Words Can Be Deceiving: A Review of Variation among Legally Effective Medical Marijuana Laws in the United States

Abstract

When voters in two US states approved the recreational use of marijuana in 2012, public debates for how best to promote and protect public health and safety started drawing implications from states' medical marijuana laws. However, many of the discussions were simplified to the notion that states either have a medical marijuana law or do not; little reference was made to the fact that legal provisions differ across states. This study seeks to clarify the characteristics of medical marijuana laws in place since 1990 that are most relevant to consumers/patients and categorizes those aspects most likely to affect the prevalence of use, and consequently the intensity of public health and welfare effects. Evidence shows treating medical marijuana laws as homogeneous across states is misleading and does not reflect the reality of medical marijuana lawmaking. This variation likely has implications for use and health outcomes, and thus states' public health. KeywordsMedical marijuana; health care law; medicinal cannabis As of May 30, 2013, the medical use of marijuana is legal in nineteen US states and the District of Columbia. (National Conference of State Legislatures, Sec. 3(k)) Since marijuana is still illegal under federal law, many scholars have focused on issues of federal preemption and the scope of states' rights. However, as policymakers and individuals on the ground in these states know very well, the current debate about federal versus state law is insufficient, as questions still remain about what exactly is legal according to state laws across all the states permitting medical marijuana (MM). The clarification of various provisions in state laws has important implications since policy debates and research have begun to focus on the effects that various medical marijuana laws have on health and safety, rather than on simply whether MM is permissible or not.The protection provided by medical marijuana laws depends on legal details that are frequently overlooked and not well understood, including: who may recommend MM; who may use MM; the medical conditions for which MM may be used; and how individuals may obtain MM. The nature of the problem resides in the presumption that the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is a binary conclusion, i.e. it is either legal or not. This article reveals this is clearly not the case. Jurisdictions differ widely on how they govern suppliers and consumers of medical marijuana. Some states explicitly allow for, and carefully describe the NIH Public Access While the nominal definitions will tell what the law purported to do, the functional definitions reveal how the law actually changed status quo policies in order to accomplish these goals. Even laws that are similar in one aspect may differ widely in others, resulting in completely different levels of legal protection and access to MM. The specifics of a jurisdiction's policies regarding registration, available supply sources, and oversight authority can greatly affect a patient's ability to obtain and use medical ...

Legal cannabis laws, home cultivation, and use of edible cannabis products: A growing relationship?

“…Conversely, many of the LCL DSP-only states are newer LCL states created in the last five years via their state legislatures rather than voter ballot initiatives. Many of these states only permit a few tightly regulated dispensaries throughout the entire state (Bestrashniy & Winters, 2015; Chapman, Spetz, Lin, Chan, & Schmidt, 2016; Pacula, Hunt, & Boustead, 2014; Williams, et al, 2016) and have only just begun operations and sales. This might explain why even though these LCL states have dispensaries, individuals from these states were no more likely to have purchased edibles in the past month than individuals from Non-LCL states.…”

Comparing Medical and Recreational Cannabis Users on Socio-Demographic, Substance and Medication Use, and Health and Disability Characteristics

“…Recently, control regimes for cannabis as a psychoactive substance have diversified considerably in North American jurisdictions, from mainly prohibitive to more liberal control systems, including legal regimes, where cannabis is legally accessible for therapeutic purposes [3,4]. Therapeutic benefits from cannabis have been suggested for numerous, usually chronic, health conditions, yet are most strongly evidenced primarily for neuropathic pain, spasticity, as well as anti-emetic and appetite-stimulant effects (e.g., for “wasting syndrome”) [5,6,7,8].…”

“…Therapeutic benefits from cannabis have been suggested for numerous, usually chronic, health conditions, yet are most strongly evidenced primarily for neuropathic pain, spasticity, as well as anti-emetic and appetite-stimulant effects (e.g., for “wasting syndrome”) [5,6,7,8]. Medical cannabis control regimes exist in numerous US states and Canada (since 2001), among other countries [3,4,9]. Through iterative revisions to the medical cannabis program in Canada (e.g., the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations 2016), access has been considerably simplified, and under current regulations, medical cannabis use can be endorsed by a physician for virtually any health condition where benefits are expected; by 2015 >50,000 individuals were estimated to be enrolled in the program [9,10].…”

Loose regulation of medical marijuana programs associated with higher rates of adult marijuana use but not cannabis use disorder

“…This variable was characterized by (1) whether states had enacted a MML in a specific year, as determined through review of state policies by legal scholars, economists and policy analysts at RAND Corporation [12] and (2) whether the enacted MML included a medicalized or non-medical program as determined on a previous classification by Williams et al [5]. MMLs were categorized as a five-level, time-varying variable with the following levels (as indicated in Supporting information, Appendix S1): (1) before period for states with medicalized programs (before-med), (2) after period for states with medicalized programs (after-med), (3) before period for states with non-medical programs (before-non-med), (4) after period for states with non-medical programs (after-non-med) and (5) states never enacting MMLs before 2015 (no MML states).…”