Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

Noting political pendulums swinging back on modern marijuana reforms ... to tax and regulate more

The morning after Election Day 2024,  I stated in this post, titled "Initiative results in states show political pendulum swinging back on sentencing and drug policy reforms," that the results of various state initiatives suggested voters have started grown less interested in progressive drug policy reforms than in past elections.   Today, Stateline has this new lengthy piece, headlined "Marijuana legalization hits roadblocks after years of expansion," focused on how the political pendulum is swinging back in legislatures when it comes to marijuana reform.  I recommend the piece in full, and here are excerpts:

As every state surrounding Idaho legalized marijuana, state Rep. Bruce Skaug started to view it as inevitable that the Gem State would follow suit. Not anymore.... He believes other states are starting to regret liberalizing marijuana use, because of potential health concerns and lackluster revenues from marijuana sales....

Idaho’s not alone.  After years of expanding legal access, lawmakers in several states this year have targeted marijuana in various ways.  To help close budget gaps, officials in Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey have proposed raising marijuana taxes.  Health concerns have pushed lawmakers in states including Colorado and Montana to attempt to cap the level of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the primary psychoactive component in cannabis, in marijuana products sold at dispensaries.  And some lawmakers have even tried to roll back voter-approved medical marijuana programs....

Polling from the Pew Research Center has found little change in support for legalization in recent years: 57% of U.S. adults say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes.  Colorado and Washington state began allowing recreational marijuana sales in 2014.  Today, 24 states and the District of Columbia allow recreational sales, and 39 states and the district have sanctioned medical marijuana.

In several states, lawmakers have aimed to restrict the potency of marijuana products.  Montana state Sen. Greg Hertz, a Republican, said he doesn’t want to end recreational marijuana sales, which voters approved in 2020. But he said today’s products are much stronger than people may realize.  “People were voting for Woodstock weed, not this new high-THC marijuana,” he said.

A bill he sponsored this year would have banned sales of recreational marijuana products, including flower and edibles, exceeding THC levels of 15%.  Montana currently allows up to 35% THC in flower, with no limit on other products.  That legislation stalled, but Hertz said he plans to pitch a similar measure during Montana’s next legislative session in 2027.

A separate bill reducing the state’s dosage of THC for edibles just passed the legislature last week.  The measure, which now heads to Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, would change the individual dosage limit on edibles such as gummies from 10 milligrams to 5 milligrams....

With many states facing gaping budget holes this year, marijuana has proven a popular target from Democrats and Republicans looking to raise revenues without across-the-board tax increases.

Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore in January proposed hiking the cannabis tax from 9% to 15% to help close the state’s $3 billion budget hole. In March, lawmakers agreed to a budget framework that would raise the state marijuana tax to 12%.  Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine proposed doubling marijuana taxes from 10% to 20% — a notion that has so far faced opposition in the legislature.

In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer proposed a new 32% wholesale tax on marijuana growers to help fund road improvements.  That tax would be on top of the 10% excise tax on recreational marijuana and the state’s 6% sales tax.  Whitmer said it would close a loophole that has exempted the marijuana industry from wholesale tax, which is applied to cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Michigan lawmakers, split sharply along partisan lines, have until Sept. 30 to approve a state budget.

Especially as one who has long been particularly troubled by the (inequitable) crminalization of cannabis and the (inequitable) consequences of criminalization, I see these recent developments as a (healthy) outgrowth of state-by-state reforms and  laboratories of democracy in the US.  Notably, according to FBI data, we have seen a precipitous decline in arrests for marijuana activity over the last decade, but we do not see voters or their representatives urging the return of widespread criminalization and mass enforcement.  But public health concerns and tax/business issues are now the focal point for discussions and debates over potential revisions to existing state marijuana regimes.  And rightly so, as there are plenty of public health and tax/business issues that we are still coming to undestand better as modern marijuana regimes continue to develop.

"Where Will Weed Win?"

The title of this post is the title of this new report authored by Robin Goldstein with lots of data and analysis about state cannabis markets. Here is part of the report's introduction:

When legal interstate weed commerce arrives to America, what will happen?  Where will cannabis thrive, and where will it wither?

The answers are complex and mostly unknown, but the first and most straightforward answer is that the businesses who win will come from the places where weed is cheap.

