Karen O’Keefe, Director of State Policies for the Marijuana Policy Project – Interview Series

Since the now distant year of 2008, Karen O’Keefe has been serving as Director of State Policies for the incredibly influential Marijuana Policy Project, the non-profit organization dedicated to changing cannabis laws on all levels of government, but especially the federal level. Her position with MPP is multi-faceted and includes everything from managing a team of diligently dedicated legal professionals, lobbyists, and organizers to speak with politicians from every state in America to attending the numerous crucial Senate and House committee hearings on cannabis.

What made you initially want to become a lawyer and why did you pick Loyola University?

I wanted to be a lawyer to fight injustice. I chose Loyola because it had a social justice focus, it is located in New Orleans (home to my favorite music), and it offered me a scholarship.

While in law school, what awards/accomplishments did you receive and how did you receive them?

I received the Gillis Long Public Service Award and at least one award related to academics. While I was in law school, I volunteered to tutor students, helped feed the homeless, did anti-war organizing (opposing the Afghanistan and Iraq wars), organized against the death penalty, and was a legal researcher for two professors who worked on humanitarian and civil rights issues. I also served on the legal team for human rights advocates and traveled to the country Colombia on a human rights delegation. 

How did you first hear about the Marijuana Policy Project and what led to receiving the position for Legislative Analyst? 

I hadn’t heard about MPP until I applied for the job. Cannabis policy was one of many issues I was passionate about, so I applied. I actually applied for a federal policies position, but they ended up creating an additional position in the state policies department and hiring me for it. 

Prior to joining the MPP, what was your legal experience in? I would imagine with it being the early 2000’s, cannabis law was still a mostly foreign concept beyond simply prosecuting people for cannabis possession outside of the few medical states.

As a student attorney, I did legal research for professors, worked at Detroit’s legal aid for a summer, and had four felony cases as a criminal defense student attorney at Loyola’s law clinic. I saw firsthand staggering racial disparities in enforcement and cannabis sentences that shocked the conscience. At the time in Louisiana, some people were given harsher sentences for cannabis (especially if they had priors) than for sexual assault and other violent offenses.

I started at MPP right after graduating from law school and taking the bar exam.

How would you describe the experience of being Director of State Policies for MPP? From attending crucial legislative hearings to leading a team of advocates and organizers to conducting media interviews with the biggest networks in the country, it all sounds so exciting.

It’s an honor and a privilege to be able to work full-time to transform laws and advance freedom and justice. I directly lobby lawmakers, testify at hearings, speak to the media and at conferences, analyze and often craft legislative language, prepare educational materials, and work with an incredible team of advocates.

During your nearly 17 years as Director of State Policies, what have been some of your most cherished professional highlights? Given the 20 plus states that have fully legalized cannabis since then, I would imagine there are quite a few legislative accomplishments to celebrate.

Every medical cannabis, decriminalization, and legalization law that my team and I have helped pass has been a highlight. Many of them take years with ups and downs along the road. In the legislative world, a single person — be it a committee chair, a Senate or House leader, a deciding vote, or a governor — can stand in the way of the wishes of the vast majority of people in a state.

Before I began leading our state policies department, I worked on both ballot initiatives and state legislation at MPP. I worked very closely with patients in Montana on a medical cannabis initiative campaign in 2004, including supervising the campaign manager, coordinating with patient advocates, and arranging TV ads and mailings. A few months after the measure passed, a patient I’d worked with called me up and told me a sheriff’s deputy had come by, counted his six cannabis plants and left. That was a beautiful moment.

Another highlight was Pennsylvania’s medical cannabis law being signed into law. I wasn’t there personally, but my then-colleague Becky Dansky worked closely with an incredible group of moms that had held a “still waiting room” in the rotunda to push for a vote. In that same rotunda, they got to surround Gov. Tom Wolf as he signed a bill — a bill that the speaker of the House had staunchly opposed, but the moms and our team were able to get past the finish line despite his opposition.

Of course the first legalization bills to pass legislatively were high points. Vermont was the first state to legalize legislatively, and we’d been working on the state through medical, decriminalization, various expansions, and legalization. Getting past a very reluctant governor required a two-part process: first legalizing possession and home cultivation, then legal sales two years later. We got the legal sales bill past the finish line during the heart of COVID — with remote meetings. As with almost every effort, it was a challenge and a huge relief.

