High Stakes: The Struggle for Cannabis Legality in the Divide of State Legalization and Federal Prohibition
By: Erin Delsigne
─
State Legalization vs. Federal Prohibition
The legalization of cannabis at the state level, while remaining illegal federally, represents a wicked problem. This conflict creates ripples across all human institutions and spans economic growth, healthcare access, criminal justice reform, environmental sustainability, and social equity.
State legalization has spurred economic growth, but federal prohibition limits banking access and standard tax deductions for cannabis businesses, hindering industry potential. In government, the jurisdictional conflict creates inefficiencies and uncertainty for policymakers and law enforcement, while healthcare professionals are restricted from fully exploring cannabis’s benefits due to its federal Schedule I status.
The media influences public perceptions, often reflecting the clash between state acceptance and federal resistance. Meanwhile, criminal justice systems continue to disproportionately punish individuals for cannabis-related offenses in non-legal states, exposing systemic inequities.
This discord forces society to reevaluate norms and institutions, demanding a nuanced, multidisciplinary approach to resolve its deep and widespread impacts.
Science & Health Care Impacts
The divide between state cannabis legalization and federal prohibition has had a profound impact on science and healthcare, stifling research, delaying discovery, and perpetuating stigma. This duality creates significant barriers to understanding cannabis’s full therapeutic potential and integrating it into modern healthcare practices.
Challenges of Cannabis Legalization Scientific Research
Federal prohibition of cannabis, under its Schedule I classification in the Controlled Substances Act, labels it as having "no currently accepted medical use" and a high potential for abuse. This designation imposes onerous restrictions on research. Scientists must navigate complex bureaucratic hurdles to study cannabis, including obtaining approval from multiple federal agencies such as the DEA, FDA, and NIDA. These requirements make it prohibitively difficult for researchers to access high-quality cannabis samples, as federally sanctioned cannabis for research is limited in variety and often lacks the potency and diversity found in state-legal markets.
Furthermore, the lack of federal funding for cannabis research hampers progress. Institutions relying on federal grants often avoid cannabis-related studies due to legal risks or fear of losing funding. This results in a significant knowledge gap about cannabis’s effects, dosing, and potential for treating various medical conditions. The absence of comprehensive, peer-reviewed studies restricts the ability of healthcare providers to make evidence-based decisions, ultimately limiting patient care.
Impact on Healthcare
In healthcare, the federal-state divide perpetuates stigma against cannabis use, even in states where it is legal. Many healthcare providers are hesitant to recommend or discuss cannabis with patients due to the lack of robust scientific evidence and fear of legal repercussions. Additionally, cannabis’s federal illegality prevents it from being integrated into mainstream medical systems, excluding it from formularies, insurance coverage, and standardized medical training.
This stigma affects patients as well. Individuals seeking cannabis as a treatment for conditions like chronic pain, anxiety, or epilepsy often face judgment from medical professionals. Without proper guidance, they may turn to state-legal dispensaries for advice, where budtenders, rather than healthcare providers, guide decisions. This disconnect can lead to inconsistent outcomes, as patients lack access to professional medical oversight.
Broader Implications
The divide also limits public health understanding of cannabis use, including its potential risks and benefits. For example, questions about cannabis’s long-term impact on mental health, interactions with medications, or its role in managing opioid addiction remain underexplored. These gaps in knowledge hinder the development of public health policies and education campaigns, further entrenching misconceptions.
To address these issues, federal legalization or rescheduling of cannabis is essential. A unified legal framework would streamline research, provide funding opportunities, and integrate cannabis into healthcare systems. Until then, the federal-state divide will continue to stifle scientific discovery, reinforce stigma, and obstruct the responsible medical use of cannabis.
Medical Cannabis Patient vs. Recreational Consumer Story and Socioeconomic Impacts of Legalization
Creating far-reaching challenges and socioeconomic implications for both medical cannabis patients and recreational consumers, the legal disconnect between state legalization of cannabis and federal prohibition fosters inequities in access, affordability, and societal perception, disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations.
Medical Cannabis Patients
Medical cannabis patients often rely on cannabis for chronic pain, epilepsy, or other debilitating conditions, but federal prohibition severely limits their access. Federally funded programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA cannot cover cannabis costs, leaving patients to pay out-of-pocket for their medication. This financial burden disproportionately affects low-income individuals who depend on cannabis for essential medical care. Additionally, patients risk losing employment, housing, or federal benefits due to cannabis use, even in states where it is legal. The stigma reinforced by federal illegality further marginalizes patients, often preventing them from openly discussing cannabis with healthcare providers.
Recreational Consumers
Recreational cannabis consumers also face socioeconomic disparities stemming from the patchwork of state laws. High taxes and regulatory costs in legal states drive up prices, pushing lower-income consumers toward unregulated, illicit markets. These markets not only undermine public health and safety but also perpetuate the cycle of criminalization in states without legalization. Federal prohibition further complicates interstate commerce, limiting access to high-quality products in states with restrictive cannabis programs.
Socioeconomic Impacts
The divide exacerbates inequities by creating uneven opportunities in the cannabis industry. Wealthier, often recreational consumers can afford premium, regulated products, while medical patients and lower-income consumers struggle with affordability. The high cost of compliance also excludes small businesses and disadvantaged entrepreneurs from entering the market, reinforcing systemic inequality.
To address these severe issues, federal legalization is essential to standardize regulations, ensure equitable access, and remove financial barriers for patients and consumers alike. Until this divide is resolved, medical cannabis patients and recreational consumers will continue to face the socioeconomic challenges of an inconsistent and fragmented legal framework.
Cannabis & Disability Rights
The conflict between state cannabis legalization and federal prohibition has posed substantial barriers for individuals with disabilities, especially in obtaining cannabis-based treatments. This legal discord undermines the rights of people with disabilities by restricting access, perpetuating stigma, and creating barriers to equitable care.
In the U.S., individuals with disabilities often turn to cannabis to manage chronic pain, spasticity, seizures, and other conditions. However, federal prohibition categorizes cannabis as a Schedule I drug, claiming it has no medical value. This classification prevents federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans Affairs from covering cannabis treatments, forcing patients to pay out-of-pocket. In legal states, high costs and complex regulations make access difficult for low-income individuals with disabilities, exacerbating health inequities. In states where cannabis remains illegal, individuals face even greater barriers, including criminalization, stigmatization, and lack of safe, regulated products.
Workplace discrimination is another critical issue. Individuals using state-legal medical cannabis may face job termination or denial of employment, as federal laws do not protect medical cannabis users under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This leaves many disabled individuals vulnerable to economic insecurity, even when their cannabis use is medically justified.
Globally, the problem is similar. Many countries impose strict regulations or outright bans on cannabis, limiting its accessibility for disabled individuals. Even in nations with medical cannabis programs, stigma and inconsistent regulations create barriers. For example, patients may struggle to obtain cannabis prescriptions or find limited product availability, forcing them to rely on black markets or unsafe alternatives.
