Search

This paper examines the effects of state-level medical marijuana laws (MMLs) in the U.S. on birth outcomes, including birth weight, length of gestation, and Apgar scores. Using individual-level natality data from the National Center for Health Statistics from 1990 to 2013, we take advantage of the geographic and temporal variation in the implementation of MMLs in a difference-in-differences estimation framework with state and year fixed effects and state-specific time trends. Overall, we find that MMLs have no impact on gestation period or Apgar scores. While MMLs lead to a statistically significant increase in birth weight by 4.4 g (0.13%), this effect is practically small. Furthermore, we find little variation in the effects of MMLs on birth outcomes across different socioeconomic subgroups and observe no lagged negative effects of MMLs on birth outcomes of children born in the MML states in the years following the legalization of medical marijuana. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using Social Identity Theory, this article explores the process by which a stigmatized consumption practice, namely recreational and medical marijuana use, has been gaining regulatory and normative legitimacy. An online panel (N=432) was surveyed about motivations to support the transition of a market from illegal to legal status from people who do not intend to directly participate in it. Consistent with Social Identity Theory, results indicated that that: (1) marijuana users reported a higher level of support for the legalization of medical and recreational marijuana than non-users; (2) status insecurity enhanced the level of support for legalizing medical marijuana among in-group members and decreased the level of support for out-group members (those not identifying with marijuana users). In addition, results suggested that non-users may engage in legitimation practices to benefit their communities rather than promoting individual level benefits. Overall, the present research provides a link between the micro level motivational processes of group members to support/oppose the transition of an illegal market to one with regulatory legitimacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims (1) To describe open source legal data sets, created for research use, that capture the key provisions of US state medical marijuana laws. The data document how state lawmakers have regulated a medicine that remains, under federal law, a Schedule I illegal drug with no legitimate medical use. (2) To demonstrate the variability that exists across states in rules governing patient access, product safety and dispensary practice. Methods Two legal researchers collected and coded state laws governing marijuana patients, product safety and dispensaries in effect on 1 February 2017, creating three empirical legal data sets. We used summary tables to identify the variation in specific statutory provisions specified in each state's medical marijuana law as it existed on 1 February 2017. We compared aspects of these laws to the traditional Federal approach to regulating medicine. Full data sets, codebooks and protocols are available through the Prescription Drug Abuse Policy System (; Archived at on 2 June 2017). Results Twenty-eight states (including the District of Columbia) have authorized medical marijuana. Twenty-seven specify qualifying diseases, which differ across states. All states protect patient privacy; only 14 protect patients against discrimination. Eighteen states have mandatory product safety testing before any sale. While the majority have package/label regulations, states have a wide range of specific requirements. Most regulate dispensaries (25 states), with considerable variation in specific provisions such as permitted product supply sources number of dispensaries per state and restricting proximity to various types of location. Conclusions The federal ban in the United States on marijuana has resulted in a patchwork of regulatory strategies that are not uniformly consistent with the approach usually taken by the Federal government and whose effectiveness remains unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the legal aspects of Florida's medical marijuana industry as of 2017, and it mentions the Florida Legislature's passage of the Medical Use of Marijuana Act, as well as the claim that all forms of marijuana are illegal under American federal law. The U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is assessed, along with America's Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 and potential legal problems for businesses that transact with marijuana companies.

More than 20 US states have legalised the medicinal use of marijuana; in the past three years, four have also legalised its recreational use. At the same time, marijuana remains illegal under US federal law. This paper reviews the US experience to identify any potential lessons or hazards likely to emerge. It outlines the regulatory requirements of different US states for managing medicinal and recreational marijuana use, and the costs and benefits of these measures. It also critically analyses the most common commercial for-profit production and distribution model and examines the implications of this approach in terms of individual, social and criminological outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various aspects of state laws governing driving under the influence of marijuana (DUIM) and public health in the U.S. as of 2017, and it mentions California's legalization of medical marijuana in 1996, as well as support for the legalization of recreational marijuana across America. Driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) laws are addressed, along with due process rights, the psychoactivity of marijuana, and a balanced standard for DUIM laws.

