Erin Moffet, Policy Advisor to National Cannabis Industry Association – Interview Series

As discussions regarding federal cannabis reform and rescheduling continue, consistent advocacy on Capitol Hill remains vital. Mobilizing advocates and professionals across Washington, D.C., is only half the battle; success also requires a deep understanding of how Congress operates and how to advocate effectively for widespread federal reform.

For an inside look at the best advocacy strategies and how to navigate the massive Congressional and Senate office buildings, mycannabis.com spoke with Erin Moffet, Policy Advisor to the National Cannabis Industry Association.

While obtaining your Masters of Arts in Government at Johns Hopkins, what were the most worthwhile courses you attended? How did those courses later help you in your very illustrious career?

To those looking to get a Masters degree, I would recommend balancing higher education with real-world experience. Looking back, I learned more during my congressional internship that I had while starting my Master’s program than in the classroom – and that internship turned into my first job on the Hill.

What were the first political campaigns you worked for and what were the most valuable skills that you developed during that time? How did working with those first campaigns give you a greater advantage once you began working in the U.S. House of Representatives?

My first official campaign job was in a toss-up Florida district against a sitting member of Congress who ran in a new area following redistricting, so it had a lot of intense dynamics that showed me very different approaches to politics than previously working for a member in a safe Democrat seat. In fact, our race was so close that it went into an automatic retabulation that went on for several weeks – showing that every vote matters. Upon re-election two years later, we saw a double-digit win margin given focusing the official office on fighting for the local issues most impacting constituents, being present and available in the community, and working in a bipartisan manner. This demonstrated that when you truly care about being a representative of the people and talking to your constituents, it is more about the person than the party. That truth and mindset has greatly shaped my approach to my congressional and political work moving forward – always listening to the people you are serving first and foremost.

What were some of your regular duties as Press Secretary and then Communications Director? How did your role change depending on the U.S. Representative you were working for?

I often describe every office on the Hill as its own small business. Each member decides how it will operate so even the same title in two different offices is never the same. And in the world of communications, no two days were ever the same. Press staff always have to be ready to respond and pivot to breaking news and urgent media requests in addition to keeping the strategic plans and priorities moving forward as scheduled. This work includes strategic planning, writing press releases, talking points, answering media inquiries, coordinating interviews, organizing press conferences, staffing media events, and managing social media. It was as exciting as it was exhausting!

With the Cannabis Policy Advisor part of the role you held at Rep. Charlie Crist’s office, what did that role entail? Since it was before a good number of states legalized their own cannabis markets, what were some cannabis-related pieces of legislation that you remember working with or hearing about?

At the time I took on this role, it really was unique as not many offices outside of the Cannabis Caucus Co-Chairs had cannabis assigned as its own policy area. Most offices then, and many still today, have cannabis issues covered under other policy portfolios as the specific bill or request dictated. For example, the financial services staffer would handle SAFE Banking while 280E issues would be handled by their tax council and cannabis-related criminal justice reform would be handled by judiciary staff. Having always been interested in cannabis policy (including a portion of my Master’s thesis focused on the misguided DARE program) I already was familiar with the diversity of cannabis policy, and I also appreciated the importance of having one point person who understood cannabis holistically. In this role, and in a district home to a large number of military veterans, one of my proudest achievements was leading the introduction of bipartisan legislation to prevent the denial or termination of federal employment opportunities based solely on a positive THC test if the applicant/employee was in compliance with their state’s cannabis laws. This was a conversation that wasn’t yet being had in Congress, and it impacts veterans disproportionately by denying the federal workforce of strong candidates whose military experiences directly apply to federal positions when transitioning to civilian life. It has been great to see this policy conversation continue even after Rep. Crist retired from Congress, as I truly believe the federal government has the responsibility to lead by example in reversing harm caused by its prohibitionist positions when it comes to workforce criteria that is now replicated in the private sector.

How did the communication/PR aspects of your role with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services change when compared to working in the U.S. House of Representatives? What types of issues did you usually deal with while working for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services?

On the Hill, I was working with a team of a couple dozen staffers and the district represented was at a maximum just spanning a few counties. FDACS is a 4,000 person, statewide agency with 19 unique divisions all doing critical work in a large, diverse state. My primary work at FDACS was handling federal affairs and representing all 19 divisions and the Commissioner before Congress, federal agencies, other state departments of agriculture, and stakeholder organizations on issues impacting our 300+ commodities, disaster relief, consumer protection, and energy policy. This included fighting for Florida farmers and fair trade practices during the USMCA negotiations, the first-ever timber block grant following Hurricane Michael, and rapid response to protect farmworkers and feed families during the early days of the pandemic.

I believe my communications background in terms of keeping a constant pulse on a broad array of issues served me well at FDACS and ultimately, when I took over the communications operations in addition to my federal policy responsibilities for the last year of the Commissioner’s term. I have always said that effective policy depends on effective communications and that effective communications depends on understanding the policy being discussed – they succeed alone and I brought that approach to this dual-focused role.

