Cannabis legalization and rescheduling continue to spark debate across the United States. 

Unfortunately, outdated anti-cannabis propaganda is fueling much of this opposition—despite growing research supporting marijuana’s medical benefits and low risk of abuse.

In this article, we debunk some of the most common myths surrounding anti-cannabis propaganda, explore the history of this propaganda, and address the arguments against rescheduling marijuana. 

The Evolution of Anti-Cannabis Propaganda

When the U.S. Department of Justice proposed rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III on May 21, 2024, it marked the most significant shift in cannabis policy in decades. 

While advocates celebrated, the anti-cannabis stigma remained strong and became increasingly common. But anti-cannabis propaganda has a long and storied history of shaping the public’s perception of marijuana—and even law.

Since the early 20th century, misinformation about cannabis has been deliberately spread, often tied to racial bias and political agendas. One of these is the so-called “Mexican hypothesis”, a widely mistaken belief that Mexican immigrants first introduced cannabis to the US. The reality is that the majority of cannabis in 1910 was already being imported by demand of U.S. pharmaceutical companies from India.

The Mexican Revolution of 1910 indeed created a surge of Mexican immigrants to the US, particularly in the Southwest. However, these newcomers rarely used cannabis for the most part, being more popular among soldiers and prisoners. By then, some of the general population in the US and around the world had long traditionally used cannabis for both recreation and medicinal purposes, as mentioned in media since the 1840s.

Growing anti-immigrant sentiment from economic decline sparked racially charged rumors, labeling cannabis as a “dangerous foreign drug” and linking it to violent crime, which fueled fear among Americans. This hysteria led to one of the first U.S. cannabis bans on June 14, 1915, in El Paso, Texas. 

By the 1930s, films like Reefer Madness, backed by Federal Bureau of Narcotics commissioner Harry Anslinger, exaggerated cannabis’ effects, falsely associating it with insanity and crime. However, the real reasons stemmed from the economic downturn of the 1930s; and how Mexican immigrants were competing for jobs and accepting lower wages – leading to the familiar demonization of marginal groups still seen today. This fearmongering helped pass the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, effectively criminalizing cannabis nationwide.

From the 1950s onward, the propaganda continued evolving, pushing the now-debunked “gateway drug” theory. TV and cartoon PSAs, such as The Flintstones and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, warned kids about weed, ignoring its medical benefits and reinforcing negative stigma. 

By the 2000s, anti-cannabis ads turned bizarre, like the Above the Influence commercial featuring a talking dog shaming its owner for smoking.

While discouraging underage use is important, these campaigns relied on misinformation and fearmongering rather than science. 

Despite shifting laws, anti-cannabis propaganda is still present today, but history shows that much of it is still rooted in fear, not fact. The history of anti-cannabis propaganda in the U.S. has continued to shape public perception, laws, and racial stereotypes.

While the anti-cannabis messaging has evolved, it still follows the same fear-based tactics. Today, the focus has shifted to framing cannabis as a public safety threat, warning against “Big Cannabis,” and stating exaggerated mental health and comorbid substance abuse concerns.

Breaking Down the Arguments Against Rescheduling

The U.S. Department of Justice is considering reclassifying marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, acknowledging its medical benefits and lower abuse potential.

While this would help expand medical marijuana access, support research, and create better business regulations, it wouldn’t legalize recreational use federally. The rescheduling process includes a public comment period and legal review, but legal and political challenges could still impact the outcome.

Opposition to rescheduling cannabis comes from prohibitionist groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), some medical professionals, and GOP (Grand Old Party) lawmakers. 

Critics argue that rescheduling is risky, lacks scientific backing, and is politically motivated. Some medical professionals claim marijuana hasn’t met FDA standards for safety, while anti-cannabis lawmakers accuse the Biden administration of prioritizing politics over science.

Even some cannabis legalization advocates oppose rescheduling because they believe marijuana should be rescheduled, but rather than placed in a regulatory gray area. 

Ongoing tension will likely continue surrounding cannabis policy until a final decision regarding rescheduling is made—and probably even afterward. 

Key Arguments of Anti-Cannabis Propaganda

Some of the key arguments of the anti-cannabis propaganda today and why they are myths include:

• “Cannabis is more potent and dangerous than ever:” A myth being spread about how high THC levels in cannabis are equating to increased harm. However, high-THC medicinal cannabis products can sometimes be more effective for conditions like nausea and vomiting versus lower THC levels. It can also be more efficient and cost-effective for patients with severe needs. In addition, public health improvements would increase by further legalizing cannabis, such as safer access to cannabis products.
• “Rescheduling will unleash a corporate monopoly:” Anti-cannabis propaganda commonly refers to how legalization will cause a monopoly. Instead, it would promote local and small business growth, increase tax revenue, create jobs, and enhance economic benefits overall.
• “Increased cannabis use leads to mental health crises:” Propaganda says that cannabis leads to experiencing mental health issues. However, things like genetics, family history, trauma or stress, pre-existing conditions, environmental and financial factors, sociodemographic, pharmaceuticals, and self-medicating play a big role in mental health issues. Cannabis use does not seem to raise the risk of developing depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder, according to cumulative studies. Instead, it is commonly used as a therapeutic agent for these.
• “Legalization leads to more youth usage:” This myth is spread to scare parents away from the support of cannabis legalization. Instead, some studies show discrepancies in Monitoring the Future (MTF) studies results. The results didn’t always match up—MTF findings differed from larger surveys with more states represented. MTF samples a small number of schools, making it less reliable for state-level trends. For example, in Washington, data from the Healthy Youth Survey showed that after legalization, past 30-day cannabis use dropped by 22% among 8th graders, 12.7% among 10th graders, and stayed the same for 12th graders. This not only showed no significant increase, but even significant decreases in youth cannabis use following legalization.

Those spreading this anti-cannabis propaganda also have hidden agendas they aren’t disclosing. Some of the hidden agendas behind these modern prohibitionists include:

• Pharmaceutical industry lobbying to protect profits
• Private prisons and law enforcement agencies benefit from continued criminalization and disproportionate incarceration rates.
• Politicians use cannabis fearmongering to rally conservative supporters.

Anti-Cannabis Opinion Articles Have Become Increasingly Common

Opinion articles, such as one recently released from Yahoo News titled “Don’t believe the lies about cannabis” are becoming increasingly common lately. This poses an issue with false information about cannabis flooding the internet instead of resources for fact-based cannabis education.