As more states proceed with marijuana legalization laws, questions have arisen about how to accommodate those states that wish to retain prohibition. For instance, in 2014, Oklahoma and Nebraska unsuccessfully sued Colorado based on the spillover effects that Colorado's marijuana legalization law had on its neighboring states. This article asserts that there are several reasons why state marijuana legalization laws are unlikely to have a large effect on neighboring states. First, marijuana is not a previously unobtainable good being introduced into the stream of commerce, as it is already available through the black market inexpensively. Second, legalization laws have a number of restrictions that make it very difficult for sellers to profit from exporting legally produced marijuana across state lines. Prohibition states may have reason to worry, however, that illegal marijuana growers will be better able to hide their operations in legalization states that allow residents to grow small amounts of marijuana for personal use, which in turn may increase illegal marijuana exports to neighboring prohibition states. Prohibition states can minimize this risk of increased marijuana flow by lobbying the federal government to establish rules that protect their interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marijuana decriminalization is a hotly debated topic, which has nonetheless seen popular support in recent years. Current federal law (the Controlled Substances Act) conflicts with many state decriminalization efforts, raising the obvious question of federal preemption. The Supreme Court has failed to provide a clear answer on how much federal law preempts state marijuana decriminalization laws. This Article identifies the foundational principles of vertical and horizontal preemption, as well as various unanswered questions regarding these doctrines. It then applies these questions to marijuana decriminalization. Ultimately, it argues that there is a weak case for vertical or horizontal preemption in the marijuana decriminalization context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several scholars have pointed to a gap between the social movement and policy literatures, and argue that the failure of each field to incorporate the other creates a missing link in our understanding of how social movements and policy shape each other. This study provides an opportunity to make these links by applying John Kingdon’s multiple streams framework of agenda setting to the marijuana movement in Texas. Texas, an unlikely candidate for marijuana reform, was the site of sustained efforts to change marijuana laws during the 2015 legislative session. This research offers evidence about the ways in which social movements influence the policy process, and how the policy process responds to activist efforts. We find that despite well-organized movement efforts, political influence was limited. We argue that the reform movement’s inability to control activist participation presents additional challenges in a nonballot initiative state such as Texas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The legalization of marijuana for recreational and medicinal use has become a controversial topic in recent elections including Ohio's Proposed Constitutional Amendment "Issue 3" in November, 2015. As Ohio lawmakers continue to explore this issue, we sought to investigate how a variety of background characteristics (i.e., demographics, past exposure to and marijuana use, and media use), individual differences (i.e., locus of control and self-efficacy), and beliefs (i.e., political ideology and religious beliefs, attitudes about the benefits/harms of marijuana) and the Theory of Planned Behavior can be used to predict attitudes toward legalizing marijuana and likelihood to vote in favor of legalization (for medicinal and/or general use). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known on how perceived availability of marijuana is associated with medical marijuana laws. We examined the relationship between medical marijuana laws (MML) and the prevalence of past-month marijuana use, with perceived availability of marijuana.Methods: Data were from respondents included in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health restricted use data portal 2004-2013. Multilevel logistic regression of individual-level data was used to test differences between MML and non-MML states and changes in prevalence of past-month marijuana use and perceived availability from before to after passage of MML among adolescents, young adults and older adults controlling for demographics.Results: Among adults 26+, past-month prevalence of marijuana use increased from 5.87% to 7.15% after MML passage (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 1.24 [1.16-1.31]), but no change in prevalence of use was found for 12-17 or 18-25 year-olds. Perceived availability of marijuana increased after MML was enacted among those 26+ but not in younger groups. Among all age groups, prevalence of marijuana use and perception of it being easily available was higher in states that would eventually pass MML by 2013 compared to those that had not. Perceived availability was significantly associated with increased risk of past-month marijuana use in all age groups.Conclusion: Evidence suggests perceived availability as a driver of change in use of marijuana due to MML. To date, this has only occurred in adults 26+ and different scenarios that could explain this change need to be further explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is concern that medical marijuana laws (MMLs) could negatively affect adolescents. To better understand these policies, we assess how adolescent exposure to MMLs is related to educational attainment.Methods: Data from the 2000 Census and 2001-2014 American Community Surveys were restricted to individuals who were of high school age (14-18) between 1990 and 2012 (n=5,483,715). MML exposure was coded as: (i) a dichotomous "any MML" indicator, and (ii) number of years of high school age exposure. We used logistic regression to model whether MMLs affected: (a) completing high school by age 19; (b) beginning college, irrespective of completion; and (c) obtaining any degree after beginning college. A similar dataset based on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) was also constructed for confirmatory analyses assessing marijuana use.Results: MMLs were associated with a 0.40 percentage point increase in the probability of not earning a high school diploma or GED after completing the 12th grade (from 3.99% to 4.39%). High school MML exposure was also associated with a 1.84 and 0.85 percentage point increase in the probability of college non-enrollment and degree non-completion, respectively (from 31.12% to 32.96% and 45.30% to 46.15%, respectively). Years of MML exposure exhibited a consistent dose response relationship for all outcomes. MMLs were also associated with 0.85 percentage point increase in daily marijuana use among 12th graders (up from 1.26%).Conclusions: Medical marijuana law exposure between age 14 to 18 likely has a delayed effect on use and education that persists over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, 27 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws easing marijuana control. This paper examines the relationship between the legalization of medical marijuana, depenalization of possession, and the incidence of non-drug crime. Using state panel data from 1970 to 2012, results show evidence of 4-12 % reductions in robberies, larcenies, and burglaries due to the legalization of medical marijuana, but that depenalization has little effect and may instead increase crime rates. These effects are supported by null results for crimes unrelated to the cannabis market and are consistent with the supply-side effects of medicinal use that are absent from depenalization laws as well as existing evidence on the substitution between marijuana and alcohol. The findings contribute new evidence to the complex debate surrounding marijuana policy and the war on drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is considerable movement in the U.S. to legalize use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Twenty-three U.S. states and the District of Columbia have laws that decriminalize use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Most prior studies of state medical marijuana laws and their association with overall marijuana use, adolescent use, crime rates, and alcohol traffic fatalities have used a binary coding of whether the state had a medical marijuana law or not. Mixed results from these studies raise the question of whether this method for measuring policy characteristics is adequate. Objectives: Our objective was to develop a validated taxonomy of medical marijuana laws that will allow researchers to measure variation in aspects of medical marijuana statutes as well as their overall restrictiveness. Methods/Results: We used a modified Delphi technique using detailed and validated data about each state's medical marijuana law. Three senior researchers coded elements of the state laws in initiation of use, quantity allowed, regulations around distribution, and overall restrictiveness. We used 2013 data from the U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health to assess validity of the taxonomy. Results indicate substantial state-level variation in medical marijuana policies. Validation analysis supported the taxonomy's validity for all four dimensions with the largest effect sizes for the quantity allowed in the state's medical marijuana policy. Conclusions/Importance: This analysis demonstrates the potential importance of nondichotomous measurement of medical marijuana laws in studies of their impact. These findings may also be useful to states that are considering medical marijuana laws, to understand the potential impact of characteristics of those laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how employers can manage medical marijuana issues in the U.S. Topics discussed include expansion of legal marijuana across the U.S.; have legalized recreational and medical use of marijuana; and issues related to employee marijuana use, particularly where employees take the drug to treat disabilities.

