Mark Sanford, a former congressman who on top of that served as governor of South Carolina, introduced on September eight, 2019 that he’s mounting a primary difficulty in opposition to President Donald Trump.

The third candidate to enter the GOP race except for the incumbent, Sanford’s voting file and feedback on marijuana coverage point out that as president he’d be supportive of efforts to not significantly less than defend states which have legalized cannabis from federal intervention. Suitable here’s a take a appear at Sanford’s stance on marijuana.

Laws And Coverage Actions

All through his time inside the Residence of Representatives, Sanford cosponsored five things of cannabis laws—together with payments to shield health-related cannabis states from enforcement actions underneath the Managed Substances Act.

He signed on to payments that could possibly market evaluation into marijuana, legalize industrial hemp and amend the Inside Revenue Code in order that cannabis providers might entry tax credit and deductions.

Sanford persistently voted in favor of Residence ground amendments with regards to cannabis reform, with a couple of exceptions. Apart from his two votes in assistance of defending health-related cannabis states (and a single for CBD-only states) from federal interference, he was on top of that regarded a single of 45 Republicans to once again a measure that could possibly lengthen that security to adult-use states as nicely.

In 2014, 2015 and 2016, he supported amendments to permit health-related physicians on the U.S. Division of Veterans Affairs to recommend health-related cannabis to navy veterans.

Sanford on top of that voted for a 2014 measure to provide marijuana providers with entry to banking providers.

On four events, the congressman voted in favor of hemp measures, even though he voted in opposition to a single hemp measure in 2015 for causes that are not clear. There have been two connected proposals on the day of the vote, with a single modification coming from a Republican that he supported and a single other from a Democratic that he voted in opposition to.

In a single other standout vote that does not comport with each other with his newer file, Sanford voted for a choice in 1998 that was meant to precise “the sense of Congress that marijuana is a damaging and addictive drug and shouldn’t be legalized for medicinal use.”

As governor in 2010, Sanford signed sentencing reform laws that was meant to “reverse the pattern towards incarcerating non-violent criminals who pose tiny or no threat to the common public, discourage recidivism by supplying inmates with a added intently supervised transition to society as quickly as their sentences have been served, and on the related time save taxpayers higher than $400 million more than the following five years.”

Earlier Quotes And Social Media Posts

While the earlier congressman hasn’t spent as a lot time and vitality discussing his views on cannabis as a lot of the Democratic presidential candidates inside the race, he has created clear that his location on the difficulty is knowledgeable by a federalist point of view that areas emphasis on the significance of upholding states’ rights.

Just after then-Legal specialist Typical Jeff Classes rescinded Obama-era steering outlining federal marijuana enforcement priorities in 2018, Sanford took to the Residence ground to make some extent about how the transfer was an infringement upon the guidelines of federalism.

“That is a single additional instance of how democracy might be exhausting. I assume it is probably to be easier if a king merely determined just about every point for us. Nevertheless that is not the American manner,” he talked about. “We’re an unbiased lot primarily based mainly on the traditions that got to us by our Founding Fathers. Just about every regarded a single of us had a voice. We’ve got a say.”

“Washington shouldn’t dictate how our shoreline develops, or determine which providers are unlawful in a state like Colorado.”

In a Fb publish from 2017 about his assistance for laws that could possibly give cannabis providers entry to federal tax credit and deductions, Sanford talked about the “precept proper right here is simple, if a state tends to make a single point authorized…it need to be handled on par and equally with distinctive authorized providers inside the state.”

The thought of federalism “very especially applies to marijuana coverage, whereby lots of states have legalized its health-related use, and but federal coverage nonetheless operates in opposition to what the states have determined,” he wrote.

“Whether or not you are for or in opposition to the health-related use of marijuana difficulties decrease than no matter if or not we essentially subscribe and cling to the founders’ perception in federalism…as a outcome of it was a single of lots of crucial balancing instruments to offsetting an overgrown and controlling federal authorities. In short, even with ideas we could not like, it is crucial to stick to federalism really should you visualize in limiting the scale of our federal authorities.”

“Yeah, I voted accordingly,” Sanford talked about in 2017 following becoming requested no matter if or not he assists states’ right to legalize marijuana.

In 2015, Sanford complained about federal obstacles stopping South Carolina hemp farmers from completely capitalizing on the crop following the state legalized industrial hemp.


