Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

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.

DEA schedules hearing on federal marijuana rescheduling for December 2, 2024

As reported here via Marijuana Moment, the "Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has scheduled a hearing to consider differing expert opinions on the Justice Department’s proposal to federally reschedule marijuana — an extra procedural step that will take place after the November election."  Here is more:

After moving to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) back in March, DOJ opened a 60-day public comment period that saw more than 4o,000 submissions.  Now that DEA has reviewed the comments, it agreed to an administrative hearing, as requested by several supporters and opponents of the reform.  The hearing will be held on December 2, according to a notice set to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday.

While some advocates and stakeholders had hoped that DEA would avoid this additional step and simply move to final rulemaking, the agency has often scheduled hearings for regulatory proposals of major public interest. And rescheduling cannabis for the first time since it was designated as Schedule I over 50 years ago evidently met that standard.

That said, the hearing adds some uncertainty about the potential rescheduling timeline.  There are some concerns this means the rulemaking process will not be completed before January, which could mean an administrative changeup after the November election that theoretically could affect the rescheduling process.

While some advocates and stakeholders had hoped that DEA would avoid this additional step and simply move to final rulemaking, the agency has often scheduled hearings for regulatory proposals of major public interest. And rescheduling cannabis for the first time since it was designated as Schedule I over 50 years ago evidently met that standard.

That said, the hearing adds some uncertainty about the potential rescheduling timeline.  There are some concerns this means the rulemaking process will not be completed before January, which could mean an administrative changeup after the November election that theoretically could affect the rescheduling process.

New Gallup polling shows "Americans' Views of Marijuana Effects Worsen"

The polling firm Gallup here released the interesting results of its "Consumption Habits" poll. Here are excerpts from Gallup's discussion of its findings:

Americans’ views of the effects of marijuana have worsened over the past two years, as slim majorities now say it negatively impacts both society as a whole (54%) and most people who use it (51%). This contrasts with Gallup’s findings from 2022, when the public was about evenly divided in its assessments of marijuana’s effect on society and more likely to say the effect on most users was positive (53%) rather than negative (45%).

The latest data, from Gallup’s July 1-21 Consumption Habits poll, show that majorities of Americans in several demographic groups believe marijuana has a positive effect on most who use it. These include those who say they have tried marijuana, young adults 18-34 years old, Democrats, and those who attend religious services less than monthly or never.

By contrast, majorities of their counterparts -- those who say they have never tried marijuana, adults 55 and older, Republicans and those who attend religious services at least monthly -- think marijuana has a negative effect on most who use it. Independents and adults 35 to 54 years old are divided in their views.

All of the groups have become less likely since 2022 to say marijuana has a positive effect on users. Meanwhile, less than half of Americans in each of these groups now think that marijuana positively impacts society.

A separate question in the July survey measures U.S. adults’ opinions of the harmfulness of cigarettes, chewing tobacco, e-cigarettes, cigars, a pipe, nicotine patches, alcohol and marijuana to those who use them.

Although majorities of Americans believe each of the eight substances is “very” or “somewhat” harmful to its users, the two-thirds who say marijuana is very (26%) or somewhat (40%) harmful is the lowest. In contrast, more than nine in 10 U.S. adults consider cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and e-cigarettes or vaping to be harmful, including majorities calling each very harmful.

The public’s perceptions of the harmfulness of marijuana have worsened slightly since last year, when 23% viewed it as very and 35% somewhat harmful.

The 13% of U.S. adults who currently report that they smoke marijuana is down slightly from the 16% to 17% range recorded in 2022 and 2023. Meanwhile, compared with 2022, a steady 12% of U.S. adults say they consume edibles, about matching the 11% of Americans who say they smoke cigarettes, which ties the low in Gallup’s 80-year trend. Seven percent of U.S. adults vape or use e-cigarettes. Alcohol use is more widespread, with 58% of U.S. adults saying they have occasion to drink.

