Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Widespread new reporting that DEA is rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act

ImagesAs reported in this new AP article, the "U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will move to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, The Associated Press has learned, a historic shift to generations of American drug policy that could have wide ripple effects across the country."  Here is more on a legal developments that has been expected, but is still a very big deal:

The DEA’s proposal, which still must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, would recognize the medical uses of cannabis and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. However, it would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use. The agency’s move, confirmed to the AP on Tuesday by five people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive regulatory review, clears the last significant regulatory hurdle before the agency’s biggest policy change in more than 50 years can take effect.

Once OMB signs off, the DEA will take public comment on the plan to move marijuana from its current classification as a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin and LSD. It moves pot to Schedule III, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids, following a recommendation from the federal Health and Human Services Department. After the public comment period and a review by an administrative judge, the agency would eventually publish the final rule....

Biden and a growing number of lawmakers from both major political parties have been pushing for the DEA decision as marijuana has become increasingly decriminalized and accepted, particularly by younger people. A Gallup poll last fall found 70% of adults support legalization, the highest level yet recorded by the polling firm and more than double the roughly 30% who backed it in 2000. The DEA didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

Schedule III drugs are still controlled substances and subject to rules and regulations, and people who traffic in them without permission could still face federal criminal prosecution. Some critics argue the DEA shouldn’t change course on marijuana, saying rescheduling isn’t necessary and could lead to harmful side effects....

Federal drug policy has lagged behind many states in recent years, with 38 having already legalized medical marijuana and 24 legalizing its recreational use. That’s helped fuel fast growth in the marijuana industry, with an estimated worth of nearly $30 billion. Easing federal regulations could reduce the tax burden that can be 70% or more for businesses, according to industry groups. It could also make it easier to research marijuana, since it’s very difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies on Schedule I substances.

The immediate effect of rescheduling on the nation’s criminal justice system would likely be more muted, since federal prosecutions for simple possession have been fairly rare in recent years. But loosening restrictions could carry a host of unintended consequences in the drug war and beyond.

Critics point out that as a Schedule III drug, marijuana would remain regulated by the DEA. That means the roughly 15,000 cannabis dispensaries in the U.S. would have to register with the DEA like regular pharmacies and fulfill strict reporting requirements, something that they are loath to do and that the DEA is ill equipped to handle.

Then there’s the United States’ international treaty obligations, chief among them the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which requires the criminalization of cannabis. In 2016, during the Obama administration, the DEA cited the U.S.’ international obligations and the findings of a federal court of appeals in Washington in denying a similar request to reschedule marijuana. 

April 30, 2024 in Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 29, 2024

US Supreme Court grants cert to consider RICO claim brought by fired employee against medical marijuana company

One theme of my marijuana seminar is how the US Supreme Court has largely stayed out of broad legal uncertainties relating to marijuana reform for the past two decades (after very significant early rulings in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op., 532 U.S. 483 (2001) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)).  But today, via this order list, the Justice took up a new marijuana case -- sort of.  Here is how Jon Elwood at SCOTUSblog explains the case last week (links from the original):

 Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn. Douglas J. Horn lost his job as a commercial truck driver after a drug test he took reflected the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), the active chemical compound in marijuana. Horn maintained that he ingested THC unwittingly by consuming a cannabis-derived product that Medical Marijuana, Inc. marketed as THC-free.

Horn sued, alleging injury under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The district court held that Horn lacked RICO standing because he sued for economic injuries from loss of earnings that were derived from his personal injury (exposure to THC). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed, holding that although RICO only permits suit by a plaintiff “injured in his business or property” by racketeering activity, an economic injury resulting from personal injury sufficed.

Medical Marijuana, represented by Supreme Court veteran Lisa Blatt, petitions for review, arguing that the courts of appeals “are divided on whether economic damages arising from persual injuries … support civil RICO liability.” Medical Marijuana notes that the Supreme Court indicated – a bit offhandedly, in an opinion addressing another issue – that RICO’s private cause of action “exclud[ed], for example, personal injuries.” If granted, it should make for an interesting argument.