Resolving these issues requires federal legalization and international reform to align policies with disability rights. In the U.S., cannabis must be rescheduled to allow comprehensive medical research and ensure equitable access. Globally, a more consistent and inclusive approach is needed to make cannabis-based treatments accessible, safe, and affordable for disabled individuals. Until then, the legal divide will continue to deny many the care they need.
Local Business & Community Impact
The divide between state legalization of cannabis and federal prohibition has created a significant burden on local businesses and communities, hindering economic growth, fostering inequities, and complicating efforts to build safe and sustainable cannabis markets. This legal fragmentation forces local stakeholders to navigate conflicting regulations, undermining the potential benefits of cannabis legalization for economic and social development.
Impact on Local Businesses
Local cannabis businesses bear the brunt of the regulatory and financial challenges caused by the legal divide. Federal prohibition limits access to traditional banking services, forcing businesses to operate as cash-only enterprises. This not only increases their risk of theft but also creates operational inefficiencies and complicates tax compliance. Additionally, federal tax laws, particularly Section 280E of the IRS tax code, prohibit cannabis businesses from deducting standard expenses, leading to disproportionately high tax burdens. These challenges disproportionately impact small businesses and startups, making it difficult for local entrepreneurs to compete with larger, well-funded corporations.
Interstate commerce restrictions further complicate operations for businesses in state-legal markets. Cannabis companies are confined to selling products within their state, creating supply chain inefficiencies and limiting growth opportunities. This stifles innovation and prevents local businesses from scaling effectively, even in states with thriving cannabis markets.
Impact on Local Communities
Local communities miss out on the full potential of cannabis legalization due to the federal-state divide. While legal cannabis generates significant tax revenue for state governments, these funds often fail to reach communities disproportionately affected by decades of cannabis prohibition. Without federal oversight, there is little consistency in how tax revenues are allocated, leaving many localities underfunded for social equity programs, education, or public health initiatives.
Moreover, the divide perpetuates stigma around cannabis use, complicating efforts to integrate cannabis businesses into local economies. Communities may resist dispensaries or cultivation facilities due to lingering fears of crime or moral opposition, even when these businesses comply with stringent state regulations and contribute to local economies.
Broader Issues
The legal divide also sustains illicit markets in communities, as the high costs of compliance and taxation in legal markets make unregulated cannabis more appealing to consumers. This undermines public safety, reduces tax revenue, and creates additional burdens for local law enforcement.
To support local businesses and communities, federal legalization is critical to provide consistent regulations, improve access to financial services, and ensure equitable distribution of the economic benefits of cannabis. Without resolution, the federal-state divide will continue to create barriers to progress for businesses and communities alike.
Law Enforcement Challenges
The divide between state cannabis legalization and federal prohibition creates significant challenges for law enforcement, leading to a complex patchwork of regulations that hinders effective oversight and enforcement. This inconsistency complicates the work of local, state, and federal agencies, making it difficult to address cannabis-related issues comprehensively and equitably.
One of the key challenges is the conflict between state and federal laws. In states where cannabis is legal, law enforcement must navigate situations where actions permitted under state law, such as cultivation or sales, remain illegal under federal law. This duality often puts officers and agencies in difficult positions, as they must decide whether to prioritize state mandates or adhere to federal regulations. The result is uneven enforcement, confusion among law enforcement personnel, and frustration for the public and cannabis businesses.
This regulatory divide also enables illegal grow operations to exploit the system. Criminal enterprises take advantage of weak oversight in some jurisdictions and establish illegal grow sites, often on public lands, causing environmental degradation and diverting resources from legitimate enforcement efforts. These illegal operations are difficult to dismantle because of jurisdictional conflicts and the danger posed to officers, as many are connected to organized crime.
Another major issue is resource allocation. Federal agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remain tasked with enforcing cannabis prohibition, but with many states deprioritizing cannabis-related offenses, this creates gaps in enforcement and an inefficient use of resources. Meanwhile, state and local agencies often lack the funding and training necessary to regulate the complex cannabis industry effectively, leaving the system vulnerable to abuse and unintentional noncompliance.
Moreover, the lack of federal legalization limits cooperation and data sharing between state and federal agencies. This impedes efforts to track and combat issues such as illegal trafficking, tax evasion, and unregulated markets that thrive under the current system. Law enforcement also faces challenges in prosecuting cases that cross state lines, as federal prohibition complicates efforts to regulate cannabis transportation and sales.
Resolving these challenges requires federal policy reform to align with state legalization efforts, fostering consistent regulations, better resource allocation, and improved interagency cooperation. Without such reform, the patchwork system will continue to undermine law enforcement efforts and exacerbate cannabis-related issues.
Economic Growth & Opportunities
The divide between state cannabis legalization and federal prohibition has created significant barriers to economic growth and opportunities in the United States and globally, stifling the full potential of the burgeoning cannabis industry. While state-level legalization has spurred job creation, tax revenue, and entrepreneurial ventures, the overarching federal prohibition hampers expansion, innovation, and equitable access to these opportunities.
In the U.S., the cannabis industry is one of the fastest-growing sectors, generating billions of dollars in tax revenue and supporting over 400,000 jobs. However, federal prohibition restricts access to traditional banking services, forcing businesses to operate as cash-only enterprises. This creates inefficiencies, increases the risk of theft, and discourages investment, particularly from large-scale institutional investors. Small businesses, often the backbone of local economies, are disproportionately impacted by these challenges, as they lack the resources to navigate complex regulatory landscapes or compete with well-funded corporations.
Additionally, the inability to engage in interstate commerce under federal law limits market expansion and prevents businesses from optimizing supply chains. Cannabis companies are confined to operating within state borders, creating inefficiencies and higher costs for producers and consumers alike. Federal tax laws, such as Section 280E, further disadvantage the industry by prohibiting standard tax deductions, reducing profitability and reinvestment opportunities.
Globally, inconsistent cannabis policies and the absence of international trade frameworks limit economic opportunities in the cannabis sector. Countries with progressive cannabis laws, such as Canada and parts of Europe, have seen economic benefits but face challenges in exporting to regions with restrictive policies. Meanwhile, nations with emerging cannabis markets are hindered by stigma and lack of global cooperation, preventing them from fully capitalizing on this industry.
Resolving these issues requires federal legalization in the U.S. and global efforts to harmonize cannabis regulations. A unified legal framework would unlock economic potential, foster innovation, and ensure equitable opportunities for businesses and communities worldwide. Until then, the divide will continue to constrain growth and hinder the industry’s transformative potential.
Youth Prevention and Education Programs
The legalization of cannabis at the state level, coupled with federal prohibition, has created an urgent need for robust youth prevention and education programs in schools. As cannabis becomes more accessible in many states, the legal divide results in inconsistent policies and enforcement, leaving gaps in protecting children from cannabis exposure. Comprehensive education programs can help bridge these gaps, equipping young people with the tools to make informed choices and avoid substance use.