Interstate commerce will bring local, state industries into competition in a national market.  Costs and prices vary widely by state, but states’ current costs and prices do not necessarily reflect what they will be when weed is federally legal.  Most weed sold in America is inexpensive, near the bottom of the retail price range.  The locations most likely to win in a national price competition will be places where weed can be grown and sold most cheaply....

Consider this report a guidebook to the future of the United States weed market.  My aim is to provide some insights into the answers to the questions above by comparing state-by-state costs, prices, and other data and information that can help industry participants, investors, and regulators understand what will happen to national and state weed markets in the first years after US interstate trade is legalized.

Local costs currently hinge, to a significant degree, on state and local cannabis policies, which is why my colleagues and I sometimes think of national cannabis competition in terms of competition among states, not just competition among farms and other businesses.  Many answers come down to geography, utility costs, and the general costs of doing business — any kind of business — in a state.

I hope that the broad patterns summarized here can help cast light on where weed is most likely to win, and how future regulatory outcomes may change the landscape.

"Individualized Cannabis Reparations"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new article authored by Scott Bloomberg and now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

This Article makes an argument that should be obvious.  The best way for governments to right the wrongs of cannabis prohibition is to give money to people with cannabis offenses.  Nonetheless, this straightforward reform has been consistently overlooked, dismissed, or minimized by policymakers and scholars alike; eschewed in favor of other social equity programs that do not right those wrongs nearly as effectively.  Governments have indeed invested hundreds of millions of cannabis tax dollars in social equity licensing programs and community reinvestment initiatives.  These programs — while often worthwhile — do not benefit the vast majority of people with past cannabis offenses.

Governments should be adopting reparations programs that use cannabis tax revenues to fund payments for those most directly harmed by cannabis prohibition.  The Article argues that such programs can be implemented at all levels of government and identifies several dimensions upon which reparations programs can vary based on local conditions.  These variables create a framework for policymakers and reformers to craft reparations programs.  From there, the Article gets down to brass tacks, using case studies to show that states generate ample cannabis tax revenues to provide meaningful compensation for those most harmed by cannabis prohibition.

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.

"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.

"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.”

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?

"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.

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.

"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.”

Student presentation examines marijuana legalization and local regulations

Sadly, we are now into our final few weeks of students presentaions in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar.  Excitingly, we still have nearly a dozen more presentations coming.  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 class next week will be looking at "Legalized Marijuana and Local Regulation." Here is how my student has described his topic along with background readings he has provided for classmates (and the rest of us):

The growing trend towards full legalization of recreational marijuana throughout the United States has resulted in a variety of quirks in different states’ legislative schemes. One important quirk is laws that allow municipalities to ban or heavily regulate legal marijuana in conflict with state-wide legalization.

Local control can be broadly grouped into two categories.  First, there is existing local control that applies neutrally to marijuana vendors and other businesses within a municipality as implemented through local health and zoning codes.  Second, there are proposed or implemented laws that allow localities to ban or heavily restrict the establishment and operation of marijuana vendors within municipal limits that would otherwise be permissible under state law.  While the first method of regulation should be allowed, the second method of regulation threatens to perpetuate the issues with illegal marijuana that full legalization aims to solve.  Between existing zoning rules and state-specific local bans, this issue affects most people in states with legal marijuana.

My presentation will focus on the background behind local marijuana bans, the interaction between federalism and localism, and the problems that legalization seeks to address.  I will then review the laws in states that have either allowed for local bans or are proposing local bans and the measurable effects of those laws.  Finally, I will analyze the effects of allowing bans on a local level versus blanket legalizations and develop recommendations for policymakers.

Suggested Sources:

Article: Cannabis Legalization In State Legislatures: Public Health Opportunity And Risk, 103 Marq. L. Rev. 1313 (2020)

Article: Cannabis Capitalism, 69 Buffalo L. Rev. 215 (2021)

Resource Page:  Investopedia, Marijuana Laws by State (2024).