Cert has now been granted for an argument likely to take place in Ovtober or November this year. Not sure how much marijuana law and policy will become central to the briefing and argument, but it is interesting to see a marijuana-related case on the SCOTUS merits docket after a long dry spell.

April 29, 2024 in Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, April 16, 2024

"Budding cannabis law courses are growing — but not fast enough"

Though I am done teaching my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar for this semester, I am still having a grand time working with students on their final papers.  And all the work by and with my students all semester long deeply reinforces my sense that marijuana courses in law school can serve as a terrific way to cover all sorts of legal doctrines and policies and pragmatic issues that lawyers can and will confront in many settings.  With these matters in mind, I am so very pleased to see this new ABA Journal article with the headline that serves as the title fo this post.  Here are some excerpts:

Inspired by President Joe Biden’s call to review cannabis’ classification as a Schedule I controlled substance and many states’ moves to legalize weed for medical and general use, an increasing number of law schools around the country are offering cannabis law courses.

In the 2022-2023 academic year, 45 law schools—or about 22% of the 197 ABA-accredited schools—offered a combined total of 47 cannabis law courses, according to research by the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law’s Drug Enforcement and Policy Center.  Although that’s an increase of 24 schools compared to four years earlier in the 2018-2019 academic year, some professors think that even more are needed. “We’re still playing catch-up,” says Robert Mikos, a professor at the Vanderbilt University Law School who has taught a class on marijuana law and policy for more than 10 years....

As the weed business grows, so does the need for lawyers. There are jobs in this field, and they extend far beyond representing cannabis dispensaries, says Mikos ...  Opportunities include working for government regulatory agencies tasked with supervising the licensed cannabis industry, working as advocates and representing investors whose holdings touch the industry, such as real estate that a dispensary wants to rent....

In the classroom, professors must balance theory with myriad practical and ethical issues embedded in the ever-changing state laws and federal regulation, they say. Intersections with cannabis law include constitutional law, taxes, intellectual property, real estate, the environment and workers’ rights.

Most cannabis law classes are directed at upper-level students.  “It’s a great capstone course,” Mikos says. “If you’re a 3L, you might have encountered already constitutional law, criminal law, corporations or administrative law. Now, you get to put that into practice and put it all together in a very concrete way.”

April 16, 2024 in Business laws and regulatory issues, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, April 9, 2024

Student presentation examines employer drug testing policies in wake of marijuana legalization


This week brings the last class for my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar, which means we are having the last set of student presentations. The sixth and final student presentation slated for this week looks at employer drug testing policies after marijuana reforms. Here is how my student describes her topic (along with some background reading):

As marijuana becomes legal in more and more states, one of the biggest questions for employers is how to handle marijuana testing policies.  The ultimate goal is to maintain a drug-free workplace while also respecting the personal liberties of employees.  My paper will explore the pros and cons for maintaining strict drug testing policies and propose a solution on the best way for states to uniformly approach workplace drug testing.  My paper will analyze how legal states have already approached drug testing and provide an overview of how Amazon approaches drug testing to develop a proposal for best drug testing practices for employers.

On the one hand, maintaining strict marijuana policies is important for employers to avoid intoxication on the job that may result in accidents.  This is especially true for certain industries, such as public transit and manufacturing, where the likelihood of workplace accidents are higher.  Even in other industries, employers want to maintain a drug-free workplace in order to improve the quality of work produced by employees.  On the other hand, however, there are many downsides to strict marijuana drug testing policies.  It is more difficult to test for marijuana intoxication without also regulating off-the-clock activities.  This may result in employees feeling like their privacy is being violated when they are subject to regular drug testing because it restricts them from using marijuana in their off-work time.  In states where marijuana is legal, this can create a major conflict between employer interests and employee personal freedoms.

While the legal states have taken different approaches in regulating how employers drug test, California and Washington have adopted laws which restrict employers from firing employees who test positive for marijuana without also showing that the employee was actually intoxicated while working.  This strategy helps to maintain a balance between employer and employee interests.  Employers are able to prevent employees from using marijuana and being intoxicated at work, and employees are still able to use marijuana recreationally in their free time.  For these reasons, this is the best strategy for legal states and employers to adopt in regards to marijuana testing policies.

