuticals that are out there, some
Speaker 1: of the dry as you can get prescribed, I mean,
Speaker 1: have such high addiction rates uh and and sometimes can
Speaker 1: exacerbate PTSD and can exacerbate suicide rates. And so I
Speaker 1: think everything should be on the table if it can
Speaker 1: make you feel better and reduce the rate of suicide
Speaker 1: when you come home for more from combat than everything
Speaker 1: should be on the table. We should do right by
Speaker 1: our veterans and find ways for them to have a
Speaker 1: higher quality of life. I mean, they were willing to
Speaker 1: take a bullet for our country. At least we can
Speaker 1: do is help them they come home. Okay, last question,
Speaker 1: I hope I don't blindside you with this one, which
Speaker 1: is one of the issues that's trying to drive me crazy,
Speaker 1: especially with my fellow Democrats. It's the whole issue around
Speaker 1: the cigarettes and tobacco harm reduction, and everybody freaked out
Speaker 1: when the kids started jeweling and using all these cigarettes
Speaker 1: produced this overwhelming evidence right that ease cigarettes and other
Speaker 1: you know, non smokable forms of tobacco can be usually
Speaker 1: beneficial in reducing smoking in this country and other people
Speaker 1: dying on this issue. And this is an issue where strangey,
Speaker 1: a lot of the Democrats have been very supportive of
Speaker 1: you know, marijuana legalization, harm reduction, drug posity form, needle change,
Speaker 1: you name it. Had been on the wrong side of
Speaker 1: the issue, but almost no Republicans are stepping up on
Speaker 1: the other side of this issue. Have you paid attention
Speaker 1: to this issue and the state legislature, we did, because
Speaker 1: a lot of those reforms with the jewels and the cigarettes,
Speaker 1: those provisions, those regulations, statutes, and laws are largely done
Speaker 1: at the state level. And I know that we did
Speaker 1: a little bit of work on that when I was
Speaker 1: in the state legislature, but the federal level, it's not
Speaker 1: something I've heard a lot about. Since I've been elected,
Speaker 1: my focus has really been on this cannabis bill because
Speaker 1: I knew, like, hey, I wanted to be a part
Speaker 1: of it at the state level, and when I got
Speaker 1: to Congress. This was something that I promised I would
Speaker 1: work on, and I had this great idea and I
Speaker 1: was like, we're going to do this, and so that's
Speaker 1: where my focus has really been. I haven't seen anything
Speaker 1: at the federal level on the cigarette issues at this
Speaker 1: juncture yet. Okay, well, listen comms made. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining me. I hope you kicked the butt
Speaker 1: of your Republican primary opponent. I hope you'll wipe her out.
Speaker 1: I wish you all the best in advancing this bill
Speaker 1: and working out compromises with the Democrats so something can
Speaker 1: actually happen on the federal level. And more power to
Speaker 1: you on all of this. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining me on Psychoactive, and thank you so much for
Speaker 1: having me today. If you're enjoying Psychoactive, please tell your
Speaker 1: friends about it, or you can write us a review
Speaker 1: at Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. We
Speaker 1: love to hear from our listeners. If you'd like to
Speaker 1: share your own stories, comments, and ideas, then leave us
Speaker 1: a message at one eight three three seven seven nine
Speaker 1: sixty that's eight three three psycho zero, or you can
Speaker 1: email us at Psychoactive at protozoa dot com or find
Speaker 1: me on Twitter at Ethan Natalman. You can also find
Speaker 1: contact information in our show notes. Psychoactive is a production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio and Protozoa Pictures. It's hosted by
Speaker 1: me Ethan Nadelman. It's produced by no h'm osband and
Speaker 1: Josh Stain. The executive producers are Dylan Golden, Ari Handel,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Geeseus and Darren Aronofsky from Protozoa Pictures, Alex Williams
Speaker 1: and At Frederick from my Heart Radio, and me Ethan Edelman.
Speaker 1: Our music is by Ari Blucien and a special thanks
Speaker 1: to Abbvi Brio, s F Bianca Grimshaw and Robert beep
Speaker 1: m