This article and those similar to it also rely on fear-based rhetoric and selective data to push their anti-cannabis agenda, misrepresenting science and the effects of cannabis legalization. The article also exaggerates the dangers of cannabis by stating cannabis increases psychosis and emergency room visits, without acknowledging that these trends are often due to improved reporting and higher overall use—not because cannabis has suddenly become more harmful. 

Instead, research from the National Academies of Sciences has found no definitive cause-and-effect link between cannabis use and schizophrenia, which undermines another of the article’s core claims. Many with the condition coincidentally use cannabis, or better yet CBD, particularly to help alleviate particular symptoms.

The article fuels unnecessary panic about youth cannabis use, even though studies show no significant increase—and in many cases, a decrease—in teen consumption after legalization, as regulated dispensaries replace unlicensed dealers.

It also misrepresents medical marijuana by claiming companies make false health claims. However, it ignores the fact that FDA-approved cannabis-based medications like Epidiolex already exist. Ironically, rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III would introduce more regulation, tackling many of the concerns raised in the article.

Comparing cannabis to “Big Tobacco” and “Big Alcohol” is also misleading to readers. Unlike cigarettes, cannabis lacks the same addictive chemicals, and its public health risks are far lower than those of alcohol, tobacco, and the majority of pharmaceuticals—which have been legal for decades.

Debunking the Opposition: Science, Medicine, and Politics Behind Rescheduling

The opposition to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III is mostly rooted in dated arguments that overlook scientific advances, real-world data, and the evolving legal landscape that’s questioning why these anti-cannabis laws were put in place in the first place.

Scientific Backing & Safety: Prohibitionist groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) claim that rescheduling is just a political move without solid scientific backing. However, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recognizes cannabis’s medical benefits, especially for conditions like chronic pain, chemotherapy-related nausea, and multiple sclerosis. 

Countries like Canada and Israel, where research is less restricted, further validated these uses. Right now, cannabis’s Schedule I status creates a catch-22—scientists can’t study it properly because of the very tight and onerous restrictions that claim it has no medical value. Rescheduling would finally open the door for more thorough research.

Medical Use & FDA Standards: Some medical professionals argue that cannabis hasn’t undergone the rigorous testing required for FDA-approved drugs, making it too risky for medical use. While it’s true that cannabis itself hasn’t gone through the standard FDA process, that’s largely because its Schedule I status makes clinical trials nearly impossible in the U.S. 

Despite this, cannabis-based medications like Epidiolex (CBD for rare childhood epilepsies) and synthetic THC drugs like Marinol and Cesamet have already passed FDA scrutiny, proving that cannabis-derived treatments can, and do, meet medical standards.

The notion that cannabis is “too dangerous” crumbles when compared to FDA-approved opioids, which have driven a nationwide addiction crisis. Unlike opioids, cannabis doesn’t share anywhere near the same addictive properties.

Political Motivations: Some GOP lawmakers argue that rescheduling is politically motivated rather than science-driven. But the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA conducted a full review before recommending the change, showing that the decision is based on research, not just politics. 

The idea that this is just a move to win over voters also ignores the fact that nearly 70% of Americans—including a majority of Republicans—already support some form of cannabis legalization. And let’s not forget that 38 of the 50 states already allow medical cannabis. The idea that rescheduling sends only political motivation doesn’t hold up when so many states have already embraced its medical use successfully.

Regulatory Concerns: Some cannabis legalization advocates argue that instead of rescheduling, it should be removed from the Controlled Substances Act entirely. 

Others worry it will create more confusion between state and federal laws. While full scheduling would be ideal, rescheduling is still a crucial step forward. 

Moving marijuana to Schedule III would still make research easier, allow cannabis businesses to access banking services and tax breaks, and provide much-needed clarity for patients and healthcare providers. While it’s not a perfect solution, it’s a major step in the right direction for cannabis legalization.

Key Takeaways

Opposition to rescheduling cannabis is still largely fueled by outdated fears, misinformation, and political pushback—instead of solid scientific evidence and data. 

While some groups continue to spread fear-based messages, growing research and real-world data show that cannabis has medical benefits and a low risk of abuse without serious toxicity. 

Rescheduling would bring federal policies in line with modern science, expand medical cannabis access, and start undoing decades of failed and unnecessary drug laws. 

As more states continue to legalize marijuana, hopefully, this steers the conversation toward the facts and not opinionated articles. 

The post Debunking Modern-Day Anti-Cannabis Propaganda appeared first on Cannabis Central.

A coalition of fourteen Democratic lawmakers signed a letter sent to President Biden and Vice President Harris in November 2024 urging the current leaders to expedite expanding pardons for those charged with cannabis-related offenses, as well as putting into effect updated guidelines deprioritizing federal cannabis convictions and prosecutions. 

Despite a change in administration, cannabis advocates are still working for significant reform. As such, we’ve compiled a list of the fourteen congress members acting as signatories to the recent pro-cannabis letter, summarizing their respective career efforts in support of cannabis legal reform, both nationally and within their own jurisdictions.

About The Congress Letter to President Biden on Clemency

In spite of Biden’s previous praiseworthy and revolutionary federal pardons for cannabis convicts and the president’s support in favor of rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the 1971 Controlled Substances Act (CSA), legislators were consistently working to keep Biden accountable to his pro-cannabis campaign promises. 

Shortly before his administration came to a close, a collection of congressional signatories emphasized to the president that rescheduling efforts alone are insufficient to comprehensively or effectively address the greater issues associated with the ongoing federal criminalization of cannabis classified under the legal category of “marijuana.” Nor can this federal action address the complicated and problematic disparity between federal and state cannabis laws, which would largely remain unaffected by federal rescheduling of the drug. 

The coalition of congressional lawmakers, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Barbara Lee,  called for more comprehensive reform action to address the harms of federal cannabis prohibition policies. The letter urges Biden to further expand marijuana pardons, which have already been taking place under the president’s term. The lawmakers furthermore urge Biden to deprioritize federal cannabis prosecutions. This letter expresses that such actions must take place before President Biden’s term came to an end in January 2025.

Regretfully, Biden’s term ended without much of a response to this letter. Despite granting more acts of clemency than any previous chief executive on record, his final days in office did not offer much progress for cannabis reform.

Now, with President Trump’s mixed legacy concerning cannabis and new leaders taking charge in the Drug Enforcement Agency and other relevant organizations, the future of reform is cloudy.

In light of this uncertain moment in cannabis legality, we’re keeping eyes on the US lawmakers who have historically worked to enact lasting and effective change for federal cannabis regulatory change. 

Members of Congress Who Signed the Letter

The following members of Congress signed the pro-cannabis letter. For most of these legislators, it wasn’t their first time advocating for cannabis reform.

