1850: In the United States, cannabis is sold over-the-counter and widely used to treat a variety of diseases, including, but not limited to, cholera, alcoholism, opioid dependence and seizures.1936: Each state passes legislation to restrict cannabis possession and eliminate its over-the-counter availability.1937: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 is passed to prohibit all non-medical uses of cannabis. in the United States. However, it also restricted medical use due to fees and regulatory restrictions that placed a significant burden on physicians prescribing cannabis. The American Medical Association unsuccessfully opposed the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.1970: On October 27, 1970, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act was passed. Title II of the Act – the Controlled Substances Act – defined categories ranging from Schedule I (the most stringent classification) to Schedule V (the least stringent). Cannabis has been listed on Schedule I, prohibiting its use for any purpose.1995: Founded in January 1995, the MPP is the largest organization in the United States focused exclusively on ending cannabis prohibition.1996: California voters approve Proposition 215 to legalize medical cannabis. However, the Clinton administration opposed the proposal and threatened to revoke the ability to write prescriptions from doctors who had recommended or prescribed the drug.2000: In response to the Clinton administration`s dislike of Proposition 215, a group of physicians challenged this policy as a violation of First Amendment rights and stood up in Conant v. in September 2000. McCaffrey, which allows doctors to recommend — but not prescribe — medical cannabis.2005: Under the Bush administration, agents enforced federal laws against state-run medical cannabis growers and patients. In June 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government`s ability to enforce federal laws in states that legalized medical cannabis in Raich v. Gonzales.2009: During the first term of the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said only medical cannabis suppliers “who violate both federal and state law” would be prosecuted.
Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued a memorandum containing guidelines for federal enforcement, while largely confirming the previously stated hands-off approach to state-legal medical cannabis activities.2011: In response to federal raids and in an attempt to clarify the Obama administration`s position on medical cannabis, Assistant Attorney General James M. Cole issued a memorandum in which he explicitly stated that the protection of the “Ogden Note” applied only to individuals and not to individuals. 2013: In August 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a second Cole memo that gave prosecutors and law enforcement advice on cannabis enforcement efforts. Enforcement priorities included: preventing the distribution of cannabis to minors; preventing cannabis revenues by funding criminal enterprises, gangs or cartels; prevent cannabis from migrating from states where it is legal; prevent the use of the sale of legal cannabis by the state as a cover for illegal activities; prevent violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation or distribution of cannabis; prevent drugs from driving or exacerbating other adverse public health consequences associated with cannabis use; prevent the cultivation of cannabis on public lands; and preventing the possession or use of cannabis on federal property. You can read this memo, which was revoked by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in January 2018, here.2014: The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment included in the spending bill prohibits the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws. 2019: In November 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee passed the most ambitious cannabis legalization bill ever introduced in Congress (the MORE Act).
This was a historic moment in our decades-long campaign to end cannabis prohibition at the federal level.2020: In December 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 228-164 in favor of the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Write-off Act (MORE). The vote was the first time in half a century that a house of Congress voted on a bill to end federal cannabis prohibition. The MORE Act is one of the most robust cannabis reform bills ever introduced in the U.S. Congress. If passed, the MORE Act would end the war on cannabis at the federal level by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act and ending criminal penalties under federal law. A look at the similarities between recent efforts to decriminalize magic mushrooms and the push for marijuana legalization. At the federal level, cannabis remains illegal.
The federal government classifies cannabis, along with heroin and cocaine, as a Schedule I drug with high abuse potential and little or no medical benefit. However, 18 US states and the nation`s capital have legalised cannabis for all adults, and a total of 36 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and the US. The Virgin Islands allows for comprehensive public medical cannabis programs. The federal budget includes provisions to protect states` rights to responsibly regulate medical cannabis programs. Since December 2014, the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment prohibits the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws. This change must be renewed each fiscal year to remain effective and has been included in a number of expense accounts. The U.S. House of Representatives has voted twice to end the crackdown on medical cannabis, demonstrating bipartisan support for a real change in cannabis policy at the federal level. In December 2020, the House of Representatives voted in favor of the MORE Act, which would end federal prohibition of cannabis. There is now more momentum than ever to end prohibition. Finally, what would happen to major suppliers of illicit drugs if restrictions on the commercial sale of these drugs were lifted in some or all major markets? Would trafficking organizations adapt and become legal businesses or turn to other illegal businesses? What would happen to the countries of origin? Would they benefit, or would new producers and manufacturers suddenly emerge elsewhere? Such questions have not even been systematically asked, let alone seriously studied. The question of whether Bill Clinton “inhaled” when he tried marijuana as a college student came closest to the drug problem during the last presidential campaign.
However, the current one could be very different. For the fourth year in a row, a federally backed national survey of U.S. high school students conducted by the University of Michigan found an increase in drug use. After a decade or more of declining drug use, Republicans will be sure to blame President Clinton for the bad news and attack him for failing to maintain the Bush and Reagan administrations` high-profile stance on drugs. The extent of this problem is less certain, but if the worrying trend of drug use among young people continues, the public debate on how best to address the drug problem will clearly not end with the elections. Indeed, there are already growing fears that the large wave of adolescents – the group most at risk of drugs – that will peak at the turn of the century will be accompanied by a further increase in drug use. The arguments of both sides are particularly reassuring. Historical evidence is ambiguous at best, even assuming that the experience of one era is relevant to another. The same problem is faced with extrapolating the results of political action from one country to another with different socio-cultural values. Similarly, in the United States, the effects of decriminalization at the state level must be considered in the broader context of maintaining federal prohibition. And opinion polls are notoriously unreliable.
That`s partly because many state lawmakers with legal markets don`t yet support meaningful changes to federal law. Democratic Senator Jon Tester, for example, represents a state where weed is legal — Montana — and says he doesn`t support federalization. A handful of other Democrats told POLITICO they either oppose legalization or are undecided, including Sens.