The Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, which prevents the Department of Justice from using federal funds to prosecute legal cannabis users and business owners, is set to expire on January 19 unless congress can finalize another stop-gap funding bill or approve a final spending plan for the current fiscal year. But an effort is underway at the Department of Justice to encourage lawmakers to not include the amendment in the final 2018 omnibus spending package, giving Sessions and his attorneys the power and resources to federally prosecute cannabis business owners and consumers operating under state law.

It’s up to Congress to renew the amendment or take things even further by ending cannabis prohibition once and for all.

Rep. Tom Reed (R-Corning)

Rep. Tom Reed (R-Corning, NY 23), Chautauqua County’s representative in Washington, says he does support using marijuana/cannabis for medicinal purposes, but is also reluctant to support a push to end prohibition altogether, or even remove it from the Drug Enforcement Administration’s list of Schedule 1 drugs.

A schedule 1 drug is considered any drug that has a high potential for abuse and also has no accepted medical treatment use.  Marijuana has been on the DEA’s schedule 1 list since the list was first created in the early 1970s, putting it in the same category as heroin and cocaine.

More than two dozen states have legalized marijuana for medicinal use, while a handful of states have also legalized it for recreational use. Advocates of marijuana legalization also argue that by fully legalizing or even simply reclassifying marijuana, millions of Americans who are currently prevented from using medical marijuana would be able to benefit from its therapeutic value.

Earlier this week during a conference call with regional media, Reed told WRFA that while he does support the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, he doesn’t currently support legalizing it for recreational use.

“I have supported medicinal use of marijuana and prescriptions to alleviate medical conditions that are out there, but as we go down the path of legalizing recreational marijuana, so it is similar to alcohol, I think we should defer to individual states,” Reed said.

Reed also said there are a number of factors to consider when legalizing marijuana for recreational use, and it’s something that needs to be tracked over the long-term before federal officials will likely fully legalize the drug.

“We need to see how this develops, Reed said, who then outlined a number of concerns. “Addiction is going to be identified as a result of recreational marijuana use, that is a real issue. The issue of driving while under the influence of marijuana, I think, is one that is going through the laboratories of the states. And you’ve got to look at the issue of workplace use of marijuana and the risks that recreational marijuana poses to our workplace safety.”

While states like Colorado and California continue to monitor the long-term impact of legalizing marijuana for recreational use, advocates for full legalization across the country hope that speaking to the economic upside will be enough to persuade some lawmakers to through their support behind it, or at least fight the Justice Department’s efforts to be able to fully enforce federal drug laws.   Advocates say legalization could save billions of dollars by reducing government spending on enforcement and incarceration. Additionally, billions in annual tax revenues could be generated through proposed taxation and regulation.

Several lawmakers in Washington have called for removing cannabis from the list of schedule 1 drugs, as well as fully legalizing it over the years, but so far none of those bills has gained enough support for passage in either house, let alone to be signed by the President.

Even with the potential for a regional economic boost, Reed admits that federal marijuana legalization isn’t something he’s keeping a close eye on as a representative of the economically depressed New York’s Southern Tier.

“I’m not aware of any hard proposals along those lines,” Reed told WRFA. “I know there’s been recent pushes across different members offices to address the issue of marijuana policy, and I think there’s some in there, but I don’t have them off the top of my head.”

President Donald Trump (left) and former FBI Director James Comey.

WASHINGTON – In a surprising and stunning move Tuesday, President Donald Trump fired James Comey as head of the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

The abrupt firing of Comey throws into question the future of a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible connections to Russia, and immediately raises suspicions of an underhanded effort to stymie a probe that has shadowed the administration from the outset.

In his letter to Comey, Trump said the firing was necessary to restore “public trust and confidence” in the FBI. The administration paired the letter with a scathing review by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein of how Comey handled the investigation into Democrat Hillary Clinton’s email practices.

Democrats likened Tuesday’s ouster to President Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” and renewed calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor, and some Republicans also questioned the move.

Sen. Charles Schumer

Senator and minority leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) made a statement Tuesday afternoon, asking if the investigation from the FBI was getting too close to home for the president, resulting in the firing. He also called it troubling that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had recused himself from the Russia investigation, played a role in firing the man leading it. And he said the firing shatters the American people’s faith in our criminal justice system, and urged Rosenstein to appoint a special prosecutor immediately to restore that faith.

“This is part of a deeply troubling pattern from the Trump administration. They fired Sally Yates. They fired Preet Bharara. And now they’ve fired Director Comey, the very man leading the investigation. This does not seem to be a coincidence,” Schumer said. “This investigation must be run as far away as possible from this White House and as far away as possible from anyone that President Trump has appointed… The American people need to have faith that an investigation as serious as this one is being conducted impartially, without a shred of bias. The only way the American people can have faith in this investigation is for it to be led by a fearless, independent special prosecutor. If Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein does not appoint an independent special prosecutor, every American will rightly suspect that the decision to fire Director Comey was part of a cover-up.”

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) also sent a tweet out following the firing, calling for an independent special prosecutor to investigate the Trump Administration’s ties to Russia.

Rep. Tom Reed (R-Corning)

Meanwhile, Rep. Tom Reed (R-Corning, NY 23) – who represents Chautauqua County in Washington, released a brief statement on the firing Wednesday morning.

“The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President and I am confident that this action will ensure the FBI will be the righteous and just organization it needs to be for all Americans. As Americans, we all care about a fair and non-politicized examination of the facts and that our principles are protected,” Reed said.

If the deputy attorney attorney general decides not to appoint a special prosecutor, Congress could initiate to appoint a special prosecutor by passing a law, as it did in 1978, when the Ethics in Government Act was passed. The law dictated that a three-judge panel based at the US Court of Appeals in DC would appoint the counsel. The law, which was reauthorized several times until its sunset in 1999, was used more than a dozen times to initiate investigations, including most famously in the 1990s when it led to the appointment of attorney Kenneth Starr to oversee investigations in to President Bill Clinton. Such a law would have to be either signed by Trump or, in the event of a presidential veto, overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.

Congress could also launch its own investigation into the executive branch without legislation because such authority is implicit in the Constitution.

However, with both the Senate and House controlled by Republicans, it appears it would be very unlikely they would move forward with a full-throttle push to investigate a President from their own party, even when the investigation would involve alleged collusion with a foreign government to help sway the outcome of a United States Presidential Election.