The legalization of cannabis in many states has made it more visible and normalized in communities, increasing the likelihood that children will encounter it. State laws often mandate strict age restrictions for purchasing and consuming cannabis, but the divide between state and federal policies creates enforcement challenges. For instance, while some states have implemented strong safeguards such as child-resistant packaging and zoning restrictions for dispensaries, others lack uniform policies. This patchwork of regulations leaves some communities more vulnerable to cannabis exposure and misuse among youth.
Education programs are essential to address these vulnerabilities. Teaching children about the risks of cannabis use—particularly during adolescence when brain development is critical—can help them make informed decisions. Prevention initiatives should go beyond fear-based tactics, focusing instead on science-based education about the effects of cannabis on health, cognitive function, and long-term outcomes. Programs like these have been successful in addressing other substance use issues and can be adapted to address cannabis specifically.
Additionally, prevention efforts must consider the influence of social media and advertising. Despite restrictions on marketing to minors, the rise of cannabis-related content online can glamorize its use. Education programs should empower youth to critically evaluate such messages and resist peer pressure.
The federal-state divide complicates these efforts. Federal prohibition limits funding for cannabis-specific prevention programs, forcing schools and communities to rely on state resources, which vary widely. Furthermore, the lack of a consistent national policy creates disparities in how youth prevention is prioritized and implemented across the country.
To protect children effectively, coordinated efforts are needed at both the state and federal levels. Federal legalization could standardize age restrictions, advertising regulations, and community safeguards, providing a cohesive framework for youth protection. Meanwhile, states should invest in accessible, culturally relevant education programs tailored to their communities.
Addressing the divide through prevention and education is critical not only for reducing youth cannabis use but also for fostering healthier, more informed communities in a rapidly changing legal landscape. By prioritizing youth education, policymakers can ensure that cannabis legalization is accompanied by strong protections for the next generation.
Social Norms & Family Dynamics
The divide between state legalization of cannabis and federal prohibition has profoundly influenced social norms and family dynamics around the world, creating tension and inconsistency that complicate the integration of cannabis into everyday life. This legal disparity has stymied the evolution of societal attitudes toward cannabis, hindering stigma reduction, policy reform, and scientific advancements.
Impact on Social Norms and Family Dynamics
State-level legalization has normalized cannabis use in many communities, yet federal prohibition perpetuates stigma by maintaining its classification as a Schedule I drug, equating it with substances like heroin. Families in states with legal cannabis face conflicting messages: cannabis may be legally purchased and consumed, but its federal illegality reinforces negative connotations, creating moral and social tensions. Parents may struggle to explain the complex legal landscape to children, particularly in households where cannabis is used medicinally or recreationally. These contradictions can lead to confusion and division within families, especially when social acceptance varies across communities.
Hindrances to Stigma Change
The federal-state divide perpetuates outdated stigmas by limiting opportunities for open discourse and education about cannabis's benefits and risks. Public perception often lags behind state-level policy, with lingering associations of cannabis use with deviance or criminality. These stigmas are particularly damaging to individuals using cannabis for medical purposes, who may face judgment despite its legality and therapeutic value.
Barriers to Policy and Scientific Advancements
Federal prohibition obstructs the broader acceptance of cannabis through a medicinal lens. The lack of federal recognition restricts funding for clinical research and the development of evidence-based policies. Globally, this U.S. legal discord undermines international efforts to advance cannabis research and reform, as the U.S. holds significant influence over global drug policy.
Addressing these sociological challenges requires federal legalization to align laws with contemporary attitudes, reduce stigma, and enable scientific and medical advancements. Without such changes, the divide will continue to hinder societal progress in integrating cannabis responsibly and equitably.
Workforce & Labor Dynamics
The divide between state cannabis legalization and federal prohibition has created significant challenges and complexities for workforce and labor dynamics in the cannabis industry, both in the United States and globally. This legal discord impacts employment stability, worker protections, and the industry's ability to attract and retain talent.
Workforce Challenges in the U.S.
In the U.S., the cannabis industry is one of the fastest-growing sectors, employing hundreds of thousands of workers. However, federal prohibition prevents cannabis employees from accessing many of the benefits and protections afforded to workers in other industries. For instance, cannabis workers are excluded from federal labor laws such as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), limiting their ability to unionize and advocate for fair wages or improved working conditions.
Additionally, the lack of access to traditional banking and payroll systems forces many cannabis businesses to operate in cash, complicating wage distribution and increasing security risks for employees. This cash-heavy model also makes it harder to track and report earnings, potentially impacting workers' ability to secure loans or build credit.
Global Workforce Implications
Globally, the cannabis workforce faces similar challenges. In countries where cannabis is legal, inconsistent international trade policies, influenced by U.S. federal prohibition, restrict market expansion, limiting job opportunities and career growth. In nations with harsher drug laws, workers in emerging cannabis markets often face stigma and precarious employment due to the legal uncertainty surrounding the industry.
Broader Implications
The federal-state divide in the U.S. also creates barriers for individuals with prior cannabis convictions seeking employment in the legal industry. Many state regulations prohibit those with drug-related offenses from participating in the workforce, exacerbating systemic inequities.
Resolving these workforce challenges requires federal legalization, which would provide consistent labor protections, access to banking systems, and opportunities for workforce equity. Until then, the cannabis industry's workforce dynamics will remain fragmented and inequitable, limiting its full economic potential.
Small Farmers vs. Corporate Cannabis
The divide between state legalization of cannabis and federal prohibition has had a profound impact on small cannabis farmers, intensifying economic challenges as large corporations increasingly dominate the industry. This legal inconsistency has created a regulatory and financial environment that disproportionately burdens small farmers while favoring well-capitalized corporate entities, reshaping local economies and exacerbating inequities within the cannabis market.
Economic Challenges for Small Farmers
Small cannabis farmers face steep hurdles in the form of regulatory compliance, licensing fees, and operational costs. State regulations, designed to ensure safety and compliance, often require costly investments in infrastructure, security, and testing. For small-scale farmers, these expenses represent a significant financial burden. Federal prohibition compounds these challenges by restricting access to traditional banking services and loans, leaving small farmers reliant on personal savings or private capital, which is harder to secure compared to corporate players.
Additionally, the federal tax code, specifically Section 280E, prevents cannabis businesses from deducting ordinary business expenses. This disproportionately impacts small farmers, who already operate on tight margins, further reducing their profitability. Meanwhile, large corporations with access to substantial resources can absorb these costs more effectively, creating an uneven playing field.
Corporate Dominance and Market Pressures
The entry of large cannabis corporations has disrupted local markets, driving down prices and squeezing out smaller operators. These corporations leverage economies of scale to produce cannabis at lower costs, often flooding the market with cheaper products. Small farmers, who may focus on craft or specialty strains, struggle to compete in this price-driven environment. Many are forced to sell their products at unsustainable rates or exit the market entirely.
Corporate dominance also influences regulatory frameworks. Larger companies, with their extensive lobbying power, can shape policies to their advantage, pushing for stricter regulations that disproportionately burden small farmers. This exacerbates existing challenges and further consolidates the industry in favor of big business.