"The Framing of Minority Threat and Moralization to Criminalize Behavior: The Case of Cannabis in the Early 20th Century"

The title of this post is the title of this new article authored by Mike Vuolo, Brian Kelly, Maria Orsini and Joy Kadowaki recently published in the journal Social Problems.  Here is its abstract:

Understanding why particular behavior is encoded in law or other systems of rules has been a core topic of sociology since its inception.  Although differing rhetorical frames have been identified in policy debates, little research directly links such rhetoric and policy passage.  Centering framing theory, we use the case of U.S. cannabis criminalization via mixed-methods content analyses of 9,707 nationwide newspaper articles and event history analysis of state-level criminalization to make several contributions.

First, we go beyond describing rhetorical frames, demonstrating that core framing tasks were associated with spatial and temporal state-level cannabis law passage.  Second, we emphasize that consolidation of two “master frames,” legal and racial, are particularly pertinent to criminalization and permit incorporation of rhetorical minority threat into framing.  Third, an overreliance on population-based minority threat exists in the literature; however, threat can operate absent minority groups.  While demonstrating the effect of vilification of Mexican people, we show that a heterogeneous “othering” of cannabis, by attaching threat to numerous minority groups, was significant for cannabis criminalization, regardless of minority groups’ actual presence.  In addition to interrogating longstanding assumptions regarding cannabis criminalization, our analyses demonstrate the importance of framing and rhetorical racial threat in the social construction of law.

Some new certainty and continued uncertainty in latest state and federal marijuana reform developments

After a lot of uncertainty about when adult-use sales would begin in Ohio, some timeline certainty emerged yesterday in the Buckeye State: "Ohio Cannabis Dispensaries Will Start Adult-Use Sales Aug. 6."  Here are some of the particulars:

Ohio will be the 21st state to launch adult-use cannabis sales when licensed dispensaries open their doors to those 21 and older at 10 a.m. Aug. 6.

The Ohio Division of Cannabis Control (DCC) hasn’t officially issued dual-use certificates of operation—allowing existing dispensaries to serve both medical patients and adult-use customers—to store owners just yet, but the division plans to make a formal announcement Aug. 5, a Department of Commerce spokesperson told Cannabis Business Times....

Ohio’s imminent launch represents a catalyst for the cannabis industry: Ohio will be the fourth most-populated state to commence adult-use sales after California, Illinois and New York.  Ohio is also the first to roll out an adult-use program since Maryland did so on July 1, 2023.

In addition, millions of adults 21 years and older residing in bordering Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia—who don’t have access to adult-use cannabis in their home states—will now live within driving distance of licensed and regulated cannabis products.

Meanwhile, there is still continued uncertainty concerning the timeline for potential federal refrom in the form of rescheduling. But, as reported in this Marijuana Moment article, a collection of US Senators are urging the Drug Enforcement Administration  to "promptly finalize" the proposed rule to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.  Here are the basics:

In a letter sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram on Friday, Schumer and Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and others implored the administration to follow through on a proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), as the Justice Department formally proposed in May.

“The proposed rule to reclassify marijuana to schedule III recognizes the medical benefits of marijuana, will improve access for studying the health effects of short and long-term cannabis use, and will provide relief to cannabis businesses that continue to navigate a patchwork regulatory system to conduct legal business,” they said.

The full letter from the seven Senators (all Deomocrats) is available at this link.

DEPC event on Aug 7: "Federal Marijuana Reform: Effects and Echoes of Rescheduling"

I am pleased to be able to spotlight another great Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) event focused on federal marijuana reforms.  This online event,  titled "Federal Marijuana Reform: Effects and Echoes of Rescheduling," will take place on August 7, 2024 from 12 noon to 1:15 pm EDT.  The event is described this way on this event registration page (where one can directly register):

After decades-long efforts by advocates and researchers, President Biden announced in October 2022 that he instructed “the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”  In May 2024, the Attorney General submitted a notice of proposed rulemaking to the Federal Register, initiating a formal rulemaking process to consider the reclassification of marijuana from a schedule I to a schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

While the rulemaking process timeline has some uncertainties, many expect a final rescheduling rule could appear as soon as September or October 2024.  But what would such a move mean for modern marijuana laws, policies and practices?  Could medical marijuana products be prescribed by doctors and sold in pharmacies nationwide?  Would changes in federal laws dramatically impact current medical and recreational industries operating under disparate state systems?  And would placement in schedule III make a meaningful difference in the operation of criminal justices systems, especially for people with marijuana-related criminal convictions at the federal or state level?