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA):

As a leading voice in promoting cannabis reform, Warren has contributed to the creation of the 2018 Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act. This bill was intended to eliminate various regulatory controls and criminal penalties under the CSA, preventing legal interference regarding a number of cannabis-related activities that comply with state or tribal laws. Namely. as long as states and tribes do not participate in cannabis-related activity that endangers human life or involves the employment of or selling of marijuana to minors, such persons acting in compliance with State or tribal laws relating to marijuana activities should not face criminal penalties.

Barbara Lee (D-CA):

Barbara Lee has been a long-time supporter of cannabis legalization efforts and equity in the cannabis industry and legal regulatory system. Lee has also served as Co-chair of the historical Congressional Cannabis Caucus, a forum for elected officials to collaborate on how to address our outdated federal marijuana criminal laws. In addition, Rep. Lee was responsible for introducing the Marijuana Justice Act, which received the highest number of congressional co-sponsorships of any legislation intended to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act in history.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT):

Sanders has been a consistent supporter for full federal legalization of marijuana, having advocated for de-scheduling cannabis and ending the drug’s prohibition entirely. In his presidential campaigns, Sanders made cannabis reform a pivotal issue and significantly raised national awareness about the problems generated and perpetuated  by national cannabis prohibition. His 2019 campaign was revolutionary in promoting a promise to legalize the drug in all 50 states within 100 days of his term. 

Cory Booker (D-NJ):

The New Jersey congressman has been a strong proponent of social equity in cannabis reform, recognizing the impact of prohibition on various disadvantaged communities. Booker even introduced the 2022 Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, intended to federally decriminalize and de-schedule cannabis from the CSA and support expungement programs for individuals subject to cannabis convictions.

Ron Wyden (D-OR):

Another congressional co-sponsor of the STATES Act, Sen. Wyden also sponsored the Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act, which was aimed at removing cannabis from the list of scheduled substances under the CSA, as well as establish federal taxation programs and regulation of cannabis.

John Hickenlooper (D-CO):

The former governor of Colorado has played a pivotal role in implementing revolutionary recreational cannabis legalization in the state. The senator has also taken part in advocacy for performing further research into the societal impacts of legalization. In addition, Sen. Hickenlooper has been an advocate for federal reforms to take place based on Colorado’s successful legalization efforts.

Earl Blumenauer (D-OR):

Along with Sen. Lee, former US Representative Blumenauer has acted as a co-founder of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and as a primary sponsor of numerous cannabis reform bills. One of these bills was the 2022 Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which sought to remove cannabis from the list of scheduled substances under the CSA and eliminates criminal penalties for individuals involved in activity associated with the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana.

Ilhan Omar (D-MN):

Another advocate for the MORE Act, Omar has additionally supported efforts to grant clemency for non-violent drug offenders. Rep. Omar has been a supporter of various decriminalization and clemency efforts, with a particular emphasis on the importance of racial equity and restorative justice in pursuing national cannabis reform.

Among these prolific senators and representatives are other major figures in US congress who have advocated for, supported, and made impacts for cannabis legalization in the United States and in their specific regions including: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Dina Titus (D-NV), Jim McGovern (D-MA), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). 

Concluding Reflections:

The letter sent to President Biden and Vice President Harris represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing efforts to advocate for and reform federal cannabis law and policy in the United States. Whether or not the actions taken by these congress members were successful at this point, the collective efforts of these fourteen congressional lawmakers highlight the urgent need to address the lingering consequences of prohibition, particularly the medical, racial, and social inequities that persist in accordance with current cannabis prohibition legislation.

Many of these lawmakers have been instrumental, both nationally and locally, in advancing federal and state-level cannabis legislation and their achievements — which range from innovating new state legalization frameworks and taxation regulations, to championing federal de-scheduling efforts and equity initiatives—represent intense commitment to the future transformation of marijuana law and cannabis policy into a new era. 

 By drafting and signing this critical document, congress has underscored unprecedented support for meaningful reform to cannabis legal policy in the US, where the federal government has been unwaveringly austere for decades, and the efforts of these members of congress sets the a new precedent for future progress. It is hopeful that such measures can fortify future momentum toward more equitable and appropriate responses and policies in US policy for cannabis laws in the United States for the coming generations. 

The post Before Biden Left Office, These Lawmakers Demanded More Cannabis Reform appeared first on Cannabis Central.

America has a long, complex history with drug regulation, from Sears Roebuck’s surprising sales tactics in the 1800s to the serious laws that set the stage for the modern-day war on drugs. From the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act to the significant 1970 Controlled Substances Act, we’ll uncover how these laws intended to protect public health have led to unintended consequences.

As we unravel this story, it’s clear that the war on drugs didn’t quite work as planned, and its serious implications—like racial biases and the overwhelming number of people behind bars—highlight the need for a new, more effective approach to how we handle drugs in our country.

A Different Time… Not So Long Ago

Back in the day, Sears Roebuck once advertised and sold packages of syringes and cocaine for less than $2 in the 1890s. While some media reports that a few states enacted laws to ban or otherwise regulate drugs in the 1800s, the very first congressional act to levy taxes on drugs took place in 1890 and was on morphine and opium.

In 1909, the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act was passed and implemented, prohibiting the importation and use of opium. This act is widely considered racially targeted at Chinese immigrants, as many of the places in which opium was being sold and consumed were predominantly Chinese neighborhoods.

During this time, the retail and medicinal use of drugs became highly regulated. Before 1938, over 25,000 American doctors were arraigned by the courts for writing patient prescriptions for illegal drugs. It wasn’t until the Harrison Act was passed by Congress in 1914 that regulations and taxes were applied to the distribution, importation, and production of cocaine and opiates.

Just 5 years later, the 18th amendment was ratified, and the prohibition era against alcohol began. This was solidified by the passing of the National Prohibition Act the same year, which set forth guidelines on how to enforce prohibition from the federal level.  This allowed for alcohol prohibition to continue through 1933.

The Next Era – Introducing the MJ Tax and Controlled Substance Acts

The MJ Tax Act was passed in 1937, four years after alcohol prohibition ended. While the MJ Tax Act wasn’t a full-on prohibition against cannabis, it has sparked the fire that has helped to fuel this prohibition ever since. It isn’t the MJ Tax Act alone though. Throughout the years since, there have been many other pieces of legislation that have ensured cannabis remain illegal, as well as many other substances and punishable to the greatest degree.

The passing of the Controlled Substances Act under President Richard Nixon laid the foundation for the real war on drugs — including a war against cannabis.