Article: American Edibles: How Cannabis Regulatory Policy Rehashes Prohibitionist Fears and What to Do About It, 44 Seattle U. L. Rev. 915 (2021)  

Resource Page: Curate, Local Government Impact on Cannabis Industry (2024)

Student presentation exploring Delta-8 THC products

As noted in this prior post, there is an on-going debate in Ohio (as well as in many other jurisdictions) about so-called Delta-8 or "intoxicating hemp" products.  Helpfully, the last planned presentation for this week in my Marijuana Law seminar is going to cover issues surrounding Delta-8, and here are some resources that she provided for some background:

Background information about Delta-8:

Leas, EC. The Hemp Loophole: A Need to Clarify the Legality of Delta-8-THC and Other Hemp-Derived Tetrahydrocannabinol Compounds. Am J Public Health. 2021 Nov;111(11):1927-1931.

FDA and DEA Regulation:

FDA advises against use: 5 Things to Know about Delt-8 Tetrahydrocannabinol – Delta-8 THC. Food and Drug Administration. May 5, 2022.

Coverage of warning letters sent to Delta-8 brands by FDA.

Good summary of case interpreting "hemp" to include Delta-8 products under Farm Bill 

Good summary of possible DEA Interpretation

Coverage of the push from the states for federal regulation

Report on study regarding Delat-8 use and state regulation

A pitch for how the Buckeye State should plan to use marijuana green

When Ohio voters approved full legalization of marijuana in November 2023 through passage of Issue 2, the initiative included a specific tax rate and a defined allocation for marijuana tax revenues.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, as members of the Ohio General Assembly have discussed further marijuana reforms, both the tax rates and allocation of revenues have been a subject of debate. Bailey Williams of Policy Matters Ohio has authored this helpful new blogpost on this topic titled "Cannabis tax revenue can help communities. Legislators have other ideas." I recommend the full piece, and here is an excerpt:

Over two million Ohioans voted to legalize marijuana sales and use tax revenue from those sales to benefit communities where dispensaries are located (called “host communities”), fund substance-abuse research, and create restorative justice programs to remediate some of the harm done by the war on drugs.  Changes by the legislature should focus on regulating the market to ensure product safety or improving the collection and use of tax revenue to redress racial disparities created by the discriminatory enforcement of recreational marijuana prohibition.  Any other changes to the statute risk subverting the will of the voters.

Ohio lawmakers have floated two such changes, both of which should be rejected: Tax revenues from legal marijuana sales should not be used to fund broad rate cuts to the state income tax, nor should they be earmarked for policing.  Either change would divert funding that should be used to help those harmed by the failed war on drugs, and clear the criminal records of Ohioans being punished for actions that are no longer crimes....

The Ohio Senate has already passed changes to state marijuana laws. These changes include raising the tax levied in addition to the state sales tax on legal sales from 10% to 15%; diverting hundreds of millions of dollars away from restorative justice programs and communities that host dispensaries and into policing and jails; tighter restrictions on home growth of marijuana; and piecemeal funding for expungement efforts for marijuana-related offenses that are no longer illegal.

The Ohio House has not yet proposed its version of the changes, but representatives have expressed some priorities.  At least one has proposed using a portion of the tax revenue raised from marijuana sales to finance broad income tax rate cuts.  This policy choice should be rejected now and in the future.  Broad cuts to income tax rates typically result in the wealthiest taxpayers receiving most of the value of the cut....

Similarly ill-conceived is the idea — recommended by members of both chambers and included in the Senate bill — of earmarking marijuana tax revenue specifically for policing.  The Senate would divert over $200 million a year in tax revenue from marijuana sales into investigative unit and drug task force operations, police officer training, and the construction of new jails.  This ignores the fact that Issue 2 already takes into consideration any increase in policing needs that may arise from the end of recreational marijuana prohibition.  Localities that host marijuana dispensaries will receive tax revenue from that business; this revenue can be spent on policing if need be. It also could be used on other public goods, such as parks and public transit.  Communities should be able to decide for themselves how that funding is used....

Clearing criminal records for what is now legal marijuana possession is an important step toward restorative justice.  Issue 2 required and funded research on expungement and record sealing but did nothing to simplify the often cumbersome process.  Ohioans seeking to expunge or seal their marijuana convictions face a waiting period and possible prosecutorial objections, and may be required to pay expensive legal fees and court costs.  They must also prove they are rehabilitated before they can have their records officially expunged.  These Ohioans are often subject to collateral sanctions, which limit an individual’s earning potential and increase the likelihood of recidivism....