Panelists:

John Hudak, Director of the Maine Office of Cannabis Policy
Robert Mikos, LaRoche Family Chair in Law, Vanderbilt University Law School 
Fatima Afia, Attorney, Rudick Law Group, PLLC
Shane Pennington, Partner, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 

Moderator:
Cat Packer, Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner in Residence at The Ohio State University Drug Enforcement and Policy Center and Director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation at Drug Policy Alliance

Split Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms dismissal of criminal charge of child neglect brought against woman who used medical marijuana when pregnant

As reported in this local press piece, "women with state medical cards who use marijuana during pregnancy can’t be prosecuted for child neglect, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled Thursday."   The ruling in State v. Agular, No. 2024 OK CR 18 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. July 18, 2024) (available here), is an interesting read, and here are a few passages from the majority opinion:

The issue in this appeal is whether an expectant mother who holds a medical marijuana card and uses the drug while pregnant has exposed her unborn child to illegal drugs constituting the crime of child neglect, which in Oklahoma includes "the failure or omission to protect a child from exposure to . . . the use, possession, sale, or manufacture of illegal drugs." 10A O.S.Supp.2019, § 1-1-105(48)(b)(1) (emphasis added).  The Information charges Aguilar with a single felony count of child neglect by "exposing J.W.B. to controlled dangerous substances in utero, specifically Marijuana." (Emphasis added). Thus, the charging document accuses Aguilar of a crime which does not exist, i.e., child neglect by exposure to "controlled dangerous substances" as opposed to exposure to "illegal drugs[.]"  This is not a matter of semantics, and although this charging error does not determine the outcome of this appeal, the apparent confusion in terminology and definitions which led to that error is central to understanding how to properly resolve this case.

The terms "controlled dangerous substance" and "illegal drugs" are not synonymous; the former includes hundreds of prescription drugs which, like marijuana, are lawful to possess only with a prescription or other legal authorization.  The term "controlled dangerous substance" is defined in 63 O.S.Supp.2019, § 2-101(8) as any drug listed in any of the Schedules I through V of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.  However, neither that Act nor any other provision of Oklahoma law defines the term "illegal drug", so we must ascertain the meaning of that term, and specifically, whether the marijuana use in this case is included within it so as to constitute child neglect....

We find that the most logical reading of 10A O.S.Supp.2019, § 1-1-105(48)(b)(1) is that "illegal drugs" means those drugs whose possession or use violated the law at the time of that possession or use. Hence, an expectant mother who exposes her unborn child to illegal methamphetamine could be convicted of child neglect.  See State v. Green, 2020 OK CR 18, 474 P.3d 886.  Conversely, under that definition, an expectant mother's licensed possession and use of medical marijuana would not trigger an automatic finding of neglect for failure to protect her unborn child from exposure to illegal drugs because as to her, marijuana is not an illegal drug.

One of the two dissents includes this passage providing a different view of this matter:

The child neglect statutes were undoubtedly enacted to protect children from harm. Marijuana is still an illegal Schedule I drug except for a person who holds a medical marijuana license. In this case, the baby's exposure to Appellee's use and possession of marijuana, a Schedule I drug, is illegal because the baby has no medical marijuana license. It is not the mother's use or possession of marijuana that is criminalized by the child neglect statute, but her exposure of her unborn child to the use or possession of marijuana, an illegal drug for the child.

"Marijuana and the Tyrannies of Scheduling"

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

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is about to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), marking an historic shift in federal policy toward the drug.  This Essay analyzes the reasoning behind the agency’s decision and its implications for other Schedule I drugs, including promising psychedelics like psilocybin and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). 