Impact on Local Economies
The decline of small cannabis farms has broader implications for local economies, particularly in rural areas where farming has historically been a vital source of employment and community identity. As small farmers are displaced, wealth and economic influence shift to large corporations, often headquartered outside the region. This drains local resources and undermines the economic diversity of cannabis-producing communities.
The Need for Equitable Reform
To address these disparities, federal legalization must prioritize policies that support small farmers, such as equitable access to financing, tax reform, and protections against monopolistic practices. Without these measures, the divide between federal prohibition and state legalization will continue to erode opportunities for small farmers, further entrenching corporate dominance in the cannabis industry.
Environmental and Agricultural Impacts
The environmental and agricultural impacts of illegal marijuana grow sites on public lands represent an ongoing crisis since state legalization balancing federal prohibition. These illegal cannabis grow operations, often run by unregulated groups, have significant and far-reaching consequences for ecosystems, water resources, wildlife, and sustainable agriculture.
One of the most pressing environmental concerns is the widespread use of toxic pesticides and fertilizers on these grow sites. Unlike legal operations, which must adhere to strict environmental standards, illegal growers often use banned chemicals to maximize yield. These substances leach into soil and waterways, contaminating ecosystems and endangering aquatic life. They also threaten public health by polluting water sources relied upon by nearby communities.
Water usage is another critical issue. Illegal grow sites are often located in remote areas where water is scarce, and growers frequently divert streams to irrigate crops. This depletes natural water sources, exacerbates drought conditions, and disrupts ecosystems that depend on these water flows. Such practices have profound implications for biodiversity, endangering species that rely on these fragile environments.
Additionally, the physical destruction caused by illegal grow operations has devastating consequences for public lands. Growers clear forests, trample vegetation, and leave behind vast amounts of trash, including plastic irrigation tubing, chemical containers, and abandoned structures. This degradation compromises the integrity of public lands, making them less accessible and enjoyable for recreational use while creating costly cleanup efforts for federal and state agencies.
The wildlife impact is equally alarming. The toxic chemicals used on grow sites are often lethal to animals that come into contact with treated plants or water. Species already at risk, such as fishers and spotted owls, face heightened threats from habitat destruction and poisoning.
Divide between state legalization of cannabis and federal prohibition creates a patchwork of regulations that limits effective oversight and enforcement, driving illicit growers to operate in remote public lands to evade detection. This lack of cohesive governance exacerbates environmental damage, including habitat destruction, water theft, and contamination from unregulated agricultural practices.
Environmental Impact of Cannabis Product Waste
The environmental impact of product waste from dispensaries is a growing concern, largely fueled by the regulatory framework governing cannabis packaging. The divide between state cannabis legalization and federal prohibition has resulted in a fragmented regulatory landscape that inadvertently drives over-packaging, leading to significant environmental consequences.
State regulations around cannabis packaging often prioritize child safety, product integrity, and compliance with labeling requirements. These rules, while well-intentioned, demand extensive and often redundant packaging. For example, many states require cannabis products to be sealed in child-resistant, tamper-evident, and odor-proof containers, with additional layers of external packaging to display mandated labels, dosage instructions, and warnings. While such measures are designed to protect consumers and ensure regulatory compliance, they result in excessive material use, creating large amounts of plastic, cardboard, and other waste.
Federal prohibition exacerbates the problem. Because cannabis remains illegal at the federal level, there are no uniform national guidelines for sustainable packaging. Each state sets its own standards, leading to a patchwork of compliance requirements that cannabis companies must navigate. This lack of cohesion forces businesses to over-package products to meet the most stringent regulations across multiple jurisdictions, especially for companies operating in more than one state. The additional packaging not only inflates costs but also contributes significantly to waste streams.
Moreover, federal prohibition prevents the cannabis industry from accessing research, funding, or subsidies for developing sustainable packaging solutions. Materials that are eco-friendly, biodegradable, or recyclable are often more expensive or unavailable at the scale required by cannabis businesses. Without federal support for innovation, companies default to conventional materials like single-use plastics, which are cheap and widely available but environmentally harmful.
The environmental toll of this over-packaging is considerable. Dispensaries generate mountains of waste, including non-recyclable plastics and composite materials that contaminate recycling systems. These materials can take hundreds of years to decompose, polluting landfills and ecosystems in the process. Additionally, the carbon footprint of manufacturing and transporting excessive packaging further contributes to climate change.
To address this issue, policy reform is essential. Federal legalization would allow for standardized regulations and facilitate research into sustainable alternatives, reducing the need for over-packaging. Collaboration between policymakers, environmental advocates, and the cannabis industry could help balance consumer safety with sustainability, encouraging innovations like compostable materials and closed-loop recycling systems. Until then, the fragmented regulatory framework will continue to force cannabis companies into over-packaging, with detrimental consequences for the environment.
Legalization’s Effect On Traditional Agriculture
Cannabis legalization has significantly impacted traditional agriculture, reshaping farming practices, land use, and economic opportunities both in the United States and globally. The divide between state legalization and federal prohibition, however, complicates this transformation, introducing challenges for farmers navigating this new frontier.
In states where cannabis is legal, many traditional farmers, including those in food production, have incorporated cannabis cultivation into their operations. This shift is especially notable in the wine industry, where vineyard owners have diversified into cannabis cultivation to capitalize on its lucrative market potential. The complementary nature of growing grapes and cannabis—both requiring specific soil, climate, and irrigation conditions—makes it an attractive option for winegrowers looking to stabilize their income in a volatile agricultural market.
This trend has expanded beyond vineyards to other traditional crops, as farmers increasingly integrate cannabis alongside food production to offset the challenges of fluctuating food prices, water scarcity, and climate change. However, the federal prohibition of cannabis creates barriers for these farmers. Federally insured banks often refuse to provide loans for cannabis ventures, and federal water rights are inaccessible for cannabis irrigation, forcing farmers to rely on alternative, often more expensive, resources.
Globally, similar dynamics are emerging in countries with legal cannabis markets, such as Canada and parts of Europe. Farmers are transitioning to cannabis cultivation to meet rising demand while facing obstacles like regulatory inconsistencies and limited access to international trade markets due to lingering prohibition in other countries.
The rapid growth of cannabis cultivation has also raised concerns about its impact on traditional agricultural practices. Cannabis's high water demand, competition for arable land, and potential environmental impacts, such as pesticide runoff, can strain resources and alter local farming ecosystems. These challenges are exacerbated by the lack of cohesive federal policies to regulate sustainable practices.
Moreover, the influx of cannabis farms in certain regions has driven up land prices, making it harder for traditional food farmers to maintain or expand their operations. The absence of standardized regulations also creates disparities in environmental accountability, with some cannabis farms adopting unsustainable practices that negatively affect surrounding communities. Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive federal framework to promote sustainable cannabis farming while balancing the needs of traditional agriculture.