In 1970, the 91st United States Congress enacted the CSA, signed into law by Nixon in 1970. This statute was an effort to combine all previous federal drug laws and allow for federal law enforcement of controlled substances, serving as the legal foundation in the federal fight against drug abuse.”

While campaigning for the presidency, Nixon acknowledged the fears of the public regarding increased drug use nationwide. After winning the presidency and signing the CSA into law, Nixon went on to declare that drug use in America was “public enemy number one” and officially launched a War on Drugs in June of 1971.

Queue in the DEA and Continued Support for Drug Eradication

With drug use officially deemed a criminal issue, Nixon proposed mandatory minimum sentences for possession and distribution, along with other strict measures for drug-related crimes. Additionally, the Nixon Administration funded the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to establish a specialized policing force targeting illegal drug smuggling and use in the United States.

Presidents such as Ronald Reagen further supported the War on Drugs, as he passed the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act. This Act issued $1.7 billion in funds for law enforcement. Funds intended for enforcement and to build on mandatory sentencing for drug related crimes. Later in the 1990s, President Bill Clinton passed the Crime Bill. This was a $30 billion piece of legislation that help to fund 125,000 new state-based prison cells, added over 50 new crimes found worthy of the death penalty, and mandated life sentences for those violating three-strike laws implemented in several states.

By 1980, 50,000 individuals were incarcerated for non-violent drug-related crimes—a number that surged to over 400,000 by 1997. In the past 40 years, drug-related convictions have risen more than 500%.

Legislation That Has Impacted Millions

The War on Drugs has impacted countless lives, incarcerated millions, and spent trillions of taxpayers’ dollars attempting to eradicate illegal substances that persist in communities across the nation today. The War on Drugs continued to persist for over 50 years — and still has major implications today.

Essentially, the War on Drugs has no winner. The majority of studies conducted on the subject have found absolutely no evidence showing a correlation between drug-related incarceration rates and the use of drugs across most states. Incarcerating people for drug use shows little evidence of reducing the presence of drugs in our communities or their usage rates. Yet, we continue to support these regulations within our federal government today.

Not only does incarceration not result in reduced drug use, but some studies have shown an increased risk for overdose post-incarceration.This review of studies found that the leading cause of death among those recently released from prison was drug overdose. During that time, the study found that recently incarcerated individuals had a 129% higher risk of a fatal overdose compared to the general population.

The Lasting Impact of the War on Drugs

Many years after Nixon’s term ended, John Ehrlichman, his Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs stated:

“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Essentially, Ehrlichman is directly acknowledging the motivation behind the War on Drugs. And these aren’t just words. The War on Drugs has created a racial disparity in the criminal justice system. Black Americans are nearly six times more likely to be incarcerated for drug-related offenses than white Americans, despite similar rates of drug consumption.  This issue is still waging war against communities of color.

It is beyond time for states to follow Oregon’s lead and implement a new approach to substance use in the United States.

The post Rethinking The War on Drugs: A Timeline appeared first on Cannabis Central.

As we wrap up our years under the Biden Administration, we’ve been looking back on how cannabis culture has changed throughout President Joe Biden’s tenure. Although it seems contradictory, his team’s efforts to push cannabis reform in the United States reflect both the progressive power and the limitations of federal action.

The administration has engaged with cannabis policy through several key initiatives, and while these moves signal progress, they also reveal the challenges that come with a federal system where cannabis regulation largely remains a state-level issue. This article explores the major contributions made by the Biden administration toward cannabis reform, exploring the advancements achieved by these actions as well as their limitations.

Presidential Pardons

In October 2022, President Biden granted a pardon to people convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law. However, this action, while symbolically important, ultimately fell short of helping many cannabis convicts in the U.S. The 2022 movement did not result in the release of any incarcerated people because the pardon did not apply to any existing federal inmates serving prison time. This was in large part because the majority of people with cannabis-related offenses are incarcerated on state convictions, which were not impacted by Biden’s federal pardon. 

In December 2023, President Biden followed up his 2022 actions with another proclamation granting cannabis-related pardons to those convicted for simple or attempted possession according to an expanded list of laws. Still, the same limitations applied: these pardons provide direct relief for people convicted under state laws, which is where the vast majority of cannabis-related convictions occur. 

A federal pardon, moreover, does not equate to someone’s immediate release from custody. A pardon forgives an offense, but only a commutation could lead to the reduction or end of a sentence. Another limitation of a federal pardon is that it does not expunge a person’s criminal record, so even people who received pardons and commutations would still face the obstacles of having a conviction, which can affect someone’s access to employment, housing, and other essential public services. Expungement is the only means of clearing a conviction from one’s record entirely, but this is not a power the federal government wields broadly.

In the end, Biden successfully granted clemency to 11 people convicted of nonviolent drug-related offenses and commuted the sentences of five others. Biden’s federal pardons have laid the groundwork for more significant change, but without coordinated efforts between federal and state governments, many people will continue to face the lifelong consequences of cannabis-related convictions. To achieve widespread, long-term impact, state-level action is going to be essential.

The federal pardon is a notable move, but there needs to be more pressure on the states to take meaningful action through clemency programs, record-clearance initiatives, or resentencing. 

Medical Cannabis Research Expansion

Another significant development came with the signing of the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MMCREA) in December 2022. This legislation signaled a meaningful shift in the U.S. federal government’s attitude toward scientific research on cannabis for medical purposes. After decades of federal regulation that worked to stall medical research on cannabis, new rules regarding the approval process and supply chain involved in cannabis research stand to stimulate increased medical research on cannabis in the coming years. 

One of the most significant outcomes of the MMCREA is the mandate that the federal government ensure an uninterrupted supply of cannabis for research purposes. For over 50 years, strict federal regulations have made it hard for researchers to get cannabis for scientific studies from a single entity, the University of Mississippi’s National Center for Natural Products Research. The MMCREA breaks from this restrictive past by allowing for multiple federally approved suppliers to produce medical-grade cannabis for research purposes, thus expanding access to high-quality cannabis for a broader range of clinical studies.

The act also streamlines the approval process for researchers seeking licenses to study the plant and produce cannabis-based products for medical research by setting a strict turnover deadline for the DEA review process involving applications and proposals related to medical cannabis research. The MMCREA is a promising development with the potential to increase the number of clinical trials on cannabis, which could lead to new treatments and a better understanding of cannabis’ medicinal effects and interactions. 