Background Reading:

Khorri Atkinson, Legal Weed Drives Companies to Relax Their Drug Testing Policies, Bloomberg Law (July 14, 2023).

Max Freedman, Cannabis at Work: How Employers are Reacting to the Legalization of Marijuana, Business News Daily (Oct. 24, 2023).

Work Health Solutions, The Pros and Cons of Workplace Drug Testing.

Levi Sumagaysay, California New Laws for 2024: Employees Get Protection for Using Cannabis, Cal Matters (Dec. 27, 2023).

April 9, 2024 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Business laws and regulatory issues | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, April 7, 2024

Student presentation exploring policing practices after marijuana reform in Ohio

Nov-27-Dec-3-Header-Images-3-2Marijuana reforms do not, of course, bring an end to issues about marijuana policing.  The fifth scheduled presentation taking place in class this week will be exploring marijuana reform's impact on policing practices and here is how my student has described his topic along with some links he provided: 

My presentation aims to explain the need for more guidance for recreational users in Ohio, particularly considering the historical policing and enforcement of cannabis prior to Issue 2.  Racial disparities persist in cannabis-related arrests, with black individuals being 3.64 times more likely than their white counterparts to face arrest for cannabis possession.  These discrepancies persist even in states where cannabis has been legalized.  With cannabis now legalized in Ohio, it is imperative for individuals to understand the parameters of the law.

To address the need for more guidance, this presentation will initially delve into the training of law enforcement officers in identifying intoxicated drivers and the criteria for compelling a driver to exit their vehicle. Subsequently, we will examine the evidence required to establish probable cause for vehicle searches pre-Issue 2. After analyzing the historical policing of cannabis, we will explore the allowances and restrictions imposed by Issue 2 on recreational users.  We will then ask ourselves what constitutes probable cause in light of Issue 2's implementation.  This will involve distinguishing between clear-cut cases and ambiguous scenarios that recreational users may encounter.  Finally, we will highlight how enhanced guidance can clarify legal boundaries for recreational users, aiding them in avoiding legal entanglements.

Background reading:

April 7, 2024 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Criminal justice developments and reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)

Student presentation examines "Social Equity Programs: A Form of Reparations?"

Picture1I never think of marijuana reform, or my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar, as involving a niche subject matter  because so many aspects of the topic tap into broader issues and concerns throughout modern society.  And the fourth student presentation slated for  this week is on the kind of topic that connects a marijuana policy debate to a much larger set of concerns.  Here is how my student describes her topic (along with some background reading):

In 2014, Ta-Nehisi Coates published The Case for Reparations, calling out the lack of compensation to newly freed Black people following the Emancipation Proclamation. The article describes systematic barriers to racial equality throughout history, reviewing how discriminatory housing policies have contributed to cycles of generational poverty for Black Americans.  In 2021, the PEW Research Center found the typical white household had 9.2 times as much wealth as the typical Black household.  The Case for Reparations demonstrates these vast inequalities are due to long-term systematic racism and suggests various forms of compensation to repair the harm to African Americans. 

Using this framework of reparations, my presentation will analyze the role of social equity licensure programs in the cannabis industry.  If managed with efficacy, these programs can provide a piece of financial reparations for African Americans.  Many minoritized groups have been disparately impacted by marijuana criminalization, including communities of color, Indigenous people, and Queer communities, to name a few. This presentation will center the perspective of Black communities, tracing the harm from 17th-century Antebellum slavery to today’s marijuana legalization landscape.

Ohio’s Issue 2 enacted a Social Equity and Jobs Fund, which will allocate funds to diversify industry participation, invest in communities disparately impacted by marijuana laws, and provide criminal justice reform.  Are state cannabis licensures reigniting a national conversation of reparations?  Do these programs inspire the conversation of reparations in policy areas outside of marijuana?  Analyzing programs in Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan, this presentation explores the shortcomings and challenges of social equity programs, and potential paths forward to create reparations for African American communities.