Regulation & Labeling Standards
The divide between state legalization of cannabis and federal prohibition has created both positive and negative impacts on regulation and labeling standards, with significant implications for consumer safety, regulatory compliance, and quality assurance. While state legalization has spurred the development of innovative regulations, the lack of federal oversight has resulted in inconsistent labeling practices that vary widely between jurisdictions.
Positive Impacts
State-by-state legalization has allowed for the testing and implementation of diverse regulatory frameworks, fostering innovation in cannabis labeling. Some states, such as California and Colorado, have established robust labeling requirements, including potency information, cannabinoid content, dosage guidelines, and warnings about health risks. These efforts enhance consumer education and safety, setting benchmarks for other states to emulate. Moreover, localized approaches have provided valuable data on what works in labeling, creating opportunities for future standardization.
Negative Impacts
However, the absence of federal oversight has led to fragmented labeling practices that confuse consumers and complicate interstate commerce. Labels in one state may emphasize THC potency, while others focus on terpene profiles or health warnings, leaving consumers with inconsistent and sometimes misleading information. This variability undermines consumer confidence and increases the likelihood of errors in product use, particularly for medical cannabis patients who rely on precise dosing.
Impact on Standardized Labeling
The federal prohibition of cannabis prevents the establishment of nationwide standards for labeling and regulation, impeding efforts to ensure consistency in consumer safety and quality assurance. Without federal guidance, there is no unified system to evaluate product safety, verify lab results, or mandate clear labeling requirements. This creates compliance challenges for multi-state operators and limits the industry’s ability to scale efficiently.
Standardized labeling is essential to address these issues. Federal legalization could provide a cohesive framework for uniform labeling requirements, ensuring transparency, enhancing consumer trust, and promoting public safety while streamlining compliance for businesses. Until then, the divide will continue to hinder progress in labeling and regulation.
Cannabis Testing & Safety Labs
The divide between state legalization of cannabis and federal prohibition has had profound positive and negative impacts on cannabis testing and safety labs, shaping the industry's ability to ensure product quality and consumer safety in the United States and worldwide. This regulatory gap has fostered innovation and growth in testing methodologies while simultaneously creating inconsistencies and challenges in ensuring reliable safety standards. State-level legalization has driven the rapid expansion of cannabis testing labs, as states require rigorous testing to ensure compliance with their regulations. This demand has spurred innovation in analytical methods for measuring potency, identifying contaminants, and assessing terpene profiles.
Many labs now routinely test for heavy metals, pesticides, residual solvents, and microbial contamination, helping to improve product safety and quality assurance. States with robust frameworks, like California and Colorado, have set high standards for testing, offering models for others to follow. Globally, this innovation has influenced countries with emerging cannabis markets to adopt similar testing protocols, advancing safety measures worldwide.
The competitive landscape among labs has also pushed the development of advanced testing technologies, such as high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), which improve accuracy and reliability. These advancements contribute to greater consumer confidence and provide critical data for ongoing research into cannabis's effects and applications.However, despite these gains, the lack of federal oversight has resulted in fragmented standards that vary significantly across states. Testing requirements, thresholds for contaminants, and acceptable methods differ widely, creating confusion for labs and inconsistency for consumers. This patchwork system also enables less scrupulous operators to exploit gaps in regulations, potentially compromising product safety.
Federal prohibition limits funding for cannabis-related research, including advancements in testing technologies and methodologies. Labs often face resource constraints due to the exclusion of cannabis from federally funded programs and the inability to collaborate with institutions dependent on federal grants. Additionally, labs in the U.S. cannot standardize methods or share data across state lines due to legal and jurisdictional barriers.
Globally, this divide affects the ability to establish universal testing standards. Countries looking to develop cannabis industries face challenges in aligning their safety protocols with U.S. practices, given the lack of cohesive national guidelines.Federal legalization would enable the establishment of standardized testing and safety protocols, improving reliability and consumer trust while reducing costs and inefficiencies. Until then, the fragmented approach will continue to hinder progress in ensuring consistent safety and quality across the cannabis supply chain.
Cannabis Transportation
The divide between state legalization of cannabis and federal prohibition has created significant challenges and opportunities for professional cannabis transportation businesses, impacting farms, dispensaries, and cannabis product brands. This legal conflict complicates logistics, compliance, and scalability while fostering niche markets and innovation in secure transport solutions.
Impact on Logistics and Operations
Under federal prohibition, cannabis remains illegal to transport across state lines, regardless of state legality. This restriction forces cannabis businesses to operate within fragmented markets, complicating supply chain logistics for farms, dispensaries, and brands. Transportation businesses must navigate a web of state-specific regulations, requiring detailed knowledge of local laws, permits, and tracking systems like seed-to-sale monitoring. This complexity increases operational costs and the risk of non-compliance, particularly for companies operating in multiple states with varying rules.
Compliance and Security Challenges
The cannabis industry’s cash-heavy nature, due to limited banking access under federal law, adds a layer of security concerns for transportation businesses. Professional cannabis transporters must invest in armored vehicles, GPS tracking, and rigorous security protocols to protect high-value shipments. Additionally, many states mandate stringent documentation and tracking, requiring transporters to provide detailed manifests and adhere to time-sensitive delivery schedules. Any deviation from these rules can result in significant fines, shipment seizures, or even the loss of business licenses.
Opportunities and Growth
Despite these challenges, the demand for professional cannabis transportation has grown significantly as the industry expands. Farms, dispensaries, and product brands increasingly rely on specialized transport companies to ensure compliance and security. This reliance has spurred innovation, with businesses developing technology-driven solutions like real-time tracking, automated compliance systems, and data analytics for route optimization.
Global and Future Implications
Globally, the lack of standardized regulations limits the potential for international cannabis transportation businesses, stifling trade opportunities between regions with legal markets. In the U.S., federal legalization would unlock the ability to transport cannabis across state lines, creating a national market and reducing logistical inefficiencies. Until then, the divide will continue to pose operational hurdles while driving demand for expertise in navigating the complex regulatory landscape of cannabis transportation.
Tourism & Cannabis Friendly Travel
Cannabis tourism encompasses activities like cannabis farm tours, festivals, cannabis-friendly Airbnb’s, and travel between cannabis-legal states. However, the legal patchwork creates inconsistencies, leaving consumers and entrepreneurs navigating a complex landscape.
Cannabis tourism has flourished in states with legal markets, offering unique experiences such as tours of cultivation facilities, educational workshops, and events celebrating cannabis culture. Cannabis-friendly accommodations, like Airbnbs catering to enthusiasts, are growing in popularity, allowing travelers to integrate cannabis into their vacations. However, federal prohibition complicates these ventures. For instance, while some states allow travelers to fly with cannabis between legal states, federal law still prohibits possession on airplanes, creating risks of confiscation or legal penalties.
This patchwork policy also underscores stark injustices for individuals incarcerated for cannabis-related crimes, particularly for activities now considered legal, such as transportation. Many people remain behind bars for offenses like carrying cannabis across state lines—actions that are integral to the modern cannabis supply chain and tourism industry. These individuals face ongoing incarceration while others freely enjoy cannabis-related travel and commerce, revealing a profound disparity in justice.
