A Republican bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The STATES 2.0 Act amends the Controlled Substances Act to stop federal law from applying to marijuana that is handled in compliance with State or recognized Indian Tribe laws. It allows for the legal transportation of marijuana between states that permit it. The bill also gives the FDA authority to regulate marijuana products as drugs, cosmetics, or food. Additionally, it requires a study on how marijuana legalization affects traffic safety.
Yes· 3 of 34
- Scored +9
Would business owners be better off under this?
Removes the 280E tax penalty and provides a legal pathway for interstate commerce.
- Scored +9
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Strongly empowers states and tribes to determine their own cannabis laws without federal interference.
- Scored +8
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Specifically protects tribal self-determination and self-government regarding marijuana regulation.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
State and Tribal Autonomy: States and federally recognized Indian Tribes are empowered to determine their own rules for cannabis markets, including health, safety, and community-based restrictions (Section 2, Section 4(a), Section 4(b)).
-
Legal Interstate Commerce: People can legally transport or ship marijuana between states or territories that permit it, provided they follow the laws of the originating and destination locations (Section 4(c)).
-
Consumer Safety: The FDA will implement regulations for certain marijuana products that require contaminant testing and specific manufacturing and marketing practices to protect users and prevent youth consumption (Section 7(e)).
-
Reduced Legal Penalties: Conduct that complies with this Act will not be considered unlawful, will not be treated as drug trafficking, and will not lead to the forfeiture of property (Section 9(a)).
-
Business Relief: Compliant activities will no longer be subject to section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which relates to expenditures for the illegal sale of drugs (Section 9(a)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Federal Taxation: The bill suggests the establishment of a Federal excise tax on marijuana to pay for the administrative costs of the regulatory framework (Section 2(7)).
-
Strict Product Limitations: Any marijuana product marketed in combination with alcohol, tobacco, a device, a biological product, or a drug is considered adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Section 7(f)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Removes the 280E tax penalty and provides a legal pathway for interstate commerce. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Specifically protects tribal self-determination and self-government regarding marijuana regulation. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Mitigates the impact of federal drug laws that have historically targeted minority communities. Would farmers be better off under this? — Creates new legal crop opportunities and interstate markets for agricultural producers. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Mitigates the impact of federal drug laws that have historically targeted minority communities. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Facilitates legal access to medicinal marijuana. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Reduces federal legal risks for consumers and businesses. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Increases investment opportunities in a now-federally-tolerated legal market. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Increases investment opportunities in a now-federally-tolerated legal market. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increases access and reduces legal risks for adults in permitting states. Would retired people be better off under this? — Increases legal access to medicinal cannabis. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Allows for rural agricultural development and legal distribution. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Provides legal certainty for medicinal use and access. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Increases investment opportunities in a now-federally-tolerated legal market. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Reduces federal drug enforcement pressure in urban centers. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Increases legal access to cannabis, often used for PTSD and chronic pain. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Reduces federal legal risks for consumers and businesses. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reduces criminal penalties for adults using/distributing in legal states. Would children be better off under this? — Includes FDA mandates to prevent youth consumption and prohibits hiring anyone under 18. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increases legal access and reduces federal legal risks. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reduces risk of incarceration for low-level cannabis offenses. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases legal access and reduces federal legal risks.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this cut taxes for small businesses? — Eliminates the restrictive section 280E tax burden for compliant marijuana businesses. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Specifically aims to aid small and craft businesses by reducing punitive tax structures. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Grants FDA authority to require contaminant testing and manufacturing standards. Is this likely to create jobs? — Legalization and tax relief for businesses encourage growth and new employment opportunities in the cannabis industry. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Facilitates legal interstate commerce and reduces business costs for a growing industry.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Strongly empowers states and tribes to determine their own cannabis laws without federal interference. Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Legalizes the transportation and shipment of marijuana between permitting states. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes FDA regulatory authority and a federal excise tax.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this shorten or soften prison sentences? — Stops federal law from applying to marijuana handled in compliance with state/tribal laws. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Reduces federal criminal penalties for marijuana, which historically disproportionately affected minority communities. Does this change how police departments operate? — Allows police to divert resources from marijuana arrests to violent and property crime.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Provides a legal framework for medicinal marijuana distribution.
- 8/6/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/19/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/18/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/8/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/22/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/29/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/17/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Troy CarterDemocrat · Louisiana
Val HoyleDemocrat · Oregon
Brian MastRepublican · Florida
Max MillerRepublican · Ohio
Dan NewhouseRepublican · Washington
Jay ObernolteRepublican · California
W. SteubeRepublican · Florida
Dina TitusDemocrat · Nevada