Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

Rounding up reviews of the year than was 2024 in marijuana law, policy and reform

Like just about every year in the past two decades, 2024 was an eventful year in the marijuana reform space.  So I will wrap up my blogging for this year by rounding up some of the notable year-in-review pieces to catch my eye:

From Benzinga, "Cannabis Reform 2024: The Year Of All Talk And No Action"

From Marijuana Moment, "These Were The Biggest Federal And Congressional Marijuana Policy Developments Of 2024"

From Marijuana Moment, "Marijuana Ballot Measures, New Sales Records And Crackdowns On Hemp: The Biggest State-Level Cannabis Developments Of 2024"

From NORML, "2024 Year in Review: NORML’s Top Ten Events in Marijuana Policy"

From Reuters, "Cannabis in 2024: a year in review"

"Because I Got High? Recreational Marijuana Legalization's Impact on Opioid Overdose Deaths"

The title of this post is the title of this notable paper just recently posted to SSRN authored by Elisha Denkyirah, Raymond March, Glenn Furton, Veeshan Rayamajhee and Ryan Yonk. Here is its abstract:

We examine the effect of recreational marijuana legalization (RML) on opioid overdose deaths.  Using several event studies and a two-way fixed-effects, difference-indifferences approach adapted to the methods developed by Callaway and Sant'Anna (2021), we find a consistent negative relationship between RML and opioid overdose deaths.  Most of our estimates show that RML is associated with a decrease of approximately 3.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals. We also find more significant treatment effects for states that implemented RML earlier.  Our analysis provides insight into the relationship between marijuana access and opioid overdose deaths and into opioid and marijuana policies.

"High Returns: The Effects of Legalizing Recreational Marijuana on Local Economic Activity and Household Finance"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by John Manuel Barrios, Jared N. Jennings and Jung Min Kim now available via SSRN.  Here is its abstract:

We examine the impact of recreational marijuana legalization and distribution on local economic activity, household finance, and personal creditworthiness across eight U.S. states from 2001 to 2019.  Utilizing a staggered difference-indifference model at the county level, we observe significant improvements in local economies and household finances following the opening of marijuana dispensaries.  These improvements are reflected in increased population growth, GDP, personal income, and housing prices.  Additionally, personal creditworthiness also improves, as evidenced by a reduction in derogatory accounts and a rise in credit scores.  Importantly, the benefits of legalization are more pronounced in underprivileged counties, underscoring a potential social equity dimension in the economic gains arising from recreational marijuana legalization.  Our findings offer valuable insights to the ongoing debate over the economic implications of marijuana legalization, particularly concerning its role in promoting financial stability and reducing economic disparities.

Prez-Elect Donald Trump's cabinet picks have marijuana reform advocates mostly excited

There are always uncertainies about various policies and priorities with the transition to a new presidential administration, and federal marijuana policies and plans have been even more uncertain in recent decades against the backdrop of significant state reforms.  On the campaign trail, Donald Trump stated clearly that he supported state marijuana legalization, federal rescheduling and banking reforms.  But many reasonably wondered then, and still wonder now, if majiuana reform would be a firm policy or priority in the next Trump Administration.

With Prez-Elect Donald Trump now naming many of his major cabinet picks, and with a number of these folks having expressed considerable support for marijuana reform --- particularly Matt Gaetz and Robert Kennedy Jr., as well as Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk --- advocates for marijuana reform and industry players seem mostly excited about what to expect from the new Administration.  Of course, none of Trump's cabinet picks, many of whom are controversial for various reasons, have a sure path through Senate confirmation, and all sort of factors may bear on cannabis policy and plans in the next four year.  But, as this sample of press pieces highlight, the picks are producing another round of reform optimism:

From Bezinga, "Trump's Cabinet Choices: Will His Administration Support Or Restrict Cannabis?"

From the Business of Cannabis, "What do Trump’s Cabinet Picks Mean for Cannabis Reform?"

