MORE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 13, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to rectify historical injustices of cannabis prohibition by federally legalizing cannabis, taxing it, and using the revenue to support affected communities and businesses, while also addressing related legal and social issues.
What it actually does
H.R. 5068, also known as the MORE Act, federally decriminalizes cannabis by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act. It establishes a federal excise tax on cannabis products, with revenues directed to an Opportunity Trust Fund. This fund supports community reinvestment grants for individuals and communities adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, small business assistance for cannabis-related businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, and equitable licensing programs for states and localities. The bill also mandates expungement of non-violent federal cannabis offense convictions, prohibits discrimination in federal public benefits and immigration based on cannabis use or convictions, and directs several studies on the societal, workplace, and school impacts of cannabis legalization.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is a crucial step towards racial and economic justice, correcting decades of disproportionate harm inflicted on communities of color by cannabis prohibition. They contend it will unlock economic opportunities, generate significant tax revenue, and allow states to regulate cannabis without federal interference, while providing much-needed resources for job training, reentry services, and expungement for those most affected.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the potential public health and safety implications of federal cannabis legalization, including increased rates of impaired driving, youth access, and potential for addiction. They may also question the effectiveness or fairness of the proposed tax structure and the allocation of funds, or argue against federal intervention in what they see as a state issue, despite the current federal prohibition.
The bill is moderately complex and lengthy, requiring dedicated time for review, especially given the detailed tax and program provisions.
Section 3
Decriminalization of Cannabis
This section removes marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, effectively decriminalizing cannabis at the federal level. It mandates the Attorney General to finalize this removal within 180 days and makes the amendments retroactive to May 1, 1971, for all offenses, cases, and convictions. It also includes conforming amendments to other federal laws, such as those related to transportation safety, to reflect cannabis's descheduled status, but explicitly allows continued drug testing for federal employees and transportation safety regulations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is the foundational step to end the failed War on Drugs, correct historical injustices, and allow states to regulate cannabis without federal conflict. Retroactivity is key to addressing past harms.
Critics contend
Some might argue that complete federal decriminalization could lead to increased public health issues or complicate international drug treaties, even if they support some level of reform. Concerns might also be raised about the carve-outs for federal employee testing.
Tradeoffs
Balances federal decriminalization with existing federal regulatory authority (FDA, HHS) and specific safety-sensitive sectors (transportation, federal employment).
Section 4
Demographic Data of Cannabis Business Owners and Employees
This section directs the Bureau of Labor Statistics to regularly collect, maintain, and publicize demographic data (including age, race, ethnicity, disability, veteran status, etc.) on individuals who own or are employed in the cannabis industry. It ensures confidentiality of identifying information for employees.
Section 5, adding new Chapter 56 to the Internal Revenue Code.
Creation of Opportunity Trust Fund and Imposition of Taxes
This section establishes a federal excise tax on cannabis products, starting at 5% of the removal price for the first two years, increasing to 8% over five years. After five years, the tax transitions to an "applicable equivalent amount" based on prevailing sales prices per ounce or per gram of THC. The revenues from this tax are appropriated to a newly established "Opportunity Trust Fund." The fund's expenditures are allocated: 50% for community reinvestment grants, 10% for substance use disorder services, 20% for the Cannabis Restorative Opportunity Program (SBA loans), and 20% for the Equitable Licensing Grant Program (SBA grants). It also imposes an occupational tax of $1,000 per year on cannabis producers and export warehouse proprietors.
Section 6, amending the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Opportunity Trust Fund Programs
This section establishes the Cannabis Justice Office within the Office of Justice Programs to administer the Community Reinvestment Grant Program. This program provides funds for job training, reentry services, legal aid (including expungement), literacy, youth programs, and health education for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs. It also directs the Small Business Administration (SBA) to create the Cannabis Restorative Opportunity Program (loans and technical assistance for socially and economically disadvantaged cannabis businesses) and the Equitable Licensing Grant Program (grants to states/localities to minimize licensing barriers for affected individuals). States/localities must have automatic expungement processes and eliminate parole/probation penalties for cannabis offenses to be eligible for these grants.