The Essay begins by highlighting a new test the agency introduced to determine whether a drug has a “currently accepted medical use” (CAMU).  In the past, the DEA insisted CAMU could be demonstrated only by successfully completing rigorous scientific research demonstrating a drug is effective.  But because the CSA limits the ability to conduct such research on Schedule I drugs, the agency’s CAMU test proved nearly impossible to satisfy, imposing what I call the Tyranny of Science.  In its latest marijuana rescheduling decision, however, the DEA announced that CAMU could also be demonstrated by showing there is already widespread clinical use of a drug.

Because state medical marijuana programs are wildly popular, the agency was able to find that marijuana has a CAMU under the new test, even though scientific proof of its medical efficacy is still lacking. Nonetheless, I argue the new CAMU test is unlikely to facilitate rescheduling of any other drug. In effect, the new test requires convincing popular majorities to pass state laws legalizing medical use of a drug the federal government has banned outright. Although marijuana advocates eventually convinced enough voters in enough states to satisfy this daunting test, no other Schedule I drug is likely to repeat that feat anytime soon (if ever).

But the Essay proposes a way to soften the Tyrannies of Scheduling: I argue the DEA should de-emphasize CAMU in scheduling decisions. The agency has long insisted that a drug with no CAMU must be placed on Schedule I, regardless of its harms.  But the agency has never offered a persuasive rationale for making CAMU paramount in scheduling decisions, and the Essay shows that the agency’s approach is contrary to the text and purposes of the CSA.  De-emphasizing CAMU would reduce the distortive influence the tyrannical CAMU tests now wield over the administrative scheduling process, resulting in more rational scheduling decisions that better reflect the benefits and dangers of controlled substances, as Congress intended.

DEPC event: "Implementing Issue 2: Ohio Dives into Adult-Use Marijuana"

I am pleased to be able to spotlight another great Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) event focused on the implementation of marijuana reforms in the Buckeye State.  This online event,  titled "Implementing Issue 2: Ohio Dives into Adult-Use Marijuana," will take place on July 16, 2024 from 12 noon to 1:15 p.m. EDT.  The event is described this way on this event page (where one can register):

After months of rulemaking, following the template Ohio voters put into law through passage of Issue 2, the Ohio Department of Commerce has established a licensing process for the state’s first adult-use cannabis operators.  Ohio medical marijuana operators have a priority in obtaining adult-use licenses, and Ohio could have adult-use stores operating around the state as soon as this summer.  Yet many questions about industry regulations and operations remain unanswered, including what legal changes might move forward in the Ohio General Assembly, when and how Issue 2’s social equity provisions will be implemented, and the impacts of an adult-use market on the state’s medical marijuana program.  Join the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center and our panel of experts on Tuesday, July 16 as we discuss these topics and more.

Panelists:
Thomas Haren, Partner and Cannabis Practice Chair, Frantz Ward
Megan Henry, Reporter, Ohio Capital Journal
Shaleen Title, Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner in Residence, Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, The Ohio State University; Founder and Director, Parabola Center for Law and Policy

Moderator:
Douglas A. Berman, Newton D. Baker-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law, executive director, Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University

Rounding up some recent notable marijuana legal news and commentary from various quarters

I have not blogged in this space much latety as I have been consumed with activity by the US Supreme Court and other legal developments in recent weeks.  In addition, I do not usually cover much day-to-day marijuana news because all sort of outlets cover this news (and Marijuana Moment covers it especially well).  But as these streams come together, I though it useful to do a quick post highlighting some notable marijuana legal news and commentary.  So:

From the AP, "Brazil’s Supreme Court decriminalizes possession of marijuana for personal use"

From Bloomberg Law, "Federal Cannabis Law Dispute Tossed by Massachusetts Judge"

From Harris Sliwoski, "Cannabis Law and Gun Rights: News from SCOTUS"

From Marijuana Moment, "South Dakota Law Banning Intoxicating Hemp Products Takes Effect After Judge Declines To Block It"

From Marijuana Moment, "DeSantis Seems To Concede He Vetoed Hemp Ban Bill, In Part, To Engage Industry In Marijuana Legalization Opposition Campaign"

From MinnPost, "Court decision ending cannabis odor as sole reason for search codified by Minnesota lawmakers"

From the Missouri Independent, "Missouri courts still slogging through marijuana crime expungements, long after deadline"

From MJBiz Daily, "How will Supreme Court ruling affect marijuana rescheduling?"