From Cannabis Business Times, "Trump’s Pick for Attorney General Promising for Cannabis Policy, Rescheduling"

From Marijuana Moment, "RFK Jr. Could Advance Marijuana And Psychedelics Reform Agenda As Trump’s Top Health Official"

From Marijuana Moment, "Trump’s Pick For Attorney General Has Vowed To ‘Go Easy On Marijuana’ If He Gets The Job"

DEPC releases "Considerations for Regulating Intoxicating Hemp Products"

I am happy to highlight the release of this new report, titled "Considerations for Regulating Intoxicating Hemp Products," authored by the research team at the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Ohio, which currently has no laws addressing intoxicating hemp products, is in the midst of a legislative discussion regading possible new laws.  This law give particular attention to Ohio laws, but it ought to be of interest to anyone following regulatory developments in this space.  Here is the report's abstract:

The 2018 Farm Bill removed legal barriers to industrial hemp production by removing hemp, defined as the plant cannabis sativa L. with a Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3%, from the federal Controlled Substances Act. In response, Ohio enacted Senate Bill 57 in July 2019 and subsequently received one of the first hemp production approvals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in December 2019.  But unlike production in the 19th and early 20th century, the vast majority of today’s hemp industry revenue is derived from the plant’s production of cannabinoid metabolites.  These metabolites are used not only in their original form as non-euphoric additives in a variety of products, but also to extract psychoactive substances such as Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol. Delta-8 THC and similar compounds are used to produce intoxicating consumer products that currently exist in a legal gray area under federal law.  The resulting proliferation of these products in many retail outlets has led to concerns among policymakers and public health experts about their safety, quality, and marketing.  Amid calls for more federal oversight in this arena, many states have taken specific steps under state law to regulate intoxicating hemp products in various ways, but Ohio is currently among a minority of states with no or minimal regulations for these products.  This report highlights the main areas of concern in respect to intoxicating hemp products including use by youth and children’s accidental exposure, consumer safety, and interests of the hemp and adult-use marijuana industry.  The report concludes with various steps Ohio can take in trying to balance the various concerns and priorities.

Rounding up various accounts of Election 2024 on drug policy and reform

I flagged in this post at my Sentencing blog the morning after Election Day 2024 that the results of various state initiatives on sentencing issues and drug policy reform showed that voters have grown much less interested in progressive reforms than in past elections.   And here is a round up of some press pieces covering these stories:

From the New York Times, "Voters in Red and Blue States Repudiate Lenient Drug Policies"

From Reason, "This Week's Election Results Are a Discouraging Sign for Drug Policy Reformers"

From the Washington Examiner, "Drug legalization takes massive hit in state referenda"

From the Washington Post, "State votes on marijuana and psychedelics signal drug policy concerns"

Florida marijuana legalization initiative gets majority support, but not 60% needed for passage

In Florida, a ballot initiative to amend the state's constitution needs 60% support from the voters for passage, and it appears that the marijuana legalization initiative could not reach that level.  Here is an early local report: 

The ballot measure would have allowed companies that already grow and sell medical marijuana to sell it to adults above 21 for any reason.

Florida voters rejected a ballot measure that would have legalized recreational marijuana for adults at least 21 years old and allowed them to possess up to 3 ounces of marijuana. It failed to obtain the required 60% threshold at a time when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is making moves to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug. Florida’s Republican-dominated government has a lengthy history of opposing marijuana legalization....

The committee had raised an overall total of $152.27 million in cash and $959,000 in in-kind contributions since being created in 2022, according to the latest report on the state Division of Elections website.

The approval of the marijuana measure wouldn’t have immediately made marijuana legal in Florida. It would have allowed the Florida Legislature to create regulations or decide how to implement the amendment during the legislative session that begins in March.

Florida Republican officials were mixed on their support for this ballot measure. Gov. Ron DeSantis and Republican legislative leaders opposed the measure, with DeSantis saying it only benefits large marijuana corporations and would leave a marijuana stench in the air.

But former President Donald Trump signaled support in early September for the measure and a potential federal policy shift to reclassify marijuana. He said he’d vote in favor of the initiative, one of the few positions where he and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris agreed.

Election Day 2024 marks yet another big moment for the future of marijuana reforms

Election Day 2024 marks a good time to check out this updated resource page, "Drugs on the Ballot," authored by the great staff at the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.   On that page, with the help of a cool graphic, one can be readily reminded that just about every big Election Day over the past dozen years has been a big moment for state marijuana reforms in the United States.  This year is no different, with a very big legalization vote taking place in Florida and voters in other smaller (red) states also considering marijuana reform initiatives.