As someone quite familiar with Florida agriculture, what potential do Florida farmers have to become major producers of industrial hemp? What changes would need to happen in order for the state to become one of those major producers?

First and foremost, Congress must better understand the entire cannabis plant and that continuing to arbitrarily define hemp and treat it federally legal while marijuana remains (mostly) prohibited continues to cause confusion among cultivators and consumers alike while only fueling an illicit, unregulated market. Secondly, the federal government needs to update its guidance across ALL agencies when changing federal cannabis policies. Being at FDACS when we were standing up the state’s hemp program, it was beyond disappointing to see how long it took other federal agencies outside the USDA to update their program criteria to allow the funding of hemp-related entities. For instance, someone looking to stand up a hemp manufacturing facility couldn’t get SBA funding because the program criteria did not account for legal hemp yet and at the time, there really wasn’t the production infrastructure for farmers to sell into in order to benefit from the promise of a much-needed new market opportunity as the 2018 Farm Bill intended.

What measures and policies have you lobbied and advocated for on behalf of the National Cannabis Industry Association? How would those policies be helpful towards cannabis businesses and advocates alike across all markets?

It was great to be a part of the 14th Annual NCIA Cannabis Industry Lobby Days in May 2026, just a few weeks following the April Final Order rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III. There was a clear appetite among the 80 congressional offices NCIA met with to better understand what the impact of that order would – and would not – be and how it would interact with their specific state programs. To that end, NCIA advocated for the bipartisan STATES 2.0 Act to provide certainty by solidifying the administrative action around state medical programs while also providing clarity by expanding federal legality to reflect state cannabis policies at a whole – whether that includes medical, adult use, or other cannabinoid products.

NCIA also made clear that attempts to maintain the application of 280E tax penalties against cannabis companies regardless of its federal classification would be weaponizing the tax code and only benefit illicit actors who don’t pay taxes. Just as with asking for tax fairness – because that is what it would be, not a tax break but a level playing field – NCIA continued its advocacy for the same access to financial resources that all other legal industries enjoy. We were very pleased to see the bipartisan SAFE Banking Act reintroduced in both chambers shortly after our call to action during Lobby Days.

How do you and the NCIA ensure that all sectors of the industry and their needs are being considered and advocated for?

Speaking strictly as a former Hill staffer, the best advocacy is direct engagement. Members of Congress want to hear from their constituents on how the issues are impacting their specific community and they want to hear from who it directly impacts. That means a new license recipient needs to explain to their representatives the difficulty in securing capital. That means employees sharing the diverse jobs done in the industry and how they personally have difficulties getting personal loans due to where they work. That means a bank servicing the cannabis industry must share with their representatives the extent of their compliance program in place and how SAFE Banking will protect them servicing their neighbors.

It means showing up and sharing your personal stories and understanding the power of your voice with your member of Congress and two Senators. That is why the work NCIA does to bring together those directly and indirectly engaging in the cannabis industry nationwide is so critical – helping keep members updated on federal policy activities impacting their livelihoods and organizing annual Lobby Days to support that direct engagement.

From your extensive experience in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, what will be the largest changes for cannabis companies that will come from this partial federal rescheduling?

That is still very much TBD as the larger administrative rescheduling process remains underway and with needed agency guidance following the April partial rescheduling likely not to be issued until that broader process is complete. So, pay close attention to the little things trickling out that may indicate overall direction such as what questions are being asked as DEA begins inspections of those registering for expedited license consideration and what rationale may be provided for any license denials issued in that expedited review period.

We all hope to see updated guidance coming out of the DOJ like the Cole Memo, updated 280E guidance from the IRS as promised, updated FinCEN guidance from Treasury, and then look for other updates in agencies like the SBA or Department of Labor that may start coming out as well but are less obvious. With so much uncertainty surrounding ongoing changes to federal policy, it is prudent for cannabis companies to work directly with legal (and tax) professionals as to each individual company’s specific situation as these changes will impact everyone differently given the diversity of state cannabis laws and programs. What may be the largest change for one company may only be a blip to another depending on structure and forthcoming federal guidance.

In the next few years, what do you predict will be some further cannabis reforms and policies that will be implemented? How will those changes have an impact on the various state-legal markets across America?

I hope that Congress will finally take its responsibility to act on federal cannabis policy seriously. It is unbelievable that we have reached a total of 47 states that have cannabis policies that are in conflict with federal law and Congress still has not acted. For decades, Congress has stuck its head in the sand while states acted, creating a patchwork system that causes confusion among patients and consumers and prevents the cannabis industry from reaching its full potential in terms of economic justice, job creation, and reducing the illicit market.

While I would love to see holistic reform that decriminalizes cannabis, safeguards consumers, and addresses the harms caused particularly to Black and Brown Americans by the War on Drugs, seeing how increasingly divisive and unproductive Congress continues to be, incremental, bipartisan approaches like SAFE Banking/CLIMB, the HOPE Act, and Veterans Equal Access are more likely in the near-term.

Thank you for joining us, Erin! For more information on NCIA, please visit its website.