A GOP congressman says “I don’t care” whether rolling back the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling move under a potential Trump presidency would hurt the Republican party, because he feels more strongly that the modest reform would endanger public health.
At the Republican National Committee conference last week, longtime prohibitionist Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) was asked about the potential political ramifications of a rescheduling reversal under a second Trump administration and GOP-controlled Congress.
He put it bluntly: “I don’t care whether it’s good for the party or not. I don’t care. It’s not good for your health.”
“My opinion is always the same: It’s not healthy for you. It’s bad. I think it’s bad policy,” Harris told Marijuana Moment.
The congressman is well known for his opposition to cannabis reform. In addition to championing a long-standing appropriations rider that’s blocked Washington, D.C. from legalizing marijuana sales for a decade, he’s also pushed the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reject the Justice Department proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), for example.
But while Harris suggested that the rescheduling move would increase access to a substance he views as dangerous, a Schedule III reclassification would not federally legalize marijuana. The main effects of the policy change would be removing research barriers linked to Schedule I drugs and allowing state-licensed cannabis businesses to take federal tax deductions available to other industries.
The congressman said in the new interview with Marijuana Moment that he has “no idea” how former President Donald Trump, who was officially named the party’s presidential nominee for the third time at the GOP convention, will approach marijuana policy issues. “You’ve got to ask Mr. Trump,” he said.
Pressed on the fact that red and blue states alike have increasingly moved to enact legalization, Harris claimed that he’s “in the company” of experts such as National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Director Nora Volkow in opposing the policy.
“If we’re outliers, well, you know, sometimes outliers are right,” he said.
Harris has previously suggested that the NIDA director “adamantly opposed” the rescheduling proposal—despite the fact that her agency officially concurred with the recommended policy change, as well as the Volkow’s repeated public comments criticizing research barriers imposed by cannabis’s current Schedule I status.
Hellbound and Down 