Section 7, amending the Small Business Act and Small Business Investment Act of 1958.
Availability of Small Business Administration Programs and Services
This section amends various parts of the Small Business Act and Small Business Investment Act to ensure that cannabis-related legitimate businesses and their service providers are not denied access to SBA programs and services solely due to their involvement with cannabis. This includes access to Small Business Development Centers, Women's Business Centers, SCORE, Veteran Business Outreach Centers, Section 7(a) loans, disaster loans, microloans, and Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) debentures.
Section 8
No Discrimination in Federal Public Benefit
This section prohibits the denial of any federal public benefit (as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1611(c)) to a person based on their past or present use or possession of cannabis, or a conviction or juvenile delinquency adjudication for a cannabis offense. It also explicitly states that federal agencies may not use past or present cannabis/marijuana use as criteria for granting, denying, or rescinding a security clearance.
Section 9
No Adverse Effect for Purposes of the Immigration Laws
This section clarifies that for immigration purposes, cannabis will not be considered a controlled substance. It prohibits denying any immigration benefit or protection based on any event (conduct, finding, admission, addiction, arrest, conviction) related to cannabis possession or use that is no longer prohibited by federal law, regardless of when the event occurred. It also includes conforming amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section 10
Resentencing and Expungement
This section mandates that federal districts conduct a comprehensive review within one year to expunge all non-violent federal cannabis offense convictions and juvenile delinquency adjudications entered since May 1, 1971, along with associated arrests, for individuals not currently under a criminal justice sentence. Individuals can also petition courts for expungement. For those currently under a criminal justice sentence for a non-violent federal cannabis offense, courts must conduct a sentencing review hearing, expunge convictions/adjudications, vacate existing sentences, and impose new sentences as if the Act were in effect at the time of the offense. All expunged records are sealed. An exception is made for individuals who received an aggravating role adjustment in sentencing.
Section 11
References in Existing Law to Marijuana or Marihuana
This section mandates that wherever the terms "marihuana" or "marijuana" appear in federal statutes, rulings, regulations, or interpretations, they shall be struck and replaced with "cannabis" or "Cannabis" (capitalized as appropriate).
Section 15
Societal Impact of Marijuana Legalization Study
This section directs the Comptroller General of the United States (GAO) to conduct a study, due within two years, on the societal impact of state-level recreational cannabis legalization. The study must cover various metrics, including sick days, workers' compensation claims, tax revenue, government spending on enforcement, welfare applications, rates of methamphetamine/narcotics arrests and hospitalizations, medical uses of marijuana, impaired driving incidents, minor arrests, violent crime rates, school impacts (suspensions, test scores), hospital admissions, juvenile rehabilitation admittances, diversion to neighboring states, and illegal cultivation on public lands.
Section 16
Study on Marijuana Impairment
This section directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study, within one year, on technologies and methods law enforcement can use to determine if a driver is impaired by marijuana. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is to carry out the study in consultation with other relevant agencies. It authorizes $10,000,000 for this purpose.
Section 17
Workplace Impact of Marijuana Legalization Study
This section directs the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress within one year on the impact of state-level recreational cannabis legalization on the workplace. NIOSH is also tasked with developing best practices for employers transitioning their policies related to recreational cannabis use, with a priority on federal infrastructure projects, transportation, public safety, and national security sectors.
Section 18
School Impact of Marijuana Legalization Study
This section directs the Secretary of Education to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress within one year on the impact of state-level recreational cannabis legalization on schools and school-aged children. The Secretary is also tasked with developing best practices for educators and administrators to protect school-aged children from any negative impacts of such legalization.