"Ohio Principals' Perspectives on How Adult-Use Marijuana May Impact Schools and Students"

The title of this post is the title of this terrific new report now available via SSRN and authored by Peter Leasure Jana Hrdinova with the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center.   Here is the report's abstract:

Over the last decade, significant effort has been devoted to examining whether the legalization of recreational cannabis leads to higher rates of use among youth given that some research links adolescent marijuana use with various negative educational, health, and safety outcomes.  Although some national survey results over the last decade suggest that current marijuana use among high school students has decreased, the concern about youth use remains (especially in jurisdictions that have recently legalized marijuana for recreational use).  The goal of the current study was to explore current issues with student marijuana use in Ohio’s K-12 schools and anticipated future issues given the recent legalization of adult-use marijuana in Ohio.

In December 2023, before any recreational marijuana was available for sale in the state of Ohio, an online survey was distributed to Ohio’s K-12 principals that covered three general areas: current student behavior with respect to marijuana, anticipated impact of marijuana legalization on students, and anticipated impact of marijuana legalization on schools and its policies.  The results indicated notable agreement among principals that current marijuana use on school premises and away from school premises was perceived as a problem.  Principals also reported high levels of concern about the anticipated impact of cannabis legalization on their students with respect to increased marijuana use among students, increased physical and mental health issues, negative impact on academic performance, and negative impact on students’ behavior at school.  While the results generally showed higher levels of agreement about expected negative impacts among principals at high schools and middle schools, elementary school principals still noted modest to high levels of concern for many questions.  Given those results, it is not surprising that many principals stated that they would likely increase education about the negative effects of marijuana use. Further, over 80% of principals noted that more funding should be provided to Ohio schools for marijuana-specific education now that recreational marijuana is legalized in Ohio.

"Drug Crimes: The Case for Abolition"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by my Ohio State colleague Sean Hill now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

Nonwhite communities experience higher rates of arrest, prosecution, and incarceration than white communities for drug offenses, and these disparities have persisted even in the wake of decriminalization and legalization. Although a diverse array of political stakeholders increasingly agree that drug policies should be reformed, they are nearly unanimous in their opposition to abolition.  While select drug crimes may be worthy of reduced punishment or conversion into civil offenses, these stakeholders contend that the abolition of criminal institutions will inevitably jeopardize public safety.

This Article challenges the widespread presumption that drug law and policy correlates with the protection of the public.  Drug crimes are, instead, an essential vehicle for the subordination of nonwhite people and for the misallocation of resources across racial groups.  Part I of the article contests the presumed correlation between illicit drugs and violence and illuminates how drug criminalization erodes individual and collective safety.  Part II addresses how drug policy sustains white and American hegemony, respectively, by legitimating racist ideologies and by justifying force against marginalized people both in and outside of the country's borders.  Finally, Part III explains how abolition represents a viable path away from the harms of prohibitionist policies.

"Just Don't Do It: Why Cannabis Regulations are the Reason Cannabis Businesses are Failing"

The title of this post is the title of this new article available now via SSRN authored by Edward Adams. Here are parts of its abstract:

In the last decade, more and more states have legalized the recreational or medicinal use of cannabis and, in the coming years, many more are likely to follow.  The change that has been advocated by proponents of cannabis reform, including some organizations like NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, that have existed since the 1970s, is finally upon us....  Due to political variation among the states and the protracted process of reform, the cutting edge of cannabis regulation is in an incredible state of flux, and the nation-wide regulatory scheme is a jumble of policy choices; many of which are directly opposite to those of neighboring states.