The article discusses what the author refers to as the U.S. marijuana industry's ongoing problems with conflicts between American state marijuana laws and the U.S. Federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970, and it mentions America's illegality and unclean hands legal doctrines. According to the article, 25 American states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. Breach of contract claims and U.S. courts are also assessed.

Marijuana is nearing the end of its prohibition in the United States. Arguably the country's largest cash crop, marijuana is already legal for recreational use in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. Between now and election day 2016, an additional fourteen states might place marijuana legalization initiatives on their ballots. In addition, twenty-three states and Washington, D.C. have legalized medical marijuana, with up to seven more states pending legislation. The era of marijuana prohibition is rapidly coming to a close. At the same time, traditional doctrines of water law are struggling to cope with the modern realities of water scarcity. Administrative agencies lack capacities to monitor and enforce water rights in real time amid rapidly changing conditions. As marijuana cultivation leaves the black market and enters state regulatory frameworks, legal doctrines and administrative agencies will need to adapt in order to balance existing water rights with the demands of marijuana production. Failure to do so will encourage farmers to remain clandestine while perpetuating existing conflicts between legal and illegal water users. At present there is a gap in understanding the relationship between water rights and marijuana legalization, despite their rapid convergence. This Article is the first to systematically address that gap. Parts I and II begin by describing status quo marijuana cultivation taking place outside the context of state water law doctrines, and the unsustainable conditions that often result. Parts III and IV envision a legal marijuana market governed by the predominant doctrines of U.S. water law: prior appropriation and riparianism. In Part V the theoretical becomes reality, as California's complex water laws are put to the test by the largest marijuana cultivation community in the United States. Part VI concludes with recommendations for states in the process of legalization. Broadly speaking, this Article finds that both common law and regulatory approaches to water allocation are capable of accommodating legal marijuana cultivation, but to minimize disruptions to existing water rights and the marijuana industry, state agencies will need to proactively adapt to the new realities of the legal marijuana economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the reviews federal authority to regulate marijuana including the listing of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA). It mentions that federal government has authority under the Commerce Clause to enforce the CSA's prohibitions on in-state cultivation and distribution. It also mentions that enforcement guidance memoranda issued by the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury for medical marijuana.