From your experience in your position, what do you feel is the most effective or impactful way that cannabis advocates and professionals can persuade or at least speak with less than cannabis-friendly politicians to be more open to cannabis reforms?

If your lawmaker is not supportive, request a meeting and meet with them or their staff. If they won’t take a meeting, sign up for their emails or follow them on social media, and go to “coffee hour” or other public events to try to engage.

Be polite, respectful, and dress professionally. If you have a personal story of the harms of prohibition or benefits of medical cannabis, share it. You should also study up on the issue before a meeting. You can draw from MPP’s “effective arguments” documents and be prepared to respond to concerns. If you don’t know an answer to a question, follow up after the meeting.

Remember the goal is to change laws for the better, not catharsis. It can take time for minds to change. If you’re combative or hostile, it’s more likely that the politician will dig in. You can politely follow up from time to time with articles or materials that might be of interest (favorable studies, op-eds from supportive doctors or law enforcement, polls, information on new laws passing, etc). Even softening opposition can be helpful to our efforts.

According to Gallup, popular support has gone from 34% in 2003 to 70% in 2023. Politicians — like many Americans — are evolving on the issue. But it may take time.

Of all the states to legalize cannabis either recreationally or medically during your time as Director of State Policies, which states surprised you the most with their eventually successful legalization measures?

The passage of West Virginia’s medical cannabis law in 2017 was the most surprising. The speaker of the House was opposed so it wasn’t a state where we had much hope. My colleague had worked with local allies and provided guidance, but we weren’t optimistic because it is extremely challenging to pass a bill against the speaker’s wishes. In that case, bold lawmakers proposed skipping committee referrals and moving it straight to a floor vote despite the speaker’s opposition. Their proposal passed, 54-40. The chair of the Liberty Caucus said, “This was a no confidence vote in the speaker.”

We also saw bills get out of committee despite the chair’s opposition in the case of decriminalization in Maryland and medical cannabis in Pennsylvania, both of which we were very involved in. With such a popular issue and allies who are willing to stick their necks out, occasionally we can get it done even when leadership is opposed.

What is the current status of the eventual federal rescheduling? Obviously, it won’t happen during the current presidential term, but could it happen during the next presidential term?

In October 2022, President Biden directed the Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

HHS issued an extensive report recommending rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III, which would finally recognize that cannabis has medical value. The DEA held a public comment period which closed on July 22, 2024. More than 42,000 individuals and organizations submitted comments, including MPP. Over 90% supported rescheduling to Schedule III or a less restrictive schedule and/or requested descheduling.

Several parties requested a hearing and the DEA has announced a hearing on December 2, 2024, which could end up being more than a single day. In addition, prohibitionists are raising money to try to challenge rescheduling in court. It is unclear how long the rescheduling process could take — it could be months or years.

Furthermore, do you see the outcome of the presidential election changing the timeframe of federal rescheduling? If Trump were to be re-elected, would he slow down the rescheduling process? If Vice President Harris were to be elected, would she have a similar effect on the process, or would her presidency be more open to federal cannabis reform?

I don’t expect the next president to negatively impact the timeframe on rescheduling, regardless of who wins. Both Trump and Harris have signaled support for rescheduling.

Harris sponsored a legalization bill as a U.S. senator and Trump recently expressed support for Florida’s legalization measure and safe banking. Since Biden has only supported decriminalization, the prospects for federal reform should increase during the next administration.

However, there is a possibility of backsliding if Trump wins. During his presidency, Trump’s Attorney General repealed the Cole Memo, allowing for federal arrests and prosecutions of state-legal cannabis operators. While we did not see actual prosecutions, Trump’s U.S. Attorney in West Virginia stalled implementation of medical cannabis for years by making it clear he might go after state-legal cannabis businesses and banks.

Control of the U.S. House and Senate will be key. The current Republican House leadership opposes both rescheduling and federal legalization, and has failed to allow any of the federal legalization bills, or even SAFER banking, to get a floor vote. When the Democrats held the House majority, a federal legalization bill passed the House twice. In the Senate, leader Chuck Schumer (D) has sponsored legalization (the COA Act). However, 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. Despite overwhelming popular support — and several red legalization and medical states — there is not a single Republican sponsor or cosponsor on a federal legalization bill.

Election Day will be crucial to the prospects of federal reform, but the House and Senate races may have a larger impact than the presidency.

Thank you for joining us Karen! To stay up to date on all the instrumental work of the Marijuana Policy Project, please visit their very informative website.