Although a number of states have decriminalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes, it remains illegal in the United States at the federal level. The primary reason why marijuana remains illegal nationally is due to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) classification of cannabis as a Schedule I narcotic.
The DEA classifies narcotics and some substances according to a five-tiered rating system based on two factors:
- The drug’s proven and acceptable medical use within the United States.
- The drug’s potential for dependency or abuse.
Six substances are classified as Schedule I narcotics: heroin, LSD, marijuana, ecstasy, methaqualone (commonly known as “Quaaludes”), and peyote. What determines placement within these categories is not necessarily the second factor listed above, but rather the first. This is the primary reason why heroin (with virtually no acceptable medical use) is a Schedule I narcotic and cocaine (with an extensive list of medical applications) is classified as a Schedule II, or lower level, narcotic, despite both being highly addictive substances with a significant potential for abuse.
Cannabis is not highly addictive, particularly when compared to other substances on the DEA’s schedule list. Consider the following chart which compares various psychoactive drugs on the basis of dependence potential and active/lethal doses. Cocaine (moderate/high) and heroin (very high) rate much higher on the dependence potential scale than does marijuana, with a “moderate/low” dependence potential.
There are a number of legal substances, many of which do not require a prescription, which offer a much higher dependency potential with fewer medical applications, such as alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine.
This graph demonstrates the percentage of users who demonstrate some level of addiction to the corresponding substances:
Illegal substances are indicated in red, while legal substances are shown in blue. Half of the legal substances are regulated only by the age of the user. All of this data confirms that marijuana is listed as a Schedule I narcotic not because of its dependency potential, but rather because of its (supposed) lack of accepted medical applications within the United States.
Supporters of cannabis have long pointed out the extensive list of potential medical applications of cannabis. The most common applications of medical marijuana include being used to treat chronic pain, reduce nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy, treating systemic muscle spasms, and improving appetite in patients with HIV/AIDS. Initial research indicates that cannabinoids could be used to treat the following conditions:
- Cancer
- Dementia
- Diabetes
- Epilepsy
- Glaucoma
- Tourette syndrome
- Huntington’s disease
- Parkinson’s disease
- Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
- Bipolar disorder
- Multiple sclerosis
- Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)
- Anxiety
- Depression
- Psychosis
With this long list of potential medical applications, one may wonder why there isn’t a more significant movement by pharmaceutical companies to explore ways to leverage cannabis. The major inhibition to further testing of marijuana for medical applications remains the DEA’s classification of the drug as a Schedule I narcotic. Several milestones must be completed to even begin research: first, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must approve the research and then a license must be obtained from the DEA. Finally, the National Institute on Drug Abuse must review and approve of any research to be conducted on cannabis. These steps are time-consuming: while it only takes 30 days to receive a response from the FDA on research requests, a license from the DEA can take over a year to obtain, and the NIDA has no time limit for responses to requests for testing. The NIDA is the only source that the federal government allows to cultivate and provide cannabis for research. Marijuana is the only Schedule I narcotic with such a monopoly.
This presents an interesting scenario: the primary reason that research for medical applications is inhibited is due to the DEA’s classification, but the DEA’s classification is based primarily on the lack of proven medical applications for cannabis. Until the DEA changes this rating, forward movement on legalizing marijuana at the federal level, or even allowing extensive medical testing, will proceed slowly.
In the meantime, however, the federal government gives states a lot of leeway in creating and enforcing their own laws regarding marijuana. In 2009 the Obama Administration prohibited the Justice Department from spending funds to prosecute medical cannabis users and dealers who operated in compliance with state law. This was solidified even further when the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment (also known as the Rohrabacher–Blumenauer amendment) was passed in 2014, prohibiting the federal government from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. Currently, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have legalized marijuana for both medical and recreational use. The District of Columbia has also decriminalized cannabis for medical purposes.
The remainder of the states have varying stances on the criminal classification of marijuana use:
- Thirteen states, Puerto Rico, and Guam have legalized psychoactive medical marijuana.
- Thirteen states have legalized non-psychoactive medical marijuana.
- Twelve states have legalized all forms of medical marijuana.
- One state and the US Virgin Islands have decriminalized possession.
- Three states and two territories prohibit the use or possession of cannabis for any purpose.
Voter attitudes towards the legalization of marijuana in the United States have grown progressively more liberal over time. Gallup has performed polls regarding this issue for nearly fifty years. In 1969 only 16% of voters favored legalizing cannabis, but by 2005 that number had increased to 36%. The Obama Administration’s stance on not prosecuting marijuana possession increased the rate of acceptance by the average voter—by 2015, 58% of American voters said that legalization is something they would support.
Voters tend to have a very libertarian attitude towards federal intervention in states that have decriminalized cannabis: in a 2012 Gallup poll 64% of Americans said that they do not believe the federal government should interfere with states’ business regarding marijuana. It is not surprising that attitudes tend to fall along age lines: while 60% of 18- to 29-year-olds believe that legalization is okay, only 36% of voters older than age 65 support legalization.
One of the major objections against the legalization of cannabis include the possibility that decriminalization will lead to higher rates of use by youth and adolescents; in practice, however, this does not seem to be the case. For example, Colorado has not only seen lower use of marijuana by teens than is the national average, fewer teens report trying marijuana in Colorado than prior to legalization. This seems to indicate what psychologists would confirm as a basic tenet of human nature: the allure of a forbidden substance is what draws people to try something new. When that mystique is removed, so is much of the desire to try it.
Tax dollars may be what eventually turns the tide of federal sentiment against cannabis. Tax revenue from marijuana in Colorado exceeded $500 million from 2014 through mid-2017, with the majority of that money going to fund education within the state.
Washington state took in $315 million from cannabis taxes in fiscal year 2017 and some experts estimate that if New Jersey legalizes marijuana, state income from taxes could increase by $1 billion.
The movement towards a repeal of the federal ban on cannabis is gaining momentum and will likely be successful within the next decade. Until then, one can expect that state decriminalization on the use of both medical and recreational marijuana will continue at an increasing rate.
Please don’t take anything you read here as medical or legal advice. If you need medical or legal advice, consult a doctor or lawyer. The articles and content that appear on this website have been written by different people and do not necessarily reflect the views of our organization.