I think the distinguished gentleman seems to concede the general principle that we should not be denying the opportunity of Federal employment to half of the country because they have used marijuana before. So, his argument seems to be: We have denied so many people that this would be an imposition on Federal bureaucrats to go back and tell people when they have been wronged in the past simply by telling the truth and saying that they have once used marijuana. In fact, most of these agencies don't even require that there was any kind of criminal prosecution or conviction. They ask you, ``Have you used marijuana?'' If people say, ``Yes, I used it once in college,'' or whatever, they can't get a job. That makes no sense. We are doing that to our constituents. Yes, let's go back and see how many people we have denied the opportunity of Federal employment to because they have used marijuana, which is lawful in most of the country now, either on a medicinal basis or on a recreational basis for adult consenting individuals who decide that is a decision they want to make. Let's grow up as a country about this, and let's stop discriminating against our own people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Share & report
More from Jamie Raskin
My distinguished colleague from Texas keeps referencing his female staff and colleagues, but it seems like there has been a coed exodus from his side of the aisle as support for this bill vanishes. In the meantime, I don't have enough…
I include in the Record ``The Lost History of the `Universal' Injunction,'' a law review article by Mila Sohoni refuting what was just stated by the gentleman. The universal injunction, the nationwide injunction, goes back at least to 1913…
May I inquire as to the time remaining. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palmer). The gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes remaining.
I will tell you that there is a bipartisan consensus in the Judiciary Committee now that all of these records need to be released.