The rise of cannabis tourism has driven economic growth and normalized cannabis in many communities, yet federal prohibition limits its full potential. At the same time, the contrast between leniency for travelers and continued incarceration for cannabis-related offenses highlights the urgent need for restorative justice. Federal legalization would not only provide uniform guidelines for cannabis tourism but also pave the way for expunging records and releasing those unfairly imprisoned for cannabis crimes, aligning the industry’s growth with principles of equity and justice.
Cannabis Business & Cannabis Industry Success
While state-level legalization has spurred the growth of a lucrative industry, federal prohibition imposes constraints that limit scalability, innovation, and market integration. State legalization of cannabis and federal prohibition has created significant barriers to the success of cannabis businesses and the broader industry in the United States and globally.
Impact on U.S. Cannabis Businesses
In the United States, federal prohibition prevents cannabis businesses from accessing essential financial services, such as traditional banking, loans, and credit lines. This forces companies to operate as cash-only enterprises, increasing operational inefficiencies, security risks, and costs. Furthermore, under the IRS's Section 280E, cannabis businesses cannot deduct ordinary business expenses, leading to exorbitant tax burdens that disproportionately affect smaller operators, limiting their ability to reinvest and grow.
Interstate commerce restrictions also inhibit the industry’s potential. Cannabis businesses are confined to operating within individual states, leading to fragmented supply chains and inefficiencies. For example, overproduction in one state cannot meet demand in another, driving price instability and creating waste. This also stifles innovation, as companies cannot scale or expand operations across state lines without navigating complex and costly licensing processes.
Impact on Global Cannabis Industry
Globally, the lack of federal legalization in the U.S. influences international markets. Many countries look to U.S. policies as a benchmark, and the absence of unified federal regulation complicates efforts to establish international cannabis trade. U.S.-based cannabis companies face difficulties entering global markets due to federal restrictions, limiting their competitiveness compared to countries like Canada, which has embraced nationwide legalization and developed a strong global cannabis presence.
Broader Implications
The fragmented regulatory landscape hinders the cannabis industry’s ability to maximize economic potential. Federal legalization in the U.S. would provide a unified framework for banking, taxation, interstate commerce, and research, creating opportunities for businesses to scale and innovate. Globally, it would enable the U.S. to play a leading role in the international cannabis market, driving economic growth and setting industry standards. Until this divide is resolved, the industry will remain constrained by inefficiencies and inequities, limiting its long-term success.
Incarcerated Individuals Serving Time For Cannabis Related Offenses
As more states legalize cannabis for medical and recreational use, thousands of people remain imprisoned for activities that are now legal in many jurisdictions. This disparity highlights systemic inequities and the urgent need for reform.
Disproportionate Punishment
While state legalization has decriminalized or legalized cannabis possession, cultivation, and distribution in many areas, federal prohibition maintains harsh penalties for similar activities. Individuals convicted under federal law face long sentences, often in excess of those given for more serious crimes, such as violent offenses. Even in states where cannabis is fully legalized, people incarcerated under previous state laws may continue to serve time unless specific retroactive measures, like expungement or resentencing, are enacted.
Economic and Social Consequences
The continued incarceration of individuals for cannabis-related crimes has devastating economic and social impacts. Many incarcerated individuals are from marginalized communities disproportionately targeted by the war on drugs. This systemic bias perpetuates cycles of poverty, family separation, and diminished opportunities for those affected. Meanwhile, the growing cannabis industry generates billions of dollars annually, creating a stark contrast between those profiting from legalization and those still imprisoned for similar activities.
Barriers to Reentry
Upon release, formerly incarcerated individuals face significant barriers to reintegration into society. Criminal records for cannabis-related offenses limit access to housing, employment, and education. Ironically, many states bar individuals with felony drug convictions from working in the legal cannabis industry, further excluding them from the opportunities created by legalization.
Global Implications
The U.S. federal prohibition also affects individuals in countries with harsh drug laws influenced by U.S. policies. As the U.S. continues to grapple with its legal divide, it sets an inconsistent example for other nations, many of which maintain severe penalties for cannabis-related activities. The United States has historically played a pivotal role in shaping global drug policies, particularly through its influence on international treaties like the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which established stringent controls over substances including cannabis.
This U.S.-led initiative set a precedent for strict drug enforcement worldwide, leading many countries to adopt harsh penalties for cannabis-related activities. For example, nations such as Indonesia and Singapore enforce severe punishments, including lengthy prison sentences and, in some cases, the death penalty for cannabis offenses. These stringent laws reflect the enduring impact of U.S. drug policy on global legislation.
The current inconsistency between U.S. state-level legalization and federal prohibition of cannabis presents a conflicting model internationally. While some U.S. states have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational use, federal law continues to classify it as a Schedule I substance, maintaining strict prohibition. This dichotomy sends mixed signals to other nations, complicating global efforts toward drug policy reform. Countries looking to the U.S. for guidance encounter a fragmented approach, which can hinder progressive changes in their own drug laws.
Moreover, the U.S. federal stance on cannabis influences international relations and trade policies. Countries with legalized cannabis industries face challenges in engaging with U.S. markets due to federal restrictions, affecting global commerce and the development of a cohesive international cannabis market. This federal-state divide not only impacts domestic policy but also has far-reaching implications for global drug policy and international cooperation.
The federal prohibition, juxtaposed with state-level legalization, perpetuates a legacy of stringent drug policies worldwide and complicates efforts toward comprehensive reform. Addressing this divide is crucial for aligning domestic practices with international trends toward more lenient and health-focused drug policies.
Path to Justice
Addressing these injustices requires coordinated policy changes. Federal legalization would provide a framework for expunging records, granting clemency, and releasing those incarcerated for cannabis-related offenses. It would also enable broader efforts to ensure that individuals impacted by past prohibitions have access to opportunities in the legal cannabis industry. Until such reforms are implemented, the divide between state legalization and federal prohibition will continue to perpetuate inequality and injustice for those still serving time.
Conclusion: High Stakes: The Struggle for Cannabis Legality in the Divide of State Legalization and Federal Prohibition
The divide between state cannabis legalization and federal prohibition is a multifaceted issue with profound implications for society. This "wicked problem" spans economic growth, healthcare access, criminal justice reform, environmental sustainability, and social equity. Using an interdisciplinary approach to explore this conflict has been invaluable, as it reveals the interconnectedness of these issues and emphasizes the need for nuanced, comprehensive solutions. By integrating insights from sociology, economics, public health, environmental science, and law, we gain a deeper understanding of the systemic challenges and opportunities inherent in cannabis legalization.
One of the key insights from this interdisciplinary analysis is the significant barriers federal prohibition imposes on research, business operations, and equitable access to cannabis. The lack of federal legalization stifles economic growth, perpetuates stigma in healthcare, and limits opportunities for individuals disproportionately affected by past cannabis policies. At the same time, state-level legalization has demonstrated the potential for cannabis to drive economic growth, generate tax revenue, and reduce criminal justice inequities—though these benefits remain uneven and incomplete without federal alignment.
