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

16 October 2020, Version 1
This content is an early or alternative research output and has not been peer-reviewed at the time of posting.


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.


State Government
Policy Implementation
Cannabis Policy


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 [opens in a new tab] - 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 [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.