Marijuana Policy Project

Marijuana law reform is back at the forefront of national debate after the Obama Administration's new guidelines on medical marijuana investigation and prosecution came out Oct. 19. The federal government's new stance comes as a relief to the many users and suppliers of marijuana for medical purposes and is seen by some as a move towards a more liberalized drug enforcement policy in the nation generally. However, with all the excitement over the new policy comes a wakeup call for the states which have legalized medical marijuana use or are considering such legislation. Inconsistent regulation, vague standards and patchwork enforcement are threatening to stall marijuana law reform.

Announcing that it will no longer target those who dispense or use marijuana for medical purposes in states where it's legal, the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) reversed past administrations' approach to drug enforcement. For those that think this is tacit approval from the Feds to light up, the DOJ memo makes clear that the new approach will not eliminate investigations and prosecutions of illegal uses of marijuana.

Reversal of past administrations' approach to marijuana prosecution ironically seems to favor a "states’ rights" approach to medical marijuana regulation. Federal prosecutors are now directed to defer to local law regulating medical marijuana use. This deferential stance provides an invaluable opportunity for the states to take the lead in drug enforcement reform; however, with this opportunity comes the burden to adequately manage medical marijuana use.

In this country, 13 states (not counting Maryland where the law only reduces the penalty of someone caught with marijuana for medical purposes) have legislation that supports the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Another seven states, including New York, have decriminalized marijuana use. The general trend among states is towards more liberalized drug laws and by allowing states to experiment with new policies will likely lead to innovative types of regulation.

Justifiably, one state in particular has been at the center of the debate: California. In 1996, voters in my home state passed Proposition 215, laying out a system by which those who need marijuana for medical purposes can obtain it through legal channels. In parts of the state, dispensaries operate much like ordinary businesses under clear city ordinances. Oakland has taken advantage of the legal status of weed and will use a new tax to contribute to the city’s expanding deficit. The success of the "Oaksterdam" system follows from its clear and comprehensive regulations.

Unfortunately in other parts of the state, inadequate legal regulation and ambiguous state laws are wasting resources and are failing to provide a guide to medical marijuana suppliers. Los Angeles is currently in a heated debate regarding stricter regulation of marijuana dispensaries. Vague state laws regulating medical marijuana dispensaries have failed to guide Angelino bureaucrats and ganja suppliers as to how these enterprises should be managed. Los Angeles is still without an ordinance regulating medical marijuana and a moratorium on the creation of new dispensaries has been held invalid by a county court. The failure of proper regulation in cities like Los Angeles has lead to unclear standards which hamper the establishment of legitimate dispensaries.

As the successes and failures of California show, clear and comprehensive laws are essential in providing access to the herb for those who need to use it for its medicinal properties. It's not enough to legalize the use of medical marijuana, each state must implement specific and clear regulations to allow suppliers the opportunity to establish themselves as a legitimate part of the community. Ambiguous and piecemeal regulations are worse than outright criminalization­­ because inevitably a legitimate user or supplier will be at risk violating it due to a misinterpretation.

Now the federal government’s new stance to drug enforcement will likely foster pro-medical marijuana legislation in states that have yet to enact such laws. For instance, New Jersey is on the brink of passing such legislation. And if proposed, legislation supporting medical marijuana use here in New York would likely pass, since the state has already decriminalized the use of marijuana. Thus, legislators must look before they leap into enacting broad legislation legalizing medical marijuana use.

As drug law reform continues to progress, it is essential that states and municipalities take the opportunity to craft careful and comprehensive legislation that gives clear guidelines to suppliers and users. Thanks to the administration’s new directive, states can now openly debate marijuana law reform and will hopefully take the time to produce unambiguous regulation of medical marijuana.

Taylor Dalton, a third-year law student at Cornell, is the Senior Acquisitions Editor of the Journal of Law and Public Policy.