Another critical finding is the importance of equity in crafting cannabis policy. Disparities in access, affordability, and opportunity persist for medical cannabis patients, small farmers, and marginalized communities, even in legal states. Addressing these inequities requires intentional policies that prioritize social justice, such as expungement programs, equitable licensing practices, and support for small businesses. An interdisciplinary lens underscores the need to address these issues not as isolated challenges but as interconnected components of a broader societal transformation.
The interdisciplinary process also highlights the value of collaboration across fields to craft effective solutions. For example, economic policies that support small cannabis businesses must be paired with environmental guidelines to ensure sustainable farming practices. Similarly, public health education initiatives should draw on sociological insights to address stigma and misinformation while promoting informed decision-making. This integrative approach fosters solutions that are more robust, equitable, and sustainable in addressing the complexities of cannabis legalization.
Ultimately, resolving the federal-state divide requires collective action and bold leadership. Federal legalization and rescheduling of cannabis are essential first steps, but they must be accompanied by systemic reforms that address social, economic, and environmental inequities. As we move forward, let this analysis serve as a call to action for policymakers, researchers, and communities to engage in collaborative efforts that align cannabis policy with principles of justice and equity. By continuing to explore these issues through an interdisciplinary lens, we can create a future where the benefits of cannabis legalization are accessible to all.
Reflection on the Interdisciplinary Process
Experience Working Through an Interdisciplinary Lens:
Approaching the complex issue of cannabis legalization and federal prohibition through an interdisciplinary lens was both enlightening and challenging. Integrating insights from sociology, economics, healthcare, environmental science, and criminal justice allowed for a holistic understanding of the problem. Each perspective illuminated unique aspects of the divide, from the economic barriers faced by small farmers to the inequities perpetuated by the criminal justice system. This approach emphasized the interconnectedness of societal institutions and the cascading effects of federal-state policy misalignment.
Challenges Encountered:
The primary challenge was synthesizing diverse perspectives into a coherent framework. Each discipline had its terminology, priorities, and methodologies, which required careful navigation to avoid oversimplification. For instance, balancing economic analysis with sociological critiques of systemic inequities required a nuanced approach to ensure neither perspective was overshadowed. Additionally, the lack of comprehensive, unified data on cannabis impacts—due to federal research restrictions—highlighted the difficulty of addressing wicked problems without consistent, reliable information.
Enhancement of Understanding:
Engaging with multiple perspectives deepened my understanding of how the federal-state divide affects various facets of society. For example, exploring the environmental implications of illegal cannabis grows enriched my comprehension of the issue beyond economics and criminal justice. This multidisciplinary approach revealed the complexity of solutions, underscoring that addressing one aspect (e.g., federal legalization) would require simultaneous attention to related issues, such as social equity and environmental sustainability.
Lessons for Others:
The primary lesson is the importance of integrating diverse viewpoints when addressing multifaceted problems. A single-discipline approach cannot capture the full scope of such issues. Effective problem-solving requires collaboration, openness to complexity, and a willingness to consider perspectives beyond one's expertise. Additionally, this process highlighted the value of addressing systemic inequities as a central component of reform efforts.
Recommendations for Addressing the Problem
Short-Term Actions and Immediate Interventions:
Expand Research Access:
Federal agencies should streamline processes for cannabis research, allowing scientists access to high-quality samples and funding for diverse studies.
Implement Targeted Expungement Programs:
States and local governments can expedite record clearance for nonviolent cannabis-related offenses, reducing immediate barriers for affected individuals.
Support Small Farmers and Local Businesses: Establish state-level grants and subsidies to help small operators comply with regulations and compete against large corporations.
Long-Term Strategies and Policy Changes and Systemic Reforms:
Federal Legalization and Rescheduling: Remove cannabis from Schedule I classification to harmonize state and federal policies, enabling consistent research, regulation, and commerce. Equity-Focused Industry Policies: Introduce policies that prioritize licensing opportunities for individuals from communities disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs, ensuring equitable participation in the cannabis market. Environmental Sustainability Standards: Develop national guidelines for sustainable cannabis cultivation and packaging to reduce environmental impacts. Interstate Commerce Framework: Create a regulatory structure that allows for the safe and efficient transport of cannabis across state lines, fostering market growth and stability.
Next Steps
Gaps and Limitations:
Limited Research on Long-Term Impacts: There is a significant gap in understanding cannabis’s long-term effects on health, social norms, and economic systems due to federal restrictions on research.
Inconsistent Data Across States:
The lack of uniform data collection across state-legal markets hampers comprehensive analysis and comparison of policies’ effectiveness.
Global Policy Interactions:
More research is needed to understand how U.S. federal prohibition influences international cannabis policies and trade dynamics.
Future Research Directions:
Interdisciplinary Studies on Social Equity:
Further exploration is needed into how cannabis policies can be structured to address systemic inequities and foster inclusivity in the industry.
Environmental Impact Analysis:
Research should focus on the environmental consequences of both legal and illegal cannabis cultivation, aiming to develop sustainable practices.
Public Health Education Programs: Investigate effective strategies for educating youth and the general public about the risks and benefits of cannabis use in a rapidly changing legal landscape.
Collaborative Efforts:
Policy and Research Alliances:
Encourage partnerships between academic institutions, advocacy groups, and policymakers to generate actionable solutions grounded in evidence.
International Collaboration:
Work with countries that have legalized cannabis to share best practices, data, and strategies for global cannabis policy harmonization.
Community Engagement:
Include input from diverse stakeholders—such as medical cannabis patients, small farmers, and criminal justice reform advocates—to ensure that solutions are inclusive and equitable.
By addressing these gaps and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, scholars, policymakers, and advocates have a unique opportunity to build on existing research and drive meaningful change. Future efforts must prioritize creating comprehensive solutions that integrate policy with principles of social, economic, and environmental justice. This collaborative approach is essential for dismantling systemic inequities, advancing sustainable practices, and ensuring equitable access to the benefits of cannabis legalization.
Let this serve as a call to action for academia and beyond: to engage in rigorous inquiry, innovative problem-solving, and bold advocacy that shapes a more just and inclusive future.
References
Amlung, M., Reed, D. D., Morris, V., Aston, E. R., Metrik, J., & MacKillop, J. Price Elasticity of Illegal versus Legal Cannabis: A Behavioral Economic Substitutability Analysis. Addiction, vol. 114, no. 1, 2019, pp. 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14437.
Brushwood, J. D., Hall, C. M., & Rapley, E. T. (2020). Unintended costs of a dual regulatory environment: Evidence from state-level cannabis legalization and bank audit fees. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 39(3), 106736–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2020.106736
Coghlan, A. Recreational Cannabis: Time to Ease the Ban? New Scientist, vol. 200, no. 2688, 2009, pp. 6–7.