The article provides practical advice on how to eliminate unfair labor practices in America's cannabis (marijuana) industry as of 2015, and it mentions the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Office of General Counsel's issuance of an Advice Memorandum which outlines a Wellness Approach to dealing with cannabis industry labor claims. The U.S. NLRB Act is assessed, along with the NLRB's jurisdiction and state medicinal cannabis laws in places such as California.

The article discusses challenges and limitations of legal cannabis industry in facilitating legitimate business and state regulatory compliance following state-level medical and recreation marijuana reforms in the U.S. Topics include history of federal legislation on marijuana; implications on professional conduct for transactional attorneys who provide assistance to clients involved in legal cannabis markets; and risk of federal prosecution for attorneys who provide assistance to such clients.

The article focuses on the need of change in the U.S. federal drug laws to accommodate the state legalization of marijuana reforms. Topics discussed include need for the federal marijuana reform proposals end the conflict between state and federal marijuana law, guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the marijuana enforcement and also the role of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regarding the legalization of the medical marijuana.

The article focuses on the criminal law that prohibits cultivation, distribution, possession, and medical or recreational use of marijuana in the U.S. and states and the problems associated with the drugged driving. Topics discussed include movements related to the small-scale use of marijuana as a medical treatment or for recreational use, legal framework used to identify and punish alcohol-impaired drivers and demand of the legalization of marijuana.

Medical marijuana laws generate significant debate regarding drug policy. For instance, if marijuana is a complement to hard drugs, then these laws would increase the usage not only of marijuana but also of hard drugs. In this paper I study empirically the effects of medical marijuana laws by analyzing data on drug arrests and treatment admissions. I find that medical marijuana laws increase these proxies for marijuana consumption by around 10-15 percent. However, there is no evidence that cocaine and heroin usage increases. From the arrest data, the estimates indicate a 0-15 percent decrease in possession arrests for cocaine and heroin combined. From the treatment data, the estimates show a 20 percent decrease in admissions for heroin-related treatment, although there is no significant effect for cocaine-related treatment. These results suggest that marijuana may be a substitute for heroin, but it is not strongly correlated with cocaine. I believe marijuana should be illegal in our country. It is the pathway to drug usage by our society, which is a great scourge-which is one of the great causes of crime in our cities. (Mitt Romney, October 4, 2007 [Altieri 2012]) I believe that marijuana is a gateway drug. (John McCain, August 11, 2007 [Zaitchik 2008]) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article investigate the societal and economic impacts of introduction of the Marijuana Law in Minnesota as of January 2015. Topics discussed include different types of existing marijuana laws in the U.S. including the federal, state marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana laws, history of laws regulating the use and possession of marijuana; and need of Minnesota to decriminalize marijuana further by reducing penalties for possession.

This article reveals that 23 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. have legalized the use of marijuana to some extent. Topics covered include the medical and recreational uses of marijuana, the support by majority of Americans for legalization of marijuana, and why financial institutions are reluctant to deal with marijuana-related businesses. The guidance issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network concerning provision of banking services to marijuana businesses is also discussed.

The article focuses on state marijuana regulation in the U.S. in 2014 and discusses cooperative federalism, which describes the cooperation of state, local, and federal government in creating policy. Topics include the legalization of marijuana in states including Colorado and Washington, U.S. federal law regarding marijuana, and medical marijuana legalization.

The article looks at California's medical marijuana industry regulation as of April 2014. Topics discussed include the state's efforts to legalize medical marijuana s to govern the commercial industry, California's Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), and role of judicial decisions on marijuana's legal landscape.

The article focuses on the issue of legalization of marijuana's production, permits related to its use for medical purposes and enforcement of U.S federal laws under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that criminalize the production and use of marijuana. Topics discussed include the theories related to criminalization of marijuana's production and use, the medical marijuana movement and the advantages as well as disadvantages of these practices.

The article focuses on the enactment of medical marijuana legalization laws in the U.S. Topics discussed include history of Marijuana and Marinol in the U.S.; passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 of the Food and Drug Administration; and sentences for marijuana possessors and distributors through the Boggs Act in 1951.20.

The article offers information on the state laws that permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes under the Controlled Substances Act. It analyzes the ability of an employer to discharge an employee over the use of marijuana in the U.S. It discusses judicial decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court cases to address the issue of employment discrimination against medical marijuana users including Gonzalez v. Raich and Ross v. RagingWire.

An essay is presented on examining the effects of the implementation of medical marijuana legislation in multiple states of the U.S. It elaborates on whether the humanitarian objectives of legalizing medical marijuana have been achieved after providing access to marijuana to those who will get benefit from it. It informs that California is one of the states which has permitted the use of marijuana for medical purposes and legalized its cultivation and possession.