Mr. Chairman, a little earlier, we had a discussion about this, and I pointed out that it is very clear that, right now, it is still illegal under Federal law to manufacture, to distribute, or to dispense marijuana. That is the Federal law. There is also a Federal law that says banks can't launder the proceeds of illegal activities, and as we talked about earlier, we have got the fact that the Treasury has given guidance on how to facilitate the sale of marijuana. The point is the law is the law. The Federal law, I just stated, and I don't think we can go around picking and choosing which States the Federal law applies to. The Federal law is the Federal law, and that is the way it ought to be. I think that the fact that we have those two laws, when somebody violates those laws, that is wrong. Earlier this evening, we adopted an amendment that corrected that. This seeks to go back the other way. I would just urge people to vote ``no'' on this because we have a Federal law that controls, and we can't pick and choose who gets to comply and who doesn't. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Share & report
More from Dan Crenshaw
I mean let's look at the total EV subsidies in the IRA, almost $400 billion when you actually account for probably what is going to happen in the next 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, I have seen a lot since we have been here. This is my third term. Never before have I actually been frightened about what could happen if FISA is not reauthorized or this warrant amendment is passed, which effectively kills…
I'm extremely disappointed in the very strange maneuvering by many on the right to torpedo a potential border reform bill. That's what we all ran on doing.
everything we are referring to here is a cost-benefit analysis. What is the benefit you are getting for the cost that you are incurring on people who can probably afford to pay it the least?