The amendments made by Section 3 (decriminalization) are explicitly made retroactive, applying to any offense committed, case pending, conviction entered, or juvenile delinquency adjudication before, on, or after the date of enactment.
Section 3(d)
Why it matters:This is a critical component for restorative justice, ensuring that past harms are addressed. Its placement within the decriminalization section is logical but its profound impact might be underestimated by a quick read.
Case for: Proponents argue that retroactivity is essential to truly rectify the injustices of past cannabis prohibition, allowing individuals to clear their records and move forward.
Case against: Some might argue that full retroactivity could create an immense administrative burden on the justice system or raise questions about the finality of past judgments, though the bill provides mechanisms for review.
Estimated impact: Affects potentially hundreds of thousands of individuals with past federal cannabis convictions or adjudications.
Notwithstanding the decriminalization of marijuana, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may continue to include marijuana for purposes of drug testing of Federal employees subject to existing federal laws and orders.
Section 3(g)
Why it matters:This is a significant carve-out that maintains a federal prohibition-era policy for a specific group, potentially to mitigate opposition from those concerned about federal workplace safety or to align with existing executive orders.
Case for: Proponents of this carve-out argue it maintains workplace safety and integrity for federal employees, especially in sensitive positions, aligning with existing federal drug-free workplace policies.
Case against: Critics argue this provision creates a double standard, where federal employees can be penalized for using a substance that is no longer federally illegal, undermining the spirit of decriminalization.
Estimated impact: Affects all federal employees subject to drug testing.
The amendments made by this section (decriminalization) may not be construed to abridge the authority of the Secretary of Transportation, or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, to regulate and screen for the use of a controlled substance, including substances that were controlled as of December 1, 2018, and specified by the Secretary of Transportation.
Section 3(h)
Why it matters:This carve-out ensures that critical transportation safety regulations, which often involve drug testing for controlled substances, remain intact, addressing a key public safety concern.
Case for: Supporters argue this is essential for maintaining safety in transportation sectors (e.g., commercial drivers, pilots, maritime workers) where impairment could have catastrophic consequences.
Case against: Some might argue that if cannabis is decriminalized, the specific regulatory framework for it in transportation should be re-evaluated to reflect its new legal status, rather than simply preserving old rules.
Estimated impact: Affects all individuals working in safety-sensitive transportation roles.
The term "producer" (subject to occupational tax and bonding requirements) shall not include any individual whose only cannabis product is for personal or family use and not for sale, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Section 5, new IRC 5902(b)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is a crucial clarification that exempts home growers for personal use from federal taxation and regulatory burdens, a common feature in state legalization laws, but it's nested deep within tax code definitions.
Case for: Proponents argue this exception protects individual liberty and prevents the federal government from taxing personal cultivation, aligning with common practices in states that have legalized cannabis.
Case against: Some might argue that any cultivation, even for personal use, should be subject to some oversight to prevent diversion or ensure quality, though this is a less common argument against personal use exceptions.
Estimated impact: Exempts countless individuals who might choose to cultivate cannabis for personal use from federal tax and regulatory obligations.
As an element for states/localities to qualify for Equitable Licensing Grants, they must include a "prohibition on cannabis license holders engaging in suspicionless cannabis drug testing of their prospective or current employees, except with respect to drug testing for safety-sensitive positions required under part 40 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations."
Section 6(b)(2)(D)
Why it matters:It's a significant policy directive that uses federal funding as leverage to influence state-level employment practices regarding cannabis testing, potentially avoiding direct federal legislation on the matter.
Case for: Proponents argue this protects employees in the cannabis industry from discriminatory or unnecessary drug testing, aligning with the spirit of decriminalization and promoting fair employment practices.
Case against: Some employers might argue that this infringes on their right to set workplace policies, even if cannabis is legal, or that it could complicate maintaining a drug-free workplace culture.
Estimated impact: Influences employment drug testing policies for cannabis license holders in states/localities that opt into the Equitable Licensing Grant Program.