Recommended Reading:

Coates, Ta-Nehisi, The Case for Reparations, The Atlantic. (June 2014).

Eva McKend, Hemp Roots: The History of Hemp in Kentucky, Spectrum News 1 (Oct. 2, 2019).

Jana Hrdinova & Dexter Ridgway, Mapping Cannabis Social Equity: Understanding How Ohio Compares to Other States’ Post-Legalization Policies to Redress Past Harms, Drug Enf’t & Pol’y Ctr. (Jan. 30, 2024). 

Katherine Hendy, Amanda Mauri, & Melissa Creary, Bounded Equity: The Limits of Economic Models of Social Justice in Cannabis Legislation. Contemp Drug Probl. (Jan. 13, 2023).

Rakesh Kochhar & Mohamad Moslimani, Wealth Surged in the Pandemic, but Debt Endures for Poorer Black and Hispanic Families, PEW Rsch. Ctr. (Dec. 4, 2023).

April 7, 2024 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Race, Gender and Class Issues | Permalink | Comments (0)

Student presentation examines impact of taxation schemes on medical marijuana

Images (6)As we come down the homestretch in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar, students continue to cover terrific issues in their research and class presentations.  This week in my class, the third scheduled presentation has been given this title: "Getting Too Into the Weeds?: An Analysis of the Impact of Different Taxation Schemes on Medical Marijuana Programs and the Potential Impacts of H.B. 86 in Ohio."    Here is how the student describes her topic (along with background readings):

Medical marijuana programs are at risk of ceasing to exist to any meaningful extent in many states that have legalized recreational marijuana.  There has been a consistent trend of declining registered medical marijuana patient numbers in those states post-legalization.  While there are potentially many causes of this decline, there is one policy decision each of these states has had to make that could have a large impact on the magnitude of this decline: taxation structure.  There are three common taxation structures selected by these states: sales tax, tax exemptions, and excise tax.  All three structures are supported by reasonable policy rationales.

At the end of 2023, Ohio joined the group of states that have legalized both medical and recreational marijuana use via an initiated statute.  The Ohio Legislature, in turn, has been left with the obligation to make any changes it deems necessary to Ohio’s recreational program before it becomes fully effective.  One of the proposals that is most likely to pass is House Bill 86 (H.B. 86).  Under H.B. 86, the excise tax on recreational marijuana would increase from ten percent to fifteen percent.  This may not seem like it will impact patient registration rates in Ohio, however, the language of H.B. 86 may open the door to application of this excise tax to medical marijuana sales in Ohio if it is passed as written.

To attempt to predict what will occur to Ohio’s medical marijuana program post-legalization of recreational marijuana under the ambiguous language of H.B. 86, this paper aims to determine if there is any correlation between the type of taxation scheme a state has for medical marijuana and the likelihood of its medical marijuana program surviving.

Background Materials:

Ohio House Bill 86 (specifically Section § 5739.27(A)).

Jenn Jarecki, Bob Kinzel, & Nathaniel Wilson, "Vermont Lawmakers Consider Changing Medical Cannabis Program, Retail Potency Limits"

Carol Kokinis-Graves, "State by State Sales Tax on Cannabis"

Kevin F. Boehnke, Owen Dean, Rebecca Haffajee, & Avinash Hosanagar, "U.S. Trends in Registration for Medical Cannabis and Reasons for Use from 2016-2020: an Observational Study"

April 7, 2024 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Taxation information and issues | Permalink | Comments (0)

Student presentation examines the modern realities of modern marijuana politics and policy

Download (3)The politics of marijuana reform is an ever-evolving topic, especially here in Ohio. And this topic is a focal point for one of my students this week in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar. As noted many tmes before, prior to their presentations, students are expected to provide here some background on their topic and links to some readings or relevant materials. The second of our presentations taking place in class this week has been described (along with background readings) this way:

When legislators and citizens find themselves at odds when contemplating policy, the citizens often turn to the ballot initiative. This is often the case in a number of states where legislators are hesitant to enact what might be divisive marijuana reform.  As such, the ballot initiative has found itself intertwined with the direct democracy engaged in marijuana advocacy.  But what happens when the marijuana conversation enters particularly conservative states, and the legislators aren't keen to accept the voters' will?  With marijuana being legalized in most liberal-leaning states, the topic has become more controversial in areas with particularly deep-seated ideas about how marijuana will negatively impact communities.

