Rep. David Joyce is an unlikely figure to serve as co-chair of the Cannabis Caucus in the House of Representatives. After all, the four-term Republican is a former prosecutor who spent more than two decades promoting law and order in Geauga County, Ohio. His home state has hardly been a hotbed of support for marijuana legalization; Ohio’s medical marijuana program —although enacted in 2016—only got off the ground this year. In fact, Joyce is the first leader of the caucus from either party to represent a state that hasn’t enacted full legalization.

Joyce has a different perspective from many Democrats who support full legalization nationwide and stress the need to redress harms from the “war on drugs” that lead to mass incarceration for marijuana-related offenses. Instead, Joyce emphasizes “states’ rights”—that individual states should be able to determine their own path on marijuana without fear that the federal government will swoop in and start seizing property and making arrests.

But Joyce is no less adamant than liberal lawmakers about the need to resolve the conflict between state and federal laws. In particular, he emphasizes the threats to public safety that exist due to that tension, including the difficulties cannabis companies face accessing banking services.

“The time has come,” Joyce told POLITICO. “I’m amazed more people haven’t gotten killed. There’s so much cash sitting pent-up in these dispensaries and grow operations. That’s nuts.”

Joyce also views the recent outbreak of vaping-related illness and deaths—most of them linked to marijuana products—as a cautionary tale for what happens when an unregulated market is allowed to flourish.

“That’s why regulation and research are so necessary to this industry,” Joyce said. “That’s why I think we have to take the handcuffs off states, because you should know that if you’re buying something in Maryland or Ohio or California, it’s the same thing, right? Budweiser does it. The liquor industry makes a great case for why you should be regulated throughout the country.”

POLITICO Pro Cannabis editor Paul Demko sat down with Joyce at his office on Capitol Hill to discuss how the politics of pot are evolving, why he decided to take a leadership position on cannabis issues and how his law enforcement background informs his views.

The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Paul Demko: You are the first co-chair of the cannabis caucus who represents a state that does not have full marijuana legalization. Why was this a role that you want to take on?

Rep. David Joyce: When I first came to Congress, I had been a prosecutor for 25 years, and so I had some background in all drugs, but specifically marijuana. In Ohio, [possession of] 3½ ounces was a minor misdemeanor—$100 fine. But if I gave you one joint, that was a [serious] crime, because that’s technically a drug transaction, which made no sense to me.

And so, I stopped the way we prosecuted those cases, because a lot of times those cases were being used as fodder for stats, for people who were trying to get grants. I talked to the law enforcement community and said, “Look, I’m not taking those cases to a grand jury anymore.” They came to understand that we’re going after coke, meth, heroin—the things that destroy families.

That was my mentality at the time I got here. And then [former Rep.] Sam Farr had the office next to me. Sam was talking about how in the VA, even though it was medically legal at the time in California, they couldn’t prescribe it to veterans, even though they found it to be useful with PTSD.

So, that’s nonsense. We should have the ability to do that. I voted on those type of things in appropriations, and then I guess I shocked some folks that a Republican from Ohio, a former prosecutor, would vote for those things. And from that we started to have some discussions.

Demko: The STATES Act would essentially allow state-legal markets to continue to operate, but without fear of federal punishment. Why do you think that’s the right approach?

Joyce: It’s a states’ rights issue. We have 47 states now that have some [form of legalization]. States can define what activity they want or don’t want, whether it’s medical, whether it’s full legal, whether they don’t want it at all.

TOP: Marijuana growing at a facility in Akron, Ohio. BOTTOM: A patient in Wintersville, Ohio, receives his prescription under Ohio’s medical marijuana program. | AP Photo

Demko: And how do you think the prospects are in this current Congress for getting that passed?

Joyce: I think if they brought it up, we’d pass it. Unfortunately, now it’s gotten diluted with some of the other things that are out there, the SAFE Act and the MORE Act. You have a president who’s willing to sign the STATES Act. All these other things, he didn’t say he’s willing to sign. I like to focus on strategies that are actually moving the ball forward and winning at the end of the game. So, that’s why I’ve been more involved in the STATES Act.

Demko: Republicans are more skeptical of loosening restrictions on marijuana, generally speaking, than Democrats. When you’re talking to colleagues—Republican colleagues—about this issue, what are the biggest concerns that you hear from them?

Joyce: Some people [say], “Well, I don’t want my kids to get it.” I don’t want kids to get it. “I want to see more research on it.” I want to see more research on it. “It should be regulated heavily.” Fair enough. I think it should be regulated, as well. And they’re sort of taken aback that you’re with them on so many things.