Of couse, this election year also has a number of interesting federal marijuana reform stories afoot.  The out-going Biden Administration has advanced, but not completed, an effort to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act from Schedule I to Schedule III.  Interestingly, both former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris have expressed support for federal rescheduling of marijuana on the campaign trail.  But I think it quite uncertain whether either of them (and particularly their allies) will be keen to simply follow the path advanced by the Biden Administration.  In addition, with control of both chambers of Congress up for grabs, the next Congress might (though likely will not) seek to have some direct say in the matter come 2025.

For a wide array or reasons, I think the impact of the 2024 election on marijuana reforms are for now just as uncertain as the results of the election itself (as I write around 12noon on November 5).  I am hopeful that we will know the actual results of the election relatively soon, but I suspect we will not be able to fully assess the impact of the 2024 election on marijuana reforms for years to come.

For those eager to track marijuana initiatives in real time, Marijuana Moment has this page "Live 2024 Marijuana Election Results."

On eve of Florida legalization vote, notable data on marijuana arrests in Miami area

The Miami Herald this week published this interesting article, headlined "Miami-Dade halted weed prosecutions, but thousands were jailed anyway. Most were Black."   The full piece is worth a full read, perhaps especially for anyone in Florida voting on the state's ballot legalization initiative.  Here are some excerpts:

Fred Johnson was 33 years old when he was arrested for the first time. On a Friday night in June 2023, shortly before midnight, Johnson was smoking a joint as he led a golf cart tour of Ocean Drive for his business....

Johnson’s marijuana arrest came nearly four years after Miami-Dade’s top prosecutor, State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle, in 2019 vowed to stop prosecuting such cases after hemp — a substance that looks and smells like marijuana — was legalized in Florida.

But police departments across the county continued to make arrests anyway, locking up more than 4,200 people on misdemeanor marijuana charges over the past five years. Nearly 60% of those cases were brought against Black defendants like Johnson, despite Black people making up just 18% of Miami-Dade’s population. In at least 97% of the cases, prosecutors ultimately dropped the charges, according to a Miami Herald analysis of data from the Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts....

The Herald’s analysis revealed a striking increase in the proportion of misdemeanor marijuana arrests of Black people in Miami-Dade County. Although the arrests have decreased substantially since Fernandez Rundle’s memo went out, the proportion of Black people arrested for the offense has gone up. Between Jan. 1, 2018, and Aug. 5, 2019 — the date of Fernandez Rundle’s announcement — 47% of charges involving misdemeanor marijuana possession were filed against Black defendants. Since the announcement, 59% of charges have been lodged against Black defendants. The disparity comes despite data showing that Black people and white people use marijuana at similar rates.

"State Drug Laws"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by Mason Marks now available via SSRN.  Here is its abstract:

States have long enacted drug laws that depart from federal laws and regulations. In the early twentieth century, several states prohibited marijuana while it remained federally unregulated.  In the 1960s, states started criminalizing psychedelic substances.  Shortly thereafter, in the early 1970s, they started reversing the trend to criminalize drugs by reducing or eliminating criminal penalties associated with personal marijuana use.  State-level decriminalization accelerated in the 1990s and 2000s.

More recently, states have extended drug policy reforms to other substances, including psychedelics, stimulants, and opioids.  Some states have eliminated criminal penalties while others have replaced criminal penalties with fines or diversion to drug treatment programs and other support services.  Some have funded clinical trials or policy research. Others have legalized facilities where people can consume federally controlled substances socially or with support from medical professionals. Meanwhile, many states have shifted away from decriminalizing federally illegal drugs to regulating their manufacture, testing, distribution, and sale.

This Essay provides a typology of state drug laws comprising thirteen categories, including decriminalization, recriminalization, adult use, supported adult use, medical use, supported medical use, religious use, social consumption, safe consumption, clinical research, policy analysis, trigger laws, and food and agricultural laws.  Several states have enacted hybrid legislation that blends features from different categories.  A higher-level categorization can also be imposed onto the typology, dividing the categories into three broader groups, including laws regarding independent drug use, supervised drug use, and drug policy or procedure.