In attempt to impose some order on the complexities of state cannabis regulation, Part III will canvas the current legal status of the substance in the United States, including a state survey and an in-depth exploration of the various policy decisions facing states that are considering reform.  This portion will also examine some recent, incremental shifts in the federal laws that overlay what is primarily a state level regulatory scheme.  Even after looking to the past and the present, the future remains uncertain.  Many significant impediments to the reform movement remain in place.  For example, even in states where cannabis has been recreationally legalized, local governments have retained (and exercised) the power to prohibit the substance within their jurisdictions.

Part IV will contain a discussion of this and similar roadblocks to reform that lurk in the background of the dynamic environment surrounding cannabis regulation in the United States.  Through understanding the complex history of cannabis regulation and legalization, the current legal landscape, and the existing roadblocks to reform, Part V will discuss how the legal and regulatory landscape causes so many cannabis companies to fail. Cannabis reform needs to happen in order for cannabis companies to become profitable.  For now, the cannabis legal regime creates significant hurdles that result in failing companies with little chance of success. 

"Cannabis Law Practice: Lessons for the Legal Profession in the Twenty-First Century"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Eli Wald and available via SSRN.  Here is its abstract:

The gradual states-driven legalization of cannabis, first medicinal marijuana followed by recreational marijuana, combined with decreased enforcement of federal law, has led to the emergence and growth of the marijuana industry and with it increased demand for cannabis legal services.  This Article is the first to study cannabis law practice in the United States.  In addition to answering fundamental questions about this growing area of law practice, including who cannabis lawyers are, where they practice, and what ethical challenges they face, the Article also investigates the insights cannabis law practice reveals and the lessons it teaches about the American legal profession.

Robust coverage of rescheduling at Marijuana Moment

Anyone and everyone who seriously follows marijuana news – of which there is plenty these days – knows to follow Marijuana Moment for lots of cannabis coverage and context.  In the past week, of course, news around possible federal rescheduling is coming fast and furious, and I will here use Marijuana Moment headlines (and links) to cover a lot of ground (which is sure to keep shifting):

"Attorney General Formally Moves To Reschedule Marijuana, But DEA Signals Resistance"

"DOJ Seeks Input On ‘Unique Economic Impacts’ Of Marijuana Rescheduling For ‘Multibillion Dollar Industry’"

"Former Obama Drug Czar Says Marijuana Is ‘Not Medicine’ And That ‘Big Cannabis’ Is Behind Federal Rescheduling Decision"

"Feds Begin Accepting Marijuana Rescheduling Comments, With Key Reform Groups Previewing How They Plan To Influence The Process"

"Biden Drug Czar Says Marijuana Rescheduling Is ‘Based On Science And Evidence’ But Misstates Impact On Prescription Access"

Biden Administration moves federal marijuana rescheduling forward to start public comment period

As reported in this Washington Post piece, "President Biden on Thursday publicly endorsed the Justice Department’s recommendation to loosen restrictions on marijuana, a long-expected measure that marks a historic shift in the nation’s drug policy." Here is more on an important next step in the rescheduling process:

The Justice Department, after receiving the go-ahead from the White House, published an official notice, opening a two-month period for the public to comment on the proposed change. The rule reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III controlled substance would not go into effect until afterward.

Marijuana would not be legalized federally, but would move out of the Schedule I category reserved for tightly controlled substances such as heroin and LSD. If the rule goes into effect, marijuana will join a category including prescription drugs such as ketamine, anabolic steroids and testosterone....

The move comes a little more than two weeks after Attorney General Merrick Garland recommended to the White House that marijuana be reclassified as a Schedule III substance. The recommendation was applauded by cannabis supporters who for decades have complained that the federal government exaggerated the dangers of the drug.