Rescheduling Cannabis

The Biden administration’s most potentially pivotal reform effort emerged in May 2024 when the Department of Justice proposed reclassifying cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance. Since the enactment of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, cannabis has been categorized as an unsafe substance with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical application.

This categorization places severe legal restrictions on access to cannabis and its derivatives, which has been a significant barrier to both clinical research on and medicinal use of the drug. Reclassifying cannabis to Schedule III, a category of prescribable substances that includes drugs like ketamine and synthetic steroids, would significantly reduce the legal restrictions surrounding the use of cannabis for medical purposes.

This reclassification would align cannabis more closely with other prescription drugs that have legitimate medical uses but also some potential for misuse. Placing cannabis under the class of Schedule III substances would mean that cannabis-derived medicines, subject to FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) approval, could be prescribed by doctors and dispensed through pharmacies. Since cannabis would no longer be illegal according to the federal government, medical patients and researchers would benefit from easier access to the drug. Plus, the new classification could draw greater attention to achieving retroactive justice for prisoners serving time on cannabis-related charges, both at the state and federal levels. 

While the scheduling change would loosen restrictions on cannabis research and medical use, it would not fully legalize all cannabis for medicinal purposes at the federal level. Since cannabis products will only be legal to obtain by prescription, federally legal cannabis products would be limited to controlled pharmaceutical products approved by federal agencies for the treatment of particular diseases. This means that statewide medical cannabis programs and dispensaries will most likely remain essential to cannabis patients, and recreational use or possession of cannabis products will still technically be federally illegal. 

The Biden Presidency: Progress and Limitations

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the question remains whether the momentum for cannabis reform will continue. Despite the limitations faced, the Biden administration’s efforts on cannabis reform mark a shift in federal attitudes that is relatively radical compared to preceding presidential administrations of the past few decades. The combination of pardons, expanded medical research, and the push for rescheduling indicate a shift in political and public acknowledgment of cannabis as an urgent, legitimate issue in public health and social equity.

While Biden’s initiatives have laid progressive groundwork, impactful future progress for cannabis legislation will likely require continued efforts at both the federal and state levels, particularly in addressing the issue of achieving legal freedom for individuals affected by cannabis criminal convictions. The Biden administration’s contributions to cannabis reform have opened new promising opportunities for progress, but with Biden leaving office in 2025, the future of cannabis reform in the states is still unknown. 

Featured photo: Oliver Douliery 

The post The Biden Administration and Cannabis Reform: A Review appeared first on Cannabis Central.

Throughout his decades-long career, Willie Nelson has never been afraid to take a political stance and stand up for what he believes in, and the latest presidential election is no exception. The 91-year-old singer and songwriter has been a cannabis advocate since the 1950s, making himself one of the longest-running supporters of the plant in the world. 

Although Nelson no longer smokes weed, citing pneumonia and breathing issues, he’s transitioned into his edibles era. In fact, he and his wife are set to release Willie and Annie Nelson’s Cannabis Cookbook in the near future, which will be chock-full of delicious weed-infused recipes for marijuana lovers everywhere. 

And, naturally, he still pushes for full legalization and public acceptance of the plant. This year, he’s been an active supporter of Kamala Harris during the upcoming election campaign, with much of his championing centering around cannabis. 

“Cannabis Community For Kamala”: A Nelson-Led Call For Support

On October 24, Nelson held a digital fundraising event for Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz dubbed “Cannabis Community for Kamala.” The event focused primarily on how she can support and enact cannabis reform and federal legalization if made President. One of Harris’s key focuses leading up to the election has been her promise to fully legalize recreational marijuana, highlighting her changed views on cannabis throughout her career. 

“This is our chance to truly end prohibition,” he said during the online event. “Get out and vote for Kamala Harris.”

Included in this virtual conference were influential persons such as Nelson’s wife, Annie D’Angelo, Whoopi Goldberg, Margo Price, Colorado Governor Jared Polis, former NFL player Ricky Williams, and a handful of other prominent cannabis advocates. 

“I’m excited to bring together such an amazing group of people to talk about something we all care about deeply,” Nelson said in a statement before the event. “Cannabis is a path to healing, opportunity, and justice, and supporting leaders like Kamala Harris who understand that is crucial to putting an end to the federal prohibition and undoing the harms it caused to so many, particularly to communities of color where it has been disproportionately enforced.”

Why Nelson’s Endorsement Matters

Nelson’s support in this area is important for several reasons; first, having such strong backing from a native Texan can be invaluable to a candidate like Harris. Not only does he depict a way forward in progressive politics for a traditionally conservative area, but he also shows that such policies can benefit people from a wide variety of backgrounds. 

As the last denizen of the “outlaw country” era, Nelson is a figure of a piece of American history that is, unfortunately, long gone. But many people are still alive who remember such times, and they still want to feel seen and heard in culture and politics – making him an ideal representation of the merging of traditional values and the adoption of modern movements. 

Additionally, drawing attention to the ways that cannabis legalization can benefit typically marginalized communities is a vital piece of the puzzle in ending the War on Drugs. While many people want recreational weed legalized simply so they have easier access to it, passing this law would open up economic opportunities, expunge criminal records, and create jobs for people of color who have been historically disenfranchised by cannabis criminalization. 

During Nelson’s event, Colorado Representative Brittany Peterson spoke on the topic, stating: “We all know that Kamala Harris is a champion for effective drug policies, and I want to applaud the Biden-Harris administration for having the courage and leadership to recommend the rescheduling of marijuana. It’s such a big deal to have a presidential candidate who has come out to say that she supports legalizing marijuana. That has never happened in the past. Right now, marijuana is unfortunately at the highest possible level. Schedule I drugs are defined by a high propensity for drug abuse and for having no medical benefit, this is not relevant for marijuana. It is scheduled at the same level as heroin.”

Final Thoughts

Fortunately, the current administration has made some progress on the cannabis rescheduling front. The official hearing with the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) to determine whether or not to move cannabis to Schedule III is slated for next month, and advocates are hopeful that the measure will pass. However, although this would open up some new avenues for cannabis, it still does not fully legalize the plant, thus making federal legalization a continued topic of importance. 

With Election Day currently imminent, tensions and nerves are high across the country. But legendary stoners like Willie Nelson remind us that progress will continue – for now, we can simply sit back, spark up, and continue to fight for what we believe in. 

The post Willie Nelson Hosts ‘Cannabis Community For Kamala’ Event Ahead of Election Day appeared first on Cannabis Central.

Donald Trump, who is currently the 2024 Presidential nominee for the Republican party, recently made a statement that gives us insight regarding his current stance on marijuana legalization.

