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

• Date: 01 December 2020
• Published date: 01 December 2020
• Author: Daniel J. Mallinson,A. Lee Hannah,Gideon Cunningham
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X20984540
• Subject Matter: Special Issue 2020

Special Issue 2020

The Consequences of

Fickle Federal Policy:

Administrative Hurdles

for State Cannabis Policies

Daniel J. Mallinson

1

, A. Lee Hannah

2

,

and Gideon Cunningham

3

Abstract

Under the Controlled Substances Act (1970), the federal government classifies cannabis as a

Schedule I drug with high potential for abuse and no accepted med ical use. Meanwhile, thirty-five

states have defied federal prohibition and approved cannabis use for either medical or medical

and recreational purposes. States are chipping away at War on Drugs policies with little clear

guidance from the federal government. The starkly divergent approaches to cannabis regulation lead

to administrative challenges for adopting states and the budding industry. We examine how the

federal government’s rhetorical and regulatory fickleness on cannabis policy has led to several

downstream administrative consequences in banking, taxes, social equity, and bankruptcy protec-

tions. We also discuss whether recent events like the coronavirus pandemic and more state

adoptions can accelerate change at the federal level. Finally, we argue for additional research

attention to cannabis policy by federalism and public administration scholars.

Keywords

federalism, state government, policy implementation, cannabis policy

Since 1996, thirty-five states have legalized

comprehensive medical cannabis programs

while fifteen of those have further legalized

recreational cannabis. Though each presiden-

tial administration has taken a different posture

toward cannabis policy in the states, none have

taken much action—making the federal posi-

tion on cannabis ambiguous and tenuous.

Despite federal prohibition under the 1970

Controlled Substances Act (CSA), presidents,

Congress, and the courts have all contributed

to a shaky system of forbearance in enforcing

that law in states with legal medical or recrea-

tional cannabis programs (Adler 2020).

There are two ways to view the bottom-up

expansion of state cannabis policy. On one hand,

1

School of Public Affairs, Penn State Harrisburg, Pennsyl-

vania, PA, USA

2

Department of Political Science, Wright State University,

Dayton, OH, USA

3

School of Public and International Affairs, Wright State

University, Dayton, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:

Daniel J. Mallinson, School of Public Affairs, Penn State

Harrisburg, 777W. Harrisburg Pike, Harrisburg, Middle-

town, Pennsylvania, PA 17057, USA.

Email: mallinson@psu.edu

State and Local GovernmentReview

2020, Vol. 52(4) 241-254

ªThe Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0160323X20984540

journals.sagepub.com/home/slg