Whether through vocal opposition or more insidious procedural challenges, legislators have made their disdain for marijuana known.  The embers of the war on drugs still glow warmly in red states as the formalities of the ballot initiative are weaponized to inhibit supporters.  Signature, district, and single-subject requirements all lend opportunities to prevent meaningful reform where policy-based opposition fails.  In the shadows of the 2020 presidential election where democracy was shaken, many officials have deemed the will of the people to be inconsequential and something to be ignored where inconvenient. Moving forward, the need for federal legalization is stronger than ever, and advocates must navigate a process and game where the chips are undoubtedly stacked against them.

Background reading:

Law review article:  "Taking the Initiative: Marijuana Law Reform and Direct Democracy"

Ohio law on Initiated Statute procedures

Ohio Issue 2 reform press coverage: "Ohio GOP Senate President Lays Out Process To Revise Marijuana Law, Arguing Voters Didn’t Understand Some Provisions"

April 7, 2024 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, April 6, 2024

Student presention examined "The Green Rush: A Dank Guide to Navigating the Financial Haze of the Marijuana Industry”

Images (5)I cannot quite believe that we are already up to the last week of student presentations in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar.  Fortunately, we still have a half-dozen presentations to finish up the semester.  As I have explained before, students are expected to provide in this space some background on their presentation topic and links to some readings or relevant materials.  The first of our presentations taking place in our last class this coming week will be looking at financial issuses in the marijuana industry.  Here is how my student has described her topic along with background readings she has provided for classmates (and the rest of us):

Background & Summary:

The legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational purposes in several U.S. states has led to the rapid growth of the cannabis industry, attracting entrepreneurs and investors eager to capitalize on this "Green Rush." However, the continued federal prohibition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act has created a complex and often contradictory legal and regulatory environment for businesses operating in this sector. Marijuana businesses face significant challenges, including limited access to banking services, high tax burdens, and the risk of federal prosecution.  This paper aims to provide a comprehensive guide for marijuana business owners and entrepreneurs to navigate the financial complexities of the industry, covering topics such as federal and state regulations, banking challenges, interstate commerce issues, cybersecurity, and the future outlook for the industry.  By offering practical insights and strategies, the paper seeks to empower industry participants to make informed decisions, mitigate risks, and seize opportunities in this dynamic and rapidly evolving market.

The rapid growth and legalization of the marijuana industry in the United States have created a complex financial landscape for businesses operating in this sector.  The paper aims to provide a comprehensive guide for marijuana business owners and entrepreneurs to navigate the financial complexities of the industry, including:

1.  Federal regulations and policies, such as the Controlled Substances Act, the Cole Memorandum, FinCEN guidance, and Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, which have significant implications for marijuana businesses and financial institutions.

2.  State-level regulations and policies, including the patchwork of mhttps://www.dea.gov/drug-information/csaarijuana laws across the country, state-specific financial regulations and guidelines, and the challenges in accessing banking services.

3.  Interstate commerce and money transfer issues arising from the conflict between state-level legalization and federal prohibition, as well as potential solutions such as cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.

4.  Cybersecurity and fraud prevention best practices to protect sensitive financial data and prevent fraudulent activities in the cash-intensive marijuana industry.

5.  Future outlook and potential legislative changes, including proposed legislation like the SAFE Banking Act and the MORE Act, which could significantly impact the industry's growth and development.

The paper also emphasizes the importance of staying informed, adaptable, and proactive in this rapidly evolving industry, as well as the potential for the marijuana industry to drive economic growth, create jobs, and generate tax revenue for communities and social programs.