When Ohioans overwhelmingly passed Issue 2, we sent a clear message to our representatives in Columbus: Legalize the sale of recreational cannabis, and use the revenue it generates to help the people and communities harmed by the failed war on drugs.  Some representatives appear poised to disregard those explicit instructions — as they have done with increasing frequency.  There are better options available; our representatives should listen to the voters.

Noting the peer pressure realities around marijuana policy reforms

A range of research suggests peers can play an important role in influencing substance use behaviors. But this new Marijuana Moment article, headlined "Pennsylvania Governor Says Lawmakers ‘Don’t Even Have A Choice’ But To Legalize Marijuana As Other States Move Ahead," got me to thinking about how state substance use policy reforms can be influenced by peer pressure.  Here is how the article starts:

Pennsylvania’s governor says he thinks officials in the state “don’t even have a choice anymore” on legalizing marijuana, and he feels there’s bipartisan momentum that lawmakers should leverage to get the job done.

With neighboring states such as Ohio enacting legalization in recent years, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) said last week that “this really comes down to an issue now of competitiveness,” as the state is currently “losing out on 250 million bucks a year in revenue that could go to anything from economic development, education, you name it.”

“The reality is, as long as we have safeguards in place to make sure our children aren’t getting their hands on it—it’s just like, we don’t want our kids out drinking, right?” he said. “And a lot of that is going to be a burden on parents and schools and others to make sure we educate on that. Then I think this is something we’ve got to compete on.”

“I actually think we don’t even have a choice anymore given the way in which this is moving so quickly across our region and across the country,” Shapiro told WILK News Radio, adding that he’s personally “evolved on” the issue and wants a legal cannabis market “focused on lifting up Pennsylvania businesses in the process—not these big national conglomerates—and we’re empowering people in local communities to it that I think some good can come from it.”...

“It’s obviously wildly popular across the country and certainly in polling regionally and in the states. So if someone’s going to be against it, I think they’re going to have to justify that to their constituents as well,” he said. “There does seem to be an emerging bipartisan consensus that we’ve got to compete on this issue, and we’ll see if we can get it done. We’re going to work hard.”...

In a separate interview with KDKA News Radio that the governor’s office also promoted last week, Shapiro noted that his office estimates that Pennsylvania could bring in $250 million in tax revenue annually from cannabis sales. “The reality is we are leaving all that money on the table. We are falling behind other states,” he said. “I think it’s another story of us not being as competitive as we need to be, and I think its time has come.”

“It’s time to shut down the black market. It’s time to take the strain off of cops. It’s time to be competitive. And this is a way to do that,” the governor said. “We can’t let Ohio and the other states around us keep eating our lunch on this or any other issue. As I’ve said many times, I’m competitive as hell and this is one of those areas. We’ve got to compete it.” A staffer in Shapiro’s office similarly remarked on the need to legalize marijuana after Ohio voters approved the reform at the ballot last November.

Marking new era (and new generation) substituting marijuana for alcohol?

When I first started paying attention to marijuana reforms and its potential impacts, I recall a number of public health experts suggesting that greater use of marijuana could end up a public health benefit if marijuana was used as a substitute for alcohol, but greater use would likely be a public health problem if used as a supplement to alcohol.  Against that backdrop, all these new press stories about trends in the start of 2024 seemed worth flagging:

From Bloomberg, "Weed Sales Boom in Dry January as People Drink Less"

From Forbes, "Almost Half Of Those Doing Dry January Use Cannabis — Can It Help You Quit Alcohol?"

From Fortune, "Gen Z’s buyers’ strike on alcohol turns ‘Dry January’ into skyhigh new year"

From Kiplinger, "Dry January Can Boost Weed Sales: This Week in Cannabis Investing"

From Modern Retail, "Cannabis beverage brands capitalized on Dry January interest"

From the New York Times, "What Does Being Sober Mean Today? For Many, Not Full Abstinence."