That statement was posted on his social media platform and announced his vote in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana in his home state of Florida. The Amendment 3 ballot, if passed, would allow 21-and-over Floridians to possess up to three ounces of cannabis recreationally.

While Trump had previously teased that he would be supportive of Florida’s ballot, this post seemingly firmed up his position on the issue.

“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,” Trump wrote in his post.

This statement also goes along with his recent suggestions for decriminalizing marijuana. In addition, Trump said he supported federal legislation that would remove federal restrictions on banking services for state-legal marijuana businesses. This would help with allowing banks to legally provide things like loans and credit cards to marijuana-related businesses.

Trump also wants to move cannabis from Schedule I, the most restrictive category including substances such as heroin, to Schedule III, which regulates substances like anabolic steroids, within the Federal Controlled Substances Act.

This would be the first step to easing federal restrictions and furthering cannabis development and research that investigates marijuana’s numerous health benefits.

Currently, the Drug Enforcement Administration has scheduled the hearing of the proposed rescheduling of marijuana’s drug category until after the new presidential winner takes office, making the presidential candidate’s stance even more imperative to voters.

However, many are still skeptical of his stance on legalizing cannabis, including his opponent, Kamala Harris.

The Skepticism Surrounding His Recent Support to Legalize Cannabis

Harris has strongly criticized what appears to be a significant shift in Trump’s stance on legalizing marijuana as of late, stating he has instead pulled marijuana reform backward before now.

As she pointed out recently, while Trump was in office, his Justice Department cracked down on non-violent marijuana offenses. Trump’s former attorney general, Jeff Sessions, had a clear stance against marijuana and allowed federal prosecutors to pursue cannabis-related crimes even in states where it was legal.

A recent report from ABC News discusses how Trump withdrew guidelines that were legal under state laws, even proposing to remove medical marijuana protections.

When he was first running for president in 2016, his campaign said that he favored leaving the issue of legalizing cannabis to the states. But in 2021, the fiscal budget proposal did include removing these protections for state medical marijuana laws. However, he did also tentatively endorse a bipartisan bill that codified federal policies, respecting states’ right to legalize.  

While some wonder if he is now trying to sway the younger voters and those in favor of legalizing cannabis, others think he simply may have evolved his stance since his time as President years ago. This is because of his formerly lost concern with marijuana issues in the past while focusing more on things like illegal immigration instead.

Where Trump Seems to Stand on Marijuana Legalization Today

Of course, politicians’ positions on cannabis can, and do, change over the years.

While Harris’s position seems a bit clearer going into the election, many are also pointing out that the Biden-Harris administration had its own mixed history when it came to laws and the legalization of marijuana.

Kamala Harris has had an evolving position when it came to cannabis law and reform over the years. Back when Harris was California’s Attorney General, she was on the other side of cannabis law reform, prosecuting cannabis-related crimes. There were more mixed views on cannabis law during her time as District Attorney since she opposed the 2010 measure to legalize marijuana in California, encouraging voters to reject the recreational use of cannabis in California. However, she did support the legal use of medical marijuana.

Then, during Harris’s vice presidency, she supported movements like reclassifying marijuana and pardoning federally convicted Americans for marijuana possession. Her stance became more and more progressive as she climbed the federal office ranks.

Today, she has made it clear in recent interviews that she doesn’t believe “people shouldn’t have to go to jail for smoking weed” and has still been vocally supportive of reclassifying marijuana.

Josh Glasstetter, a spokesperson for the advocacy group called the U.S. Cannabis Council, recently addressed the newsroom about Trump’s position on legalizing marijuana, saying he had “clearly reassessed his position.” Glasstetter reflected on how Republican officials have been slower to adopt their positions on marijuana as a whole.   

“For many years now, cannabis reform advocates have talked about the growing bipartisan consensus among voters in support of cannabis reform and elected officials have been a lagging indicator, particularly on the conservative side of the spectrum,” Glasstetter said. He also mentioned how Trump’s recent support in favor of legalizing marijuana could be a crucial step in getting more Republicans to change their position.

Trump recently wrote on Truth Social, stating, “It is time to end needless arrests and incarcerations of adults for small amounts of marijuana for personal use.”

This year, Ohio legalized recreational marijuana, making it the largest “red state” to legalize cannabis recreationally. Currently, that means cannabis is now legal in some capacity in almost 40 states.

In addition, this marks the first instance where both presidential candidates from opposing political parties were in support of positive cannabis reform. Trump’s announcement to vote in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana in Florida aligns him with President Joe Biden’s positive stance on marijuana reform. 

It begs the question of whether Trump’s support for legalizing recreational marijuana in his home state will help the electoral margins since marijuana is popular across all political parties.

At this point, Trump’s vote in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana in Florida is largely considered good news and a step forward for cannabis supporters across America. 

The post Does Donald Trump Support Cannabis Legalization? appeared first on Cannabis Central.

Kamala Harris has had an evolving position when it comes to cannabis law and reform over the years. In her time as Vice President of the United States, she supported movements like reclassifying marijuana and pardoning federally convicted Americans for marijuana possession. 

And, her stance has appeared to be more and more progressive as she has climbed the federal office ranks. 

However, Harris wasn’t always so lenient and showed mixed support when it came to cannabis-related laws and upholding them — especially during her time as a California Attorney General. 

The Harris History of Cannabis Law

Back when Kamala Harris was California’s Attorney General from 2011-2017, she was on the other side of cannabis law reform, prosecuting cannabis-related crimes. 

She helped convict over 1,900 Americans for cannabis-related violations, but other prosecutors on her staff did have a higher conviction rate when it came to these charges under her predecessor. Notably, many of these defendants were not arrested for low-level cannabis-related possessions either. 

There were more mixed views on cannabis law during her time as District Attorney since she opposed the 2010 measure to legalize marijuana in California, encouraging voters to reject the recreational use of cannabis in California. However, she did support the legal use of medical marijuana.

Like many Americans over the years who have shifted their mindset and stance on cannabis, so did Harris. Perhaps it was even the transformation around her in California after it was recreationally legalized that began to change her mind. 

In 2015, during the Democratic State Convention, Harris stated she wanted to end the federal ban on medical marijuana. 

Leading up to the 2020 presidential bid, something else changed. Harris’ stance appeared to loosen up even more when it came to the opposition to marijuana, and it has continued to loosen since then. 

In January 2019, only a week after her presidential bid announcement, Kamala Harris was interviewed by radio show The Breakfast Club. On the show, Harris admitted to the radio hosts that in college, she had smoked a joint herself, and that she was in favor of legalizing marijuana. She also made a joke referencing her Jamaican heritage. 