Related Links:

For information on federal regulations and policies:

DEA, "The Controlled Substances Act"

DOJ, "The Cole Memo" (2013)

US Treasury Department, "FinCEN's Guidelines" (2014) 

US Code: "IRS Code 280E

For information on state-level regulations and policies:

National Conference of State Legislatures, "States Medical Cannabis Laws"

For information on proposed federal legislation:

"The SAFE Banking Act"

"The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act"

April 6, 2024 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Business laws and regulatory issues, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 1, 2024

Student presentation examines marijuana reform's impact on drug trafficking over southern border


The echoes and impacts of marijuana reform are always notable (and unpredictable), and one of my students in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar is exploring marijuana reform's impact on broader drug trafficking over southern border. The fifth scheduled presentation in my class is described this way (along with background readings):

Marijuana, historically, was a highly-trafficked drug into the United States from both the Canadian and Mexican borders.  In the wake of legalization, both for medicinal and recreational uses, the desire for imported marijuana has declined, and other drugs have become more desirable for trafficking.  Marijuana legalization has contributed to Mexico's adaptation to alternative drug trafficking routes along the U.S.-Mexico border, and new markets have grown significantly.  With California, Arizona, and New Mexico having legalized marijuana, the need for trafficked marijuana has placed a burden on the southern border in Texas. Legalization in these states not only contributed to this migratory shift and increased seizures in Texas, but also further deepened the dent in the profits of organized crime groups in Mexico.

The shift seen in marijuana trafficking has not halted the illegal transport of drugs.  As popularity in illicit substances such as fentanyl and methamphetamine grow, southern border states are experiencing heightened volumes of the trafficking of such synthetic drugs.  The trafficking of illicit substances impacts many parts in a supply chain, from finished product to money, both in financing illicit organizations, and for the cost of protecting the southern border and the American public from illicit drugs.

Background materials:

InSight Crime, With Legalization, Marijuana Trafficking Routes Evolve Along US-Mexico Border (Dec. 13, 2022).

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP: America's Front Line Against Fentanyl (March 6, 2024).

April 1, 2024 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Criminal justice developments and reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)

Student presentation: "Chronic pain management: Exploring the relationship between marijuana, and opioid use"

Download (1)As I have mentioned before, I am always pleased when students in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar focus for their research and class presentations on medical marijuana topics. It is certainly understandable, but still problematic, that medical-related issues get now seemingly a lot less attention that adult-use issues. But this week in my class, the fourth scheduled presentation will be on cannabis and pain management.  Here is her description of the topic (along with background readings):

While marijuana use for its’ medicinal properties is nowhere near a new piece of conversation, there are several areas of this topic that are under-researched.  In the U.S. 51.6 million adults suffer from chronic pain.  Many of these adults are prescribed opioids to lessen the pain.  Lessening the pain by no means actually eliminates the pain, and that is where marijuana comes into play.

The relationship between marijuana, and opioid use can be quite complex, especially considering the U.S.’s history, and present issues with misuse of opioids.  Understanding how these two drugs interact together is pertinent to helping people who suffer from chronic pain.  Generally, studies have found that using marijuana has lessened patient dependency with opioids when used as a pain management tool.

However, being able to use marijuana as a gap filler or pain management tool is not so easily done.  Recreational, and medicinal legalization in a state does not guarantee that a person will be able to access this type of approach.  State laws play a big role in this issue.  My paper aims to explore why people on opioids are turning to marijuana to supplement their pain management, the results of such, risks associated, which demographics are affected at disparate rates, as well as the various laws, and regulations that hinder the ability to safely use marijuana as a pain management tool.

Related Links: 

For information on relevant state laws pertaining to doctors in this space: "Conscience’ Bills Let Medical Providers Opt Out of Providing a Wide Range of Care."

For information on results of using marijuana as a pain management tool while on opioids: "Cannabis as a Substitute for Opioid-Based Pain Medication: Patient Self-Report."

April 1, 2024 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Medical community perspectives, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate | Permalink | Comments (0)