From Vice, "The Rise of 'Sober But', the Dry January Where You Still Do Drugs"

"Mapping Cannabis Social Equity: Understanding How Ohio Compares to Other States' Post-Legalization Policies to Redress Past Harms"

The title of this post is the title of this terrific new report now available via SSRN and authored by Jana Hrdinova and Dexter Ridgway with the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center. This report was inspired by an on-going polict debate in Ohio after voters in the state approved in Fall 2023 a statutory ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana. This report should be of interest to folks outside as well as inside of Ohio because it provides a national landscape on varying social equity issues in marijuana legalization states. Here is the report's abstract:

On November 7, 2023, Ohio became the 24th state in the nation to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use. Following the lead of other states, the Ohio ballot initiative included social equity provisions designed to address past harm of marijuana criminalization by investing in disproportionately impacted communities and encouraging participation of such groups in the new legal cannabis industry. The purpose of this report is to highlight the varying strategies other states have deployed to fulfill social equity goals and to look at how Ohio’s new laws compare to others. In this report, we look at three social equity policy areas in greater detail, starting with criminal justice reform, followed by community reinvestment, and industry participation. Additionally, we also provide detailed information on the criteria states have used to determine individual and community eligibility for participating in their social equity programs. We conclude the report with recommendations for greater data collection and analyses concerning the impact of social equity efforts and a more robust assessment of best practices for social equity programs.

DEPC event: "Implementing Issue 2: Criminal Justice Reform After Marijuana Legalization"

The title of this post is provides the title of this online event being hosted by the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC)  next week.  Here is how this panel discussion, which I am honored to moderate and takes place on January 31, 2024 from 12 noon to 1:15 p.m. ET, is described on this page (where you can register):

Criminal justice reform has been a component of marijuana reform in most states, and Ohio’s newly enacted Issue 2 includes a directive and resources for efforts to “study and fund judicial and criminal justice reform including bail, parole, sentencing reform, expungement and sealing of records, legal aid, and community policing related to marijuana.” In the wake of Issue 2’s passage, criminal justice reform advocates are renewing calls to address harms caused by the past criminalization of a substance that is no longer illegal. The nature and scope of past harms are not always clearly defined nor easily remedied, though efforts to eliminate direct or collateral consequences from past cannabis offenses are often a focal point for action.

Please join the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center and our panel of experts as they discuss how Ohio should approach criminal justice reform after marijuana legalization, what Ohio can learn from other states’ experiences, and the unique political and practical challenges Ohio may face.

Panelists:
Ohio Representative Juanita Brent, District 22
Adrian Rocha, Policy Manager, Last Prisoner Project 
Daniel Dew, Policy Director, The Adams Project
Louis Tobin, Executive Director, Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association

Rounding up some recent reporting about Ohio cannabis realities (thanks in part to Ohio Gov DeWine)

As flagged in this prior post, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine last week leaned heavily into advocacy for greater regulation of Delta 8 and other so-called "intoxicating help" products.  From various reporting, it has been unclear whether Gov DeWine wants a complete ban on these products or just regulations to reduce youth access.  More broadly, it has been challenging to sort through how Gov DeWine and other Ohio leaders want to regulate in the entire cannabis field ever since Ohio voters overwhelming passed Issue 2, a full legalization ballot initiaitive, in Nov 2023. 

In part because I am expecting students in my marijuana seminar to sort through some of these Ohio issues for their mid-term assignment, I thought it might be useful to round up here some recent reporting on these topics.  (I am inclined to joke that the Buckeye State is proving to be a tough nut to crack when t comes to cannabis laws.)

From Bloomberg Tax, "Ohio’s Adult-Use Cannabis Bill Still Needs to Work Out Kinks"

From Cleveland.com, "Ohio bill would move hemp products from gas stations and grocery stores to marijuana dispensaries"

From Dayton Daily News, "From ‘mom room’ to dispensary, here’s how pot is legally grown in Ohio"

From Ideastream Public Media, "Marijuna 101: Ohio medical dispensaries prepare for new customers, rules after Issue 2 passage"

From Marijuana Moment, "Ohio Marijuana Law Has Created A ‘Goofy Situation,’ Governor Says, With Legal Possession But No Place To Buy It"

From the Ohio Capital Journal, "Ohio House leaves marijuana users in limbo with weed policy"

From the Ohio Capital Journal, "What is delta-8 and why does Ohio Gov. DeWine want to ban it?"

From the Statehouse News Bureau, "Ohio retailer says delta-8 THC crackdown would 'tear' at business"

From WTOL11, "Interest in marijuana cultivation at home is growing, local business owner says"