She admitted that she had concerns in the past about marijuana when asked about the criticism she was facing about her former approach to marijuana-related crimes. However, now that she was a contender in the 2020 election, she was showing she had come a long way in her stance by instead introducing legislation to help decriminalize and tax marijuana at the federal level.

“Times have changed — marijuana should not be a crime. We need to start regulating marijuana and expunge marijuana convictions from the records of millions of Americans so they can get on with their lives,” Harris had said during her announcement to propose the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act.

The act would mean the expungement of charges or resentencing for people convicted of marijuana-related crimes and for tax revenue to be gained by the marijuana industry if it was passed. 

The Drug Enforcement Administration has classified cannabis among the most dangerous controlled substances for the last several decades. But in 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed how marijuana was classified, thanks to Biden and Harris’ influence. 

During a White House discussion in March 2024 with rapper Fat Joe, Harris even called out the Department of Health and Human Services during the interview in an effort to speed up this reclassification process and ease marijuana penalties. 

Harris found it ridiculous that fentanyl was classified as a less dangerous drug than marijuana, per the classification at the time, despite the U.S. fentanyl-related death toll climbing to tens of thousands annually. 

“I cannot emphasize enough that they need to get to it as quickly as possible and that we need to have a resolution based on their findings and their assessment. But this issue is stark when one considers the fact that on the schedule currently marijuana is considered as dangerous as heroin. Marijuana is considered as dangerous as heroin and more dangerous than fentanyl, which is absurd. Not to mention patently unfair,” Harris had said of the Departments of Health and Human Services and Justice, which were handling the review.

In May 2024, in partial thanks to the way Harris campaigned for the change, a movement to reclassify cannabis came from the Justice Department. 

Under the Controlled Substances Act, this change meant marijuana would go from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug. While Schedule I drugs are ones considered to be addictive and very dangerous, schedule III drugs, which are drugs like anabolic steroids or Tylenol with codeine, are prescribed as needed and considered much lower on the scale for physical and psychological dependence. 

This classification change marked the biggest shift in marijuana law in the federal government since marijuana was outlawed in the first place. 

Kamala Harris and Cannabis Today

Since she officially became Vice President, Kamala Harris’s advocacy and leadership when it comes to cannabis laws and cannabis justice reform has certainly been a strong, positive change in favor of marijuana. 

Harris has not seemed afraid to show her stance on cannabis as of late either when the subject has been brought up in interviews. 

During a recent interview with Jimmy Kimmel, where they discussed her part in helping to reclassify cannabis, Harris said, “Look, people shouldn’t have to go to jail for smoking weed!”

A joke was also made by Kimmel letting Harris know a strain of weed had even been made in her honor. “Really? Seriously? I did not know that!” Harris replied in surprise. Kimmel joked back saying they should have at least sent her a sample, causing Harris to lightheartedly laugh. 

The moment President Joe Biden endorsed Harris for the Democratic ticket, cannabis lovers across America began asking themselves one question: Where will she truly stand, and to what end, on making marijuana federally legal if she becomes president?

Harris has made a pretty major transformation when it comes to policies related to marijuana on the federal level. Because of this, many people in political circles speculate Harris might act publicly to support the rescheduling of marijuana. 

Right now, cannabis is legal in some capacity in almost 40 states. But to truly resolve the issues related to state versus federal laws surrounding cannabis, marijuana would need to be descheduled and completely removed from the Controlled Substances Act list altogether. 

Other people speculate, however, that she might tread more carefully, and keep a similar position to Biden. This would mean she would be all for reform, but might still oppose full legalization at the federal level.

For now, we will be waiting and watching to see the next move she makes when it comes to cannabis law reform — especially if she does become president. 

Update: As of October 14, 2024, Kamala Harris revealed her plan to help Black men in America. As part of her plan, she pledged to legalize recreational cannabis nationwide as well as provide opportunities for Black men and women to start marijuana businesses. 

The post Kamala Harris’s History with Cannabis Law and Reform appeared first on Cannabis Central.

A new study hypothesized that “frequent and dependent cannabis use in youth would be associated with Intelligence Quotient (IQ) decline”. However, one needs to determine the legitimacy of such a study to ensure that the study is not motivated by anti-cannabis agendas. In order to assess the legitimacy, let’s have a look at what the study has to say and then compare it to other research and studies.

This Study Suggests That Teens Shouldn’t Use Cannabis 

The study was published by Cambridge University Press and assessed the “intelligence quotient decline following frequent or dependent cannabis use in youth”. The study begins by explaining that cannabis use in adolescence is frequently associated with a decline in mental functioning, with increased risks of mood disorders, self-harm, and suicidality.

Teen Brains Are Not Fully Developed Which Leaves Them at Risk

They go on to explain that the brains of adolescents are particularly susceptible to harm since their brains are still developing. The aim of the study “is to quantitatively synthesize the available literature examining the longitudinal association between frequent/dependent cannabis use and IQ change from pre-exposure baseline in young people”. The team made use of a search strategy of potential articles in order to do a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The researchers identified 2,875 papers for screening and then identified 33 papers that had full-text for screening. The results of their systematic review and meta-analysis found that there was a significant correlation between frequent cannabis use and changes in IQ.  They found a consistent 1.98 point decline in IQ in terms of full-scale IQ, while verbal IQ declined by 2.94 points while performance IQ revealed no evidence of change.

The team explained that they also made use of other research available on Embase, PubMed, and PsychInfo to support their research, which is evident. The team also requested information from authors of studies and they made use of seven cohorts (similar) studies. The team then assessed the quality of the studies they included to ensure their own study’s legitimacy. They scored most of the students moderate to excellent quality. All of the studies used for this study revealed a negative relationship between adolescent use and IQ, especially as they grow older than 18 years old.

The material made use by the team of researchers on this study includes work by:

• Catherine Orr and team on the “grey matter volume differences associated with extremely low levels of cannabis use in adolescents”
• Madeline Meier and team on the “associations between adolescent cannabis use and neuropsychological decline”
• Dr. J. Cobb Scott and team on the “association of cannabis with cognitive functioning in adolescents and young adults”

Of Course, More Research is Still Needed 

To better understand the legitimacy of the results from the study, let’s have a look at additional research.

Dr. Karen Wagner published an article in Psychiatric Times and explained why there are reasons for concern of adolescent cannabis use. She explains that clinicians are “often faced with a depressed, anxious, or suicidal adolescent who uses cannabis”. Dr. Wagner made use of a study by Morin and his team which randomly assessed over a 4 year period and found that their cannabis and alcohol use was associated with impairment in their cognitive function, which includes memory recall and working memory.