“Industrial hemp will not be a drug – it is utilised as a cloth in paper merchandise, textiles, and plastics,” he talked about. “In reality, the U.S. imports added industrial hemp than yet another nation on the earth, even so a present federal ban implies that state industries are getting a challenging time obtaining off the bottom.”

“I do not visualize that the federal authorities requirements to be inside the enterprise of penalizing somebody for following state legislation, and in that vein, I hope this invoice turns into legislation,” he added, referencing federal hemp legalization laws he cosponsored.

Following a vote on an modification to permit banks to service state-legal cannabis providers, Sanford after additional tied the difficulty to federalism.

“Some say that as a outcome of marijuana is unlawful on the federal stage, and banks are federally regulated, that the federal authorities ought to use its powers underneath the interstate commerce clause to dam banks from performing any enterprise with these corporations,” he talked about. “In my thoughts even though, the genius of what our founding fathers supposed, and explicitly specified by the Structure, was that just about all powers had been to be left to the states and individuals rather than the federal authorities.”

“No matter aspect of the speak you fall on for getting marijuana be unlawful, generating use of the founding precept of federalism leads me to visualize that states shouldn’t be constrained by the federal authorities in difficulties that just about all concern their incredibly personal providers and residents. The fantastic point about the superior American experiment and the founding fathers understanding in with each other with federalism is that it permits states to pioneer on ideas. We see no matter if or not they operate or fail and the techniques throughout which they reach this. It is a element of what permits our Republic to innovate and alter and as these amendments got right here to the ground final evening time, I couldn’t help even so assume we could possibly be wise to operate to shield that idea…whether or not we agree or disagree with the native point of view of distinctive states impacted.”

In 2018, Sanford condemned a Residence vote in favor of escalating the lawyer normal’s authority so as to add medicine to the listing of federally managed substances. An instance of the concern with that, he talked about, is that state-level marijuana legalization motion.

“I do not know precisely the location this goes, but when a single believes inside the precept of federalism, it is crucial that an Legal specialist Typical not have sole discretion in stymying states’ efforts on this entrance,” he talked about.

He on top of that utilised federalism to clarify his vote in favor of a spending invoice modification granting VA health-related physicians with the flexibility to recommend health-related cannabis, writing that his vote “got right here down to at least a single query – ought to the federal authorities be inside the enterprise of usurping all state legislation?”

“The fantastic point about the American experiment is that it integrated ‘federalism,’ which permits states to pioneer ideas,” he talked about. “Some we could agree with, other folks not…however the operative query on this occasion is no matter if or not or not the federal viewpoint ought to all the time prevail more than the view of the state.”

He created the identical level in a publish following voting for the identical measure in 2015.

Sanford was crucial of the federal drug scheduling program in a 2016 Fb publish the location he popular that cannabis oil is listed in a added restrictive class that cocaine and prescription opioids.

“That is uncommon on situation that opioid painkillers are at the moment inflicting an epidemic that kills about 50,000 Men and women a yr and is at such a disaster stage that Congress lately handed a invoice coping with it,” he talked about, like {that a} Schedule I classification inhibits evaluation into the substances.

“It is a drawback. Lots of individuals at residence have contacted me about cannabis oil becoming a element of the therapy for epilepsy and, in distinctive situations, difficulties just like the nausea that comes with chemotherapy. Whether or not or not this stuff are accurate or not might incredibly effectively be debated, even so why would you set this drug on a listing that could possibly forestall evaluation in order that we would finish the speak? Each it really should help men and women or it gained’t, even so it merely seems to me to be burying one’s head inside the sand to say we gained’t allow any evaluation going ahead to uncover out this stuff.”

Private Experience With Marijuana

Sanford has repeatedly talked about that he’s “by no indicates utilised any drug” and does not have to have his children to make use of them each.

Marijuana Beneath A Sanford Presidency

If there’s a single aspect continuous about Sanford, it is that he holds the guidelines of federalism in excessive esteem and has linked rather a couple of votes in favor of marijuana reform to states’ rights. While there’s not a lot in his file to point that he would primarily embrace full legalization laws on the federal stage, it seems seemingly that he would oppose any federal crackdown on state-legal cannabis providers if elected to the White Residence.

The location Presidential Candidate Joe Walsh Stands On Marijuana

Marijuana Second is created doable with assistance from readers. When you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay knowledgeable, please consider about a month-to-month Patreon pledge.