Crowley, R., Cline, K., Hilden, D., & Beachy, M. Regulatory Framework for Cannabis: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 177, no. 8, 2024, pp. 1104–1105. https://doi.org/10.7326/M24-0638.
Dillis, C., Grantham, T. E., McIntee, C., McFadin, B., & Grady, K. Watering the Emerald Triangle: Irrigation Sources Used by Cannabis Cultivators in Northern California. California Agriculture, vol. 73, no. 3, 2019, pp. 146–153. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2019a0011.
Dillis, C., Petersen-Rockney, M., & Polson, M. A Theory of Geo-Social Marginalization: A Case Study of the Licensed Cannabis Industry in California. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 355, 2024, n.pag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120396.
Dupree, T. B., Assen, A. D., Janusson, E., Wise, A. R., Swider, J. M., & Roggen, M. Simulations of Test Reduction Using Pooled Heavy Metals Analysis in Cannabis. Journal of AOAC International, vol. 106, no. 2, 2023, pp. 484–489. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoacint/qsac140.
Farrell, J. Waiting to Inhale. Sociological Inquiry, vol. 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12646.
Gupta, D. S., & O’Connor, S. I’ve Read That You Now Support Legalizing Medical Marijuana. What Should We Know About Its Pros and Cons? Prevention, vol. 65, no. 10, 2013, p. 60.
Hawkins, J., Grimes, M., Simmons, J., Steel, A., Jackson, N., Pittman, L., & Sims, T. Recent Developments in Cannabis Law. Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, vol. 58, no. 2, 2023, pp. 243–263.
Horgan, J. Going to Pot. Scientific American, vol. 263, no. 6, 1990, p. 23. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1290-23.
Kavousi, P., Giamo, T., Arnold, G., Alliende, M., Huynh, E., Lea, J., Lucine, R., Tillett Miller, A., Webre, A., Yee, A., Champagne, Z. A., & Taylor, K. What Do We Know About Opportunities and Challenges for Localities From Cannabis Legalization? Review of Policy Research, vol. 39, no. 2, 2022, pp. 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12460.
Kinney, A. B. Surveillance, Social Control, and Managing Semi-Legality in U.S. Commercial Cannabis. Social Problems, vol. 71, no. 2, 2024, pp. 572–593. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spac037.
Kochan, D. J. The Regulatabilization of Cannabis. Fordham Urban Law Journal, vol. 49, no. 3, 2022, pp. 519–551.
Lee, K., Williams, J. G., Surapaneni, A., Salehi, M., & Saadatifar, S. HVAC Design Considerations and Indoor Environmental Optimizations for a Cannabis Flowering Room. ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 128, Part 2, 2022, pp. 581–589.
Marijuana Legalization: As States Decriminalize Weed, Will the Federal Government Follow? Congressional Digest, vol. 101, no. 3, 2022, p. 2.
Martins, S. S., Segura, L. E., Levy, N. S., Mauro, P. M., Mauro, C. M., Philbin, M. M., & Hasin, D. S. (2021). Racial and Ethnic Differences in Cannabis Use Following Legalization in US States With Medical Cannabis Laws. JAMA Network Open, 4(9), e2127002–e2127002. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27002.
Prestemon, J. P., Koch, F. H., Donovan, G. H., & Lihou, M. T. (2019). Cannabis legalization by states reduces illegal growing on US national forests. Ecological Economics, 164, 106366-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106366.
Resko, S., Ellis, J., Early, T. J., Szechy, K. A., Rodriguez, B., & Agius, E. Understanding Public Attitudes Toward Cannabis Legalization: Qualitative Findings From a Statewide Survey. Substance Use & Misuse, vol. 54, no. 8, 2019, pp. 1247–1259. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2018.1543327.
Robertson, K. J., Brar, R., Randhawa, P., Stark, C., & Baroutian, S. Opportunities and Challenges in Waste Management Within the Medicinal Cannabis Sector. Industrial Crops & Products, vol. 197, 2023, n.pag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116639.
Rose, J., Brownlee, M. T. J., & Bricker, K. S. Managers’ Perceptions of Illegal Marijuana Cultivation on U.S. Federal Lands. Society & Natural Resources, vol. 29, no. 2, 2016, pp. 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1062948.
Seltenrich, N. Into the Weeds: Regulating Pesticides in Cannabis. Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 127, no. 4, 2019, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5265.
Seltenrich, N. What’s in Your Gummy? State Cannabis Contaminant Rules Vary Widely. Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 130, no. 10, 2022, pp. 104001-1–104001-2. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12099.
Shover, C. L., & Humphreys, K. Six Policy Lessons Relevant to Cannabis Legalization. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, vol. 45, no. 6, 2019, pp. 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2019.1569669.
Siddiqui, S. A., Bahmid, N. A., Asif, Z., & Shah, M. A. Consumers Left at the Mercy of Chefs for Potency, Consistency, Safety and Regulation—The Edibles Industry of Cannabinoids—A Critical Review. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, vol. 58, no. 10, 2023, pp. 5433–5448. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.16603.
Smart, R., & Pacula, R. L. (2019). Early evidence of the impact of cannabis legalization on cannabis use, cannabis use disorder, and the use of other substances: Findings from state policy evaluations. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 45(6), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2019.1669626.
Stringer, R. J., & Maggard, S. R. Reefer Madness to Marijuana Legalization. Journal of Drug Issues, vol. 46, no. 4, 2016, pp. 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042616659762. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=118049050&site=ehost-live. Accessed 7 Dec. 2024.
Statista. (n.d.). Cannabis in the United States. Retrieved November 18, 2024, from https://www.statista.com/outlook/hmo/cannabis/united-states.
Tolan, N. V., Krasowski, M. D., Mathias, P. C., Wiencek, J. R., Babic, N., Chai, P. R., Chambliss, A. B., Choucair, I., Demetriou, C. A., Erickson, T. B., Feldhammer, M., French, D., Hayes, B. D., Kang, P., El-Khoury, J. M., Knezevic, C. E., Monte, A., Nerenz, R. D., Okorodudu, A. O., & Roper, S. M. Cannabis Positivity Rates in 17 Emergency Departments across the United States with Varying Degrees of Marijuana Legalization. Clinical Toxicology, vol. 61, no. 4, 2023, pp. 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2023.2177552.
Walker, T. A New Industry Opens Up for the Adventurous Traveller. Farmer’s Weekly, 2024, p. 27.
Wengert, G. M., Higley, J. M., Gabriel, M. W., Rustigian-Romsos, H., Spencer, W. D., Clifford, D. L., & Thompson, C. Distribution of Trespass Cannabis Cultivation and Its Risk to Sensitive Forest Predators in California and Southern Oregon. PLoS ONE, vol. 16, no. 9, 2021, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256273.
Wu, G., Boateng, F. D., & Lang, X. The Spillover Effect of Recreational Marijuana Legalization on Crime: Evidence From Neighboring States of Colorado and Washington State. Journal of Drug Issues, vol. 50, no. 4, 2020, pp. 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042620921359.
Comentários