Additionally, researchers Wayne Hall, Janni Leung, and Michael Lynskey, found that frequent cannabis use in adolescents, particularly if the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content was high, resulted in a decline in cognitive function- which correlates with a decline in IQ. Meanwhile, Helen Shen consulted with Neuroscientist Kuei Y. Tseng, who explained that the matter is “not black and white” and that “until and unless more is known about the long-term impact, the safest choice for pregnant women and adolescents is not to use marijuana”.

Supporting Tseng’s statement is neuroscientist Jodi Gilman from the Harvard Medical School. Gilman explains that “we still don’t have a handle on how THC affects the adolescent brain. There is a lot of evidence pointing toward negative outcomes, but more research needs to be done”. Shen goes on to explain that while many results are projecting negative outcomes, there are influences, or underlying conditions, that may not be taken into account such as socioeconomic status and history of family mental health.

Perhaps High THC Potency is the Culprit

Perhaps the problem with cannabis consumption does not lie in the cannabis itself but is rather connected to cannabinoids, particularly THC potency. This is also a logical suspect for the decline in IQ and increased risks of mood disorders since high-potency cannabis has already come under scrutiny for ill effects.

In light of supporting studies and the additional studies found as well as the study’s declaration of no competing interests, it is safe to say that the results of this study are legitimate and that ultimately more research needs to be done in order to eliminate making hypotheses and to provide more certain data. Even though there are instances where minors legitimately need medical cannabis, teens shouldn’t use cannabis unless approved by a physician and should certainly avoid recreational use.

The post Recreational Cannabis: Why Teens Shouldn’t Use Marijuana appeared first on Cannabis Central.

Virginia is for Lovers. Lovers of many different things. Lovers of beaches, wine, mountains, rivers, and cannabis. The first Thanksgiving took place in Virginia. The state is also one of the original 13 colonies of America. Historical Jamestown and colonial Williamsburg are still alive today with sights and sounds remnant of the past via continual reenactments of revolutionary and colonial-era life. Virginia even has an island that is home to wild ponies, which have roamed this island’s shoreline for centuries.

The First State in the South to Fully Embrace Cannabis

Virginia can now add another historical first to their list as well as boast that there is, even more, to love about Virginia now thanks to the legalization of adult-use cannabis. Virginia just became the first state in the south to pass a law allowing adult-use cannabis. As sweet as it sounds, it’s not all pecan pie and sweet tea for cannabis legalization in the state. 

Virginia also has a legal, medical cannabis program in place. Medical cannabis dispensaries in the state are few and far between. The cannabis available in the state is not considered worthy of medical or recreational status according to consumers throughout Virginia. Furthermore, legal access to retail cannabis dispensaries is not expected until 2024 or later.

Cannabis is legal in Virginia for adults 21 and up and possession of up to an ounce is decriminalized to an extent. Medical patients have access or, should I say, very limited access to low potency cannabis in the state. Retail consumers have absolutely no access at this time. Virginia also does not allow home cultivation for consumers. This presents a confusing situation for many people living in the state. For a program that is predicted to bring in an estimated $1.5 billion annually in sales upon its start in 2024, it would seem this would take precedent at this delicate moment of financial turmoil due to COVID-19. 

There Are Still Just So Many Questions

There are a lot of laws already in place throughout the country that Virginia could learn from and implement on at least a temporary basis. Things such as allowing home cultivation for adults over the age of 21 and the gifting of cannabis in small amounts between adults in the state. It just doesn’t seem fair to legalize a plant and then provide no access to it for years. However, this, unfortunately, has been the case in a few states as legalization has been slow to roll out.

Perhaps this is just a way for those who support cannabis prohibition to smile a little longer looking at cannabis consumers thinking you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Having the “legalization” protection, however, is better than unjust laws prohibiting it. However, the state is sure to face all kinds of challenges in the future until there is legal access for cannabis to be purchased. Law enforcement will likely have mixed emotions about the legality of cannabis, especially when there is not a place to legally obtain it. I can only imagine how confusing this must be for those living in the state of Virginia. I know I would be confused. I’d have many questions.

Like, if I have cannabis, how much trouble will I get into? If I have cannabis and I don’t get in trouble, does that mean it’s okay for me to continue to get cannabis from my source? Is it legal for me to purchase cannabis from a surrounding jurisdiction where it’s legal and bring it here? Can a medical patient buy cannabis for me since it’s legal for them too? Am I able to consume cannabis recreationally at all or do I need to wait until 2024? These are all great questions that we’ll surely find the answers to as the legal cannabis market unfolds in Virginia. 

Odd Virginia Laws That Have More Clarity Than the State’s Cannabis Laws

Who would have ever thought that you could legally smoke a joint, blunt, bowl, or bong of weed in a state, but it would be illegal to tickle women? That’s right, in the state of Virginia, it is illegal to tickle women. Up until 2020, it was also illegal to cuss on the phone or in public. You could get slapped with a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $250. Apparently, though, there was no wiggle room for tickling women. As I was looking through information about Virginia, I found some rather interesting stuff posted on a legal website advertising legal services in Virginia. I found it so interesting that I had to share this excerpt from an article about strange laws in Virginia from the Virginia Defense Attorney website that I thought you might enjoy as well.

• It’s illegal to tickle women. Please be a lover, not a tickler.
• It’s illegal to cuss about another person (Prince William County). And if you swear at someone over the phone, you’re looking at a $100 fine. (This law was repealed in 2020, and you can now cuss away in Virginia)
• It’s illegal for kids to go trick-or-treating on Halloween.
• It’s LEGAL for a man to beat his wife on the courthouse steps, but he must do so before 8:00 p.m. (Stafford County). Seriously?
• It’s illegal to sell lettuce and peanut brittle on Sundays.
• It’s illegal for bathtubs to be inside the home. Instead, they must be in the yard of the home.
• It’s illegal for Citizens to NOT honk their horns while passing other cars.
• If you’re intoxicated but not driving your car, both the driver and you may be charged with DUI (Virginia Beach).
• It’s illegal to flip a coin to determine who pays for coffee (Richmond).
• It’s illegal to fornicate. And if you’re married, it’s illegal to do so with the lights on.

At least you can now legally partake in the state if you are over the age of 21 and scratch your head as you laugh and cry in confusion regarding the laws in Virginia. Or can you?

The post Virginia Cannabis Laws Are Downright Confusing appeared first on Cannabis Central.