Marijuana’s Schedule I status means it is tightly controlled because the federal government sees no proven medical value and a high potential for abuse. Stripping that designation would provide researchers easier access to cannabis and allow marijuana companies to deduct business expenses from their tax bills — a boon for an industry that has struggled because of high operating costs and competition from the illicit market. “Our ultimate goal is federal legalization, and we see Schedule III as a necessary and critical step along the way,” Edward Conklin, executive director of industry group U.S. Cannabis Council, said in a statement....

Some cannabis advocates say reclassification is an incremental step that doesn’t address the fundamental disconnect between the federal criminalization of the drug and the reality that a majority of Americans live in states where they can legally buy it. The implications of rescheduling for existing legal state markets are especially murky because marijuana has not been treated as a federally regulated medicinal product sold at pharmacies.

Meanwhile, cannabis critics fault the Biden administration for normalizing a drug that can still be harmful to individual and public health. Reclassification of marijuana — which is opposed by some former federal law enforcement officials, some Republicans in Congress and the anti-cannabis group Smart Approaches to Marijuana — could be delayed again by legal and regulatory challenges.

In announcing this move, the Justice Department released its formal federal register rule which will  start a 60-day comment period, as well as this 36-page document from the  Office of Legal Counsel detailing legal arguments surrounding rescheduling issues.

New MPP report reviews "Cannabis Tax Revenue in States that Regulate Cannabis for Adult Use"

The Marijuana Policy Project has recently released this new report titled "Cannabis Tax Revenue in States that Regulate Cannabis for Adult Use." The report has lots of state-ny-state tax data, and here is how it gets startd:

Legalizing cannabis for adults has been a wise investment.  Since 2014 when sales began in Colorado and Washington, legalization policies have provided states a new revenue stream to bolster budgets and fund important services and programs.  Through the first quarter of 2024, states have reported a combined total of more than $20 billion in tax revenue from legal, adult-use cannabis sales.  In 2023 alone, legalization states generated more than $4 billion in cannabis tax revenue from adult-use sales, which is the most revenue generated by cannabis sales in a single year.  In addition to revenue generated for statewide budgets, cities, and towns have also generated hundreds of thousands of dollars in new revenue from local adult-use cannabis taxes.

Twenty-four states have legalized cannabis possession for adults 21 and older.  All but one of them — Virginia — have also legalized, regulated, and taxed cannabis sales. In two legalization states — Delaware and Ohio — sales have not begun yet.

In many states with legal, adult-use cannabis sales, tax revenues are allocated for social services and programs. This includes funding education, school construction, early literacy, public libraries, bullying prevention, behavioral health, alcohol and drug treatment, veterans’ services, conservation, job training, conviction expungement expenses, and reinvestment in communities that have been disproportionately affected by the war on cannabis, among many others.

This document reviews each legalization state’s adult-use cannabis tax structure, population, and year-by-year adult-use cannabis tax revenue.  States are listed in chronological order, based on when state-legal cannabis sales began, with the most mature markets first.  These figures include cannabis excise taxes and states’ standard sales taxes that are applied to cannabis.  They do not include medical cannabis tax revenue, application and licensing fees paid by cannabis businesses, additional income taxes generated by workers in the cannabis industry, or taxes paid to the federal government.

"Local Moratoriums for Ohio Adult Use Marijuana Operators"

The title of this post is the heading for this terrific new resource page just posted along with other Policy and Data Analyses at the website of The Ohio State University's Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (which I help direct).  Here is how the resource is introduced:

In November 2023, 57% of Ohio voters voted for Issue 2, a ballot initiative which legalized adult recreational marijuana use and tasked the Ohio Departments of Commerce and Development with implementing a legal recreational cannabis industry in the state.  As of December 7, 2023, individuals 21 years and older can legally consume and possess marijuana throughout Ohio, although recreational dispensaries are not expected to open until the summer or early fall of 2024.  Like most other states that have legalized cannabis for recreational use, Ohio allows local jurisdictions to enact ordinances to prohibit or limit the operation of adult-use cannabis businesses within their boundaries.  This page presents information on 47 local moratoriums that have been enacted by Ohio jurisdictions as of March 31, 2024.