Public Policy

The Consequences of Fickle Federal Policy: Administrative Hurdles for State Cannabis Policies

Daniel Mallinson Penn State Harrisburg
Lee Hannah Wright State University
Gideon Cunningham Wright State University


Since the passage of the Controlled Substances Act (1970), the federal government has classified cannabis as a Schedule I drug with high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. Meanwhile, state governments have taken action to approve the use of cannabis for medical and recreational purposes. These developments have made cannabis policies unique among other policies. Beyond the interesting questions about federalism, the starkly divergent approaches to cannabis regulation lead to administrative challenges for adopting states and the industry. Creating novel medical and recreational programs comes at a cost. We examine how the federal government’s rhetorical and procedural fickleness on cannabis policy has led to several downstream administrative consequences. We also discuss whether recent events like the coronavirus pandemic and more state adoptions can accelerate change at the federal level.


Thumbnail image of Fickle Feds APSA Preprint.pdf


Log in or register with APSA to comment open_in_new
Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy open_in_new – please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here open_in_new .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy open_in_new and Terms of Service open_in_new apply.