"Marijuana use is rising. The government needs to correct its mistake."

The title of this post is the headline of this notable new Washington Post opinion piece, which serves to riff quite effectively off this big new report released recently by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).  (I had the great honor of serving on the committee that helped produce this report, which I flagged in this prior post.)  Here is part of the WaPo piece:

What little guidance the federal government has issued has focused on sales and revenue, not mitigating the health impacts on users and communities. The new report details how to reorient cannabis policy through a public health lens.  Three key points stood out to me:

First, there are many things the federal government can do without passing new laws. For example, it could develop a research agenda to draw upon lessons learned from other harmful products, such as tobacco and alcohol....

Second, the CDC could lead public education campaigns that raise much-needed awareness among Americans about the proven harms of cannabis use. These can promote strategies for identifying risky behavior, treatments for people already suffering ill effects and targeted messaging for those especially vulnerable to harm....

Finally, the government must reverse a law that unintentionally opened the door for dangerous, intoxicating products. The 2018 Agriculture Improvement Act, a.k.a. the Farm Bill, removed hemp — products with up to 0.3 percent THC — from the Controlled Substances Act. One of hemp’s derivatives is cannabidiol (CBD), which is not a psychoactive drug....

The bottom line from this report is that the federal government must stop ceding its authority to control these drugs. It never should have allowed the patchwork of state-by-state legalization, which fostered America’s largely unregulated cannabis industry.  Protecting the public’s health must come first.  Now is a better time than never.

DEPC releases "Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program at Six Years: Evaluating Satisfaction and Perception"

I am happy to highlight the release of this amazing report, titled "Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program at Six Years: Evaluating Satisfaction and Perception," authored by my colleague Jana Hrdinova of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.  This latest insallment of DEPC's annual reporting on Ohio's medical marijuana program is showcased on this DEPC webpage which provides this overview:

Since the inception of the Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program (OMMCP) in 2019, the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) has surveyed medical marijuana patients and potential patients to evaluate their experiences and satisfaction.  These surveys aim to fill in a critical gap in our understanding of the medical marijuana program in Ohio and to find out how the people being served by OMMCP evaluate its performance.

In November 2023, Ohio voters approved a ballot initiative to join 23 other states in legalizing cannabis for recreational use.  The initiative went into effect on December 7, 2023, legalizing possession of marijuana for personal use of up to 2.5 oz and allowing for home cultivation.  Following a licensing process, official recreational sales in Ohio dispensaries started on August 6, 2024, leaving the medical marijuana program largely unaffected in fiscal year 2024 [which ended in June 2024].  This sixth annual report thus provides a unique snapshot of a medical marijuana program on the brink of recreational sales and provides insights into patients’ opinions about the medical program and its future.

Here are just a few of many notable key findings from the report:

1. Increased patient satisfaction: Our survey recorded a considerable increase of patients reporting being extremely satisfied with the Ohio medical marijuana program, increasing by 12 percentage points from 19% in 2023 to 31% in 2024. A total of 74% of respondents reported that they were either extremely or somewhat satisfied with OMMCP, and only 20% reported being either somewhat or extremely dissatisfied....

2. Falling participation for both patients and physicians: Despite high levels of patient satisfaction, this year was the first year that OMMCP recorded a decline in the number of active patients (patients with active recommendation and registration), decreasing by 10% from its peak in October 2023 (184,958) to 165,746 in June 2024....

3. Flat sales receipts and tax revenue despite increases in sales: In a year-to-year comparison, Ohio medical marijuana market continued to experience a robust growth in the number and weight of product sold. In FY24, sales of plant product increased by 30% compared to the previous fiscal year, going from 71,506 pounds sold in FY23 to 92,979 pounds sold in FY24. Sales of manufactured products also recorded solid growth of 20%, going from 6,794,542 units sold in FY23 to 8,182,377 units sold in FY24.... Despite the robust growth in total sales, sales receipts remained largely flat due to declining prices, increasing only by 2% from $478,067,435 in FY23 to $487,589,380 in FY24....

"Cannabis Policy Impacts Public Health and Health Equity"

The title of this post is the title of this big new report released last week by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).  I had the great honor of serving on the committee that helped produce this report, which is partially summarized in this press release.  Here are excerpts from the press release:   

The federal government should provide policy guidance to states that have legalized cannabis, close regulatory loopholes on intoxicating products derived from hemp, and create a public health campaign aimed at parents and vulnerable populations, among other measures that would protect public health and reduce the harms of rising cannabis use, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine....   

Among states that have legalized cannabis, policies aimed at protecting public health vary widely, the report finds.  For example, while all of the states have minimum age requirements for cannabis use, not all have mechanisms in place for enforcement through randomized checks, as they would for alcohol or tobacco sales.

 

The potential harms of cannabis use include increased risk of car collisions, development of schizophrenia or psychosis, respiratory symptoms including chronic bronchitis, and lower birthweight from prenatal exposure.  Secondhand smoke from cannabis can also carry risks, as can accidental ingestion or poisoning.  Research points to specific groups that may be especially vulnerable to harm — including those over 65, pregnant women, and children.  While this report does not explore the health impacts of cannabis on individuals, a 2017 National Academies report includes detailed findings on health impacts.

 

“There is an urgent need for a coordinated public health approach to cannabis policy in the U.S.,” said Steven Teutsch, chair of the committee that wrote the report and senior fellow at the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California.  “Our report shows that cannabis policy often focuses on regulating sales and revenue first, and protecting public health second.  Now is the time for the federal government to create guidance for states that have legalized cannabis in the interest of protecting the public’s health.”

 

“A federal public education campaign targeting those most at risk of the negative impacts of cannabis — kids, teens, pregnant people, and those over 65 — would go a long way toward supporting public health,” said Yasmin Hurd, the committee’s vice chair, Ward-Coleman Chair of Translational Neuroscience, and director of the Addiction Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai.  “Accurate information about reducing the risks of cannabis use can help people make the best decisions for their own health.”

"Cannabis, cannabinoids and health: a review of evidence on risks and medical benefits"

The title of this post is the title of this new publication by multiple authors just released in the journal titled European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience.  Here is its abstract:

The legalization of cannabis for medical and recreational purposes has progressed internationally.  Cannabis and cannabinoids are advocated for a plethora of medical indications.  An increasing number of medical and nonmedical users regularly consume large doses of delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active component of cannabis.

Aim: to summarize the evidence on (1) risks of recreational cannabis use and (2) effectiveness and safety of medicinal cannabis. 

Findings on recreational use:  Cannabis is mostly used to experience its acute rewarding effects.  Regular use of high THC products can produce addiction (cannabis use disorder or CUD).  Acute consumption of high THC doses (including unintentionally) can cause time-limited mental, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular problems and motor vehicle accidents.  Chronic patterns of cannabis use have been associated with multiple adverse outcomes that are of particular concern among adolescents and young adults, such as, disrupted learning, impaired cognitive performance, reduced educational attainment and an increased risk of CUD, psychosis/schizophrenia, mood and anxiety disorders and suicidal behaviors.  There is debate about the extent to which cannabis use is a cause of these adverse outcomes.  Physical health risks (e.g., respiratory and cardiovascular, prematurity and restricted fetal growth, hyperemesis syndrome among others) have also been linked with repeated consumption of cannabis with a high THC content.

Findings on medical cannabis use:  Herbal cannabis, medicines from extracted or synthetized cannabinoids — often used as adjuvants to standard medicines — may produce small to modest benefits.  This is primarily the case in treating chronic pain, muscle spasticity, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and refractory epilepsy (in the case of cannabidiol, CBD).  The evidence is inconclusive on their value in treating mental disorders and other medical conditions.

Safety:  Cannabis-based medicine is generally well tolerated. There is a risk of mild to moderate adverse effects and CUD.

Some notable numbers on legal marijuana sales and collected tax revenues

Marijuana Moment has two recent articles that seemed worth noting on the economics of modern marijauan reforms:

"Six U.S. States Report Setting New Monthly Marijuana Sales Records":

Officials in at least six states with legal marijuana — Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri and New York — reported hitting their highest-ever monthly sales numbers in August, led by surging summer purchases of adult-use products.

"New Federal Data Shows States Collected More Than $8.7 Billion In Marijuana Taxes Since 2021":

States that have legalized marijuana have reported to the federal government more than $8.7 billion in cannabis tax revenue since tracking began by the U.S. Census Bureau in mid-2021, according to newly updated figures posted by the agency on Thursday.

Overall, California has reported the biggest share of that revenue, at more than $2 billion in tax income, followed by Washington State ($1.3 billion), Colorado ($898 million) and Michigan ($698 million).

Making the case to Prez Biden with candidates for cannabis clemency

I am pleased to see that my former student, Stephen Post, who is now part of the Last Prisoner Project, a nonprofit organization fcused on cannabis criminal justice reform, has this new USA Today opinion piece headlined "Biden promised no jail time for weed. He's running out of time to pardon cannabis convicts."   I recommend the piece in full, and here are excerpts (with links from the original):  

For most of U.S. history, presidents since George Washington have been unwavering in the use of their clemency power. They understood their actions not only as a way to remedy overly harsh sentences but also to help restore public faith in the justice system.

President Joe Biden now has a chance to use his clemency powers to secure – and, in some ways, correct ‒ his legacy on criminal justice reform.  The Biden administration has made it clear that cannabis reform, especially as a racial justice issue, is a priority and one that will energize the electorate. Nevertheless, the president has only granted 1.4% of submitted clemency petitions.

Despite positive use of his clemency powers like providing record relief to almost 13,000 people with his expanded categorical pardons for cannabis possession, President Biden has failed to release a single person in prison for cannabis via commutation....  Marylanders like Jonathan Wall, who has been incarcerated since 2020 on federal cannabis charges, can only get that type of clemency relief from the president.  

While there may be political concerns perceived to limit President Biden’s ability to grant commutations before Election Day, even then-President Donald Trump granted a few just weeks before the 2020 presidential election. In his four White House years, he granted commutations to 16 people for 27 cannabis offenses, some of whom were released from prison....

If President Biden is looking for the next batch of candidates for clemency, he has already been sent a list of deserving individuals, almost half of whom identify as Black, and whose petitions are sitting with the Office of the Pardon Attorney.

Many of these candidates have sat in prison cells for decades, or even for life, convicted of an activity that is no longer a crime, while thousands of others build business and create wealth doing the same thing.

Former Prez Trump articulates forceful support for state marijuana legalization, federal rescheduling and banking reforms

In this post nine days ago,  I noted new comments from former Prez Donald Trump that were seemingly supportive of Florida's marijuana legalization ballot initiative; in this post last week, I noted further comment from Trump suggesting his position of federal rescheduling would likewise be supportive.   Now, via this social media posting from late last night, Trump make quite clear that he is all-in on both state and federal marijuana reforms.  Here are key excerpts:

As a Floridian, I will be voting YES on Amendment 3 this November.  As President, we will continue to focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug, and work with Congress to pass common sense laws, including safe banking for state authorized companies, and supporting states rights to pass marijuana laws, like in Florida, that work so well for their citizens.

With these comments, Trump is no longer hedging in any way his seeming robust support for a wide array of state and federal marijuana reforms. Given Trump's various prior comments recently on these topics that did hedge a bit, I am inclined to guess that Trump was looking to see what kind of reactions his pro-marijuana reform statements engendered. The reactions, at least from Trump's view, must have been positive. I also suspect that some of Trump's latest high-profile political endorsers, specifically from Robert F. Kennedy Jr and from Tulsi Gabbart, may have been urging Trump to become more vocal in his support for reform.

Interesting times.

Recent related posts:

• Former Prez Trump suggests he is supportive of marijuana legalization in Florida and elsewhere
• Does former Prez Trump's praise for medical marijuana suggest he would robustly support federal marijuana rescheduling?

Does former Prez Trump's praise for medical marijuana suggest he would robustly support federal marijuana rescheduling?

I flagged here the notable social media comments from former Prez Donald Trump over the weekend which suggested he is supportive of marijuana legalization in Florida and elsewhere. But I just recently saw some notable follow-up comments about medical marijuana that Trump made during an interview on Lex Fridman’s podcast released earlier this week. This Marijuana Moment piece reports on the comments this way:

Former President Donald Trump says medical marijuana has been “absolutely amazing” for patients, and that a Florida initiative to more broadly legalize cannabis for recreational use will be on the November ballot is “going to be very good” for the state after it passes, which he expects to happen.

The 2024 Republican nominee said during an interview on Lex Fridman’s podcast that was released on Tuesday that “medical marijuana has been amazing,” adding that he’s “had friends and I’ve had others and doctors telling me that it’s been absolutely amazing, the medical marijuana.”

Trump referenced a recent social media post he made about Florida’s Amendment 3 ballot initiative, where he gave tacit support for the proposal. “We can live with the marijuana,” he said.

“It’s got to be a certain age [to purchase],” he said. “It’s got to be done in a very concerted, lawful way. And the way they’re doing it in Florida, I think is going to be actually good. It’s going to be very good, but it’s got to be done in a good way. It’s got to be done in a clean way.” He added that his campaign will be putting out an additional, “more specific” statement detailing his cannabis position within the next week.

I will be eager to see what kind of more specific statement concerning cannabis policy comes from the Trump campaign, and I sincerely hope it will address federal law and on-going efforts to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act.  But if Trump is of the view that  medical marijuana is "absolutely amazing," I would think Trump's position of federal rescheduling would be absolutely positive.  After all, marijuana's current status as a Schedule I drug means that is has no accepted medical use, and it seems Trump has heard from friends and others and doctors that marijuana has been amazing as a medicine.   And only be moving marijuana to Schedule III are we likely to have medical marijuana access by patients and robust medical marijuana research "done in a very concerted, lawful way."

"Convergence and Divergence of Alcohol and Marijuana Regulation in a Federalist System Post-COVID-19"

The title of thi spost is the title of this new paper now available via SSRN authored by H. Justin Pace and Eden Punch. Here is its abstract:

After the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment, the regulation of alcohol in the U.S. largely takes place at the state level.  While marijuana has been illegal at the federal level since 1937, states have been liberalizing marijuana laws at the state level since 1996 (when California legalized medical marijuana) by legalizing marijuana for medical or adult use.  Alcohol regulation, which was effectively reset in all states when alcohol was legalized at the federal level, is marked by divergence — significant variation in alcohol laws across states.  Conversely, marijuana regulation, which has slowly spread across the U.S. state-by-state over the last 28 years, is marked by convergence — new marijuana reforms increasingly resemble other reforms.

One of us has previously published scholarship arguing that the difference can be explained by a combination of interest group politics, path dependence, and, most importantly, a temporal effect.  Alcohol and marijuana regulation in the U.S. experienced an exogenous shock with the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in significant changes to alcohol and marijuana regulation across the nation.  This paper examines convergence and divergence in alcohol and marijuana regulation from 2020 to the present day, revisiting and reaffirming that previous theory and also applying a federalism lens to explain alcohol and marijuana regulation and predict future developments.

Former Prez Trump suggests he is supportive of marijuana legalization in Florida and elsewhere

As reported in this New York Times article, "Donald J. Trump on Saturday signaled his support for a ballot measure that would legalize recreational marijuana in Florida, stopping short of a full endorsement but saying that he did not believe marijuana should be criminalized in his adopted home state when it is legal in others."  Here is more (with links from the original):

In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Mr. Trump portrayed the passage of the ballot measure, known as Amendment 3, as inevitable and raised concerns about its implementation. Public opinion polls show that a majority of Florida voters favor the measure.

“Whether people like it or not, this will happen through the approval of the Voters, so it should be done correctly,” Mr. Trump said. “We need the State Legislature to responsibly create laws that prohibit the use of it in public spaces, so we do not smell marijuana everywhere we go, like we do in many of the Democrat run Cities.”

Mr. Trump, who votes near his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, had previously avoided taking a position on the question. His position pits him against Gov. Ron DeSantis and most of the state’s Republican leaders, who are working to defeat the proposal.

Mr. Trump’s statement appeared to walk a line meant to keep him from fully upsetting those opposed to the measure. He did not say how he personally would vote on Amendment 3, and he did not explicitly back the legalization of marijuana even as he again suggested he supported decriminalizing it.

Florida has been trending Republican, but polls show that Amendment 3 is more popular in the state than even Mr. Trump is — indicating that many voters intend to split their ticket and vote both for the former president and for marijuana legalization.  Polling suggests that most Americans now say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use.