And then I try to continue the conversation by saying, “Look, if it’s opened up in your state, or if it hasn’t opened up in your state, go to somewhere where you actually see what the operations look like.” It’s not three guys in the woods. It’s actually grown in a pharmaceutical-like setting, people in white outfits. I was astounded the first time I [saw] it in operation.

Demko: We’re having this public health crisis around vaping right now. It’s a little murky still, what’s causing it, but there’s a lot of evidence linking it to THC vapes. How should that inform Congress’s thinking on marijuana and the correct federal policy?

Joyce: If you had regulated industries that were actually producing this and you could eliminate a black market, then you’d be able to eliminate some of these suspect ones that are out there where people are just trying to fill a container.

That’s why regulation and research are so necessary to this industry. That’s why I think we have to take the handcuffs off states, because you should know that if you’re buying something in Maryland or Ohio or California, it’s the same thing, right? Budweiser does it. The liquor industry makes a great case for why you should be regulated throughout the country.

Demko: Rep. [Jerry] Nadler recently introduced the MORE Act, which would eliminate the prohibition on marijuana federally, expunge federal criminal records and set up grant programs to try and help folks who were disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. You’re not a sponsor of that bill. Why not? Do you have concerns about it?

Joyce: Yes, I do. First off, in Ohio, if somebody had up to 3½ ounces of marijuana, it was a minor misdemeanor. And those who engaged in the trade of selling marijuana, they knew what they were doing. They knew it was against the law and they got caught. Why are we going to give this ex post facto [decriminalization]? I just think it sets a bad precedent for other laws and other problems that you have.

Demko: How concerned are you that Democrats, by taking a more aggressive approach and trying to do these comprehensive bills that not only take on the legal issues or the banking issues, but also look at some of their concerns around social or economic justice issues, that they’re going to scare off Republicans from taking baby steps on this issue that they might be more comfortable with?

Joyce: That’s part of the problem. When I was working on STATES—back when we were in the majority—it was one member at a time, and you took them through their concerns and asked them, if they were really serious about it, then go see a dispensary. Go see somebody who’s actually growing the product. Then you can explain to them the reason why banking’s necessary, why regulation’s necessary, why research is necessary.

I’m a big fan of the idea of letting it grow in states similar to craft brewers. If a town wants it, then a town could adopt what they’re doing with craft brewers and it becomes a place for people to come. But that evolution is not going to happen when you put all of these other things out there that really are not germane to the issue of whether or not these states should have the ability to act in the way they see fit.

Demko: What about being out there on this issue? Are you concerned about it as a political liability for yourself, being a leader in talking about cannabis?

Joyce: No. The first couple times I spoke up, certainly I threw some former staff in a quandary: “What are you doing, man?” This is the right thing to do. The time has come. I’m amazed more people haven’t gotten killed. There’s so much cash sitting pent-up in these dispensaries and grow operations. That’s nuts.

Demko: Public perceptions of this issue are evolving rapidly. Somewhere around two-thirds of Americans now say they support legalization. That’s double the level of 20 years ago. Are Republicans in danger of being behind the curve when it comes to public perceptions on this issue?

Joyce: I think part of it’s an age thing. The older folks are more afraid of this issue and dealing with it, and especially if you haven’t seen it firsthand. Having had to deal with it as a prosecutor, I have greater familiarity with it than somebody who’s spent their whole life as a banker or dairy farmer or something. We have a big mix of folks here.

When you roll through it with folks, as you talk to them, some of the areas that are of concern do seem to be age-related. And again, I don’t want kids to get it. And the way we have to do it is if you effectively make it similar to cigarettes or alcohol, where it has to be a certain age before you can get it. I’ve heard the argument, “Well, the brain is not fully developed until 25.” I get that. If you wanted to make the age limit 25, so be it. But states should have the ability to be able to do that.

Demko: And it’s not like people under the age of 25 aren’t accessing marijuana today.

Joyce: Right. I mean, let’s face it. This issue has moved faster than any other issue I’ve seen since I’ve been here, and it’s my seventh year.

Demko: What about the Senate? It’s obviously tougher to pass cannabis legislation there. How are you thinking about the prospects for getting something done?

Joyce: I’m not a member, obviously, so I’m not taking the pulse there. But I know the pulse of my two senators—they’re not too fond of the issue. I think Sherrod [Brown], being in banking, realizes the aspects of why banking’s necessary. But as far as legalization, I don’t think he or Robert [Portman] are really on board with it.

But somebody like [Colorado Sen.] Cory Gardner, where his state is legal, he’s forced to deal with it and he’s taken a position that I think is in the best interests of the people of his state and probably of our country. Because the sooner we can get this behind us on the banking aspect, the sooner we could potentially save some folks from getting hurt or killed.

Demko: Do you see full legalization of marijuana as inevitable, nationwide?

Joyce: Probably not in my lifetime.



Authors: