The document discusses the history and current status of marijuana laws in the United States. It outlines how marijuana became a Schedule I drug under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, but many states have since legalized medical or recreational marijuana despite it remaining illegal at the federal level. There is an ongoing debate around reforming federal laws, with proponents arguing prohibition has failed to reduce use and disproportionately impacts minorities, while others fear increased substance abuse. Suggestions for reform include descheduling marijuana, allowing research, and regulating it similarly to alcohol.

1. Overview
n recent years, the attitudes surrounding the marijuana
prohibition have been of topic, and as new research
emerges, a movement towards legalization has begun.
More states have begun to create their own legislation for
the substance. Currently, the federal law known as the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 still classifies
marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning it is considered
to have a high potential for abuse, and no currently
accepted medical uses in
the United States.
However, current research
states that marijuana has
medicinal properties, that
are useful in treating many
different chronic illnesses,
diseases and symptoms.
The 2016 Democratic
presidential candidate
Bernie Sanders has a bill in
motion to end the federal
prohibition on marijuana
and to allow U.S. states to create their own laws regarding
the sale and distribution of the substance. Efforts to
maintain the prohibition have been largely unsuccessful as
they rely on arrest, incarceration, and seizure of private
property (Beckett & Herbert, 2009) and are
disproportionately imposed on African Americans, thus
creating greater racial issues, exacerbating America’s
racial inequality, and further impeding lower-income
communities across the nation. The National Organization
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) reports that
since 1965, there have been over 20 million Americans
arrested for marijuana offenses. U.S. states have begun to
experiment with decriminalization, and recreational and
medicinal legalization of the substance, but remain at risk
of federal penalties for the cultivation, possession and
distribution of the substance as the law currently stands.
Proponents of change hope to continue to see decreased
incarceration rates, while opposers fear increased
substance abuse issues and health risks. Regardless of the
perspective, there is truth behind the fact that the
prohibition on marijuana has been ineffective in reducing
use and health risks. Thus, there is increased support for
legal availability of marijuana in the United States and
many, including NORML, believe that the time has come
to amend criminal prohibition and replace it with a system
of legalization, taxation, regulation, and education.
1970 Controlled Substances Act
An important piece of the drug history that is connected to
the current issues surrounding the legalization or
decriminalization of marijuana is the Controlled
Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Originally a “flexible” and
“innovative” piece of legislation, overtime and many
amendments later, was molded into a punitive drug law
that affected the standing of cannabis (Courtwright, 2004,
p. 9). U.S. Congress amendments were largely attributed
to the increased panic surrounding continuous drug
epidemics and the beginning of the drug war. In time, the
CSA (1970) became the “legal foundation of America’s
drug war” (2004, p. 9) and gave the DEA greater control
over not only scheduling, but the maintenance and ability
to increase the penalties for illicit trafficking. The current
punishment-based policy affects the number of arrests and
costs the country greatly on micro, meso and macro levels.
The CSA (1970) divides various plants, drugs, and
chemicals like psychotropic substances into one of five
schedules based on the substance’s medical use, potential
I
Changing the Federal Prohibition of Cannabis
Policy Brief: Marijuana & the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970
“Unless something
happens to reverse the
trend in public opinion,
it seems more likely
than not that the federal
law will change to
make cannabis legally
available at some point
in the next two
decades.” – Mark
Kleiman
Written by: Emma Nagle, New York University, April 19, 2016

2. for abuse, and safety or dependence liability (“Marijuana
and the Controlled Substances Act,” 2014).
Schedule I was reserved for those drugs or other
substances that have a high potential for abuse, no
currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United
States and a lack of accepted safety for use of the
substances under medical supervision. All schedules
following Schedule I are considered to be less dangerous
to some degree. Schedule I consists of some common
drugs known as heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD),
marijuana (cannabis), peyote, methaqualone, and 3,4-
methylenedioxy -methamphetamine (Ecstasy). Schedule
V on the other hand, includes drugs or other substances
that have the lowest potential for abuse, have currently
accepted medical uses in treatment in the U.S., and abuse
of the drugs may lead to limited physical dependence or
psychological dependence and have limited amounts of
narcotics in them and include common cold medicines.
Current Policy Issues
Although states have passed legislation to decriminalize,
legalize medicinal uses of marijuana, and legalize
recreational use, the Federal law still prohibits the use,
production, possession, sale and distribution due to the
CSA (1970). To maintain some regulation over marijuana
within states, guidelines have been put in place. Caulkins
et al. (2014) recites the eight federal enforcement priorities
that must be followed to keep the Department of Justice’s
continued toleration of state-legal marijuana activities
including the prevention of: distribution to minors,
enrichment of gangs and criminal enterprises, diversion to
other states, dealing other drugs, violence or use of
weapons, drugged driving and exacerbation of other
public health consequences associated with marijuana use,
growing marijuana on federal land or in federal reserves,
and possession on federal property (p. 3). The problem
with the state law and Federal law conflict is that any
administration could withdraw the above guidelines
meaning authorities would be able to arrest and prosecute
any and all participants in the marijuana industry.
Medical Marijuana
Additionally, the process of prescribing and receiving
marijuana for medical use has been made complicated.
Doctors trained in medicinal uses of marijuana are unable
to prescribe medical marijuana due to its current status as
a Schedule I substance and must recommend treatment. As
of now medicinal marijuana is an accepted treatment for
qualifying diagnosed medical conditions, varying by state,
Source: CSA (1970)
Source: CNN, 2015

3. and include chronic pain, nausea, spasticity, glaucoma,
and movement disorders. NORML suggests that further
research would allow new information on the marijuana’s
possible protection against some types of malignant
tumors, and “neuroprotective” properties.
The amount of marijuana possessed for medicinal
purposes is also restricted, typically limited to less than
three ounces. Statues also do not allow patients to use their
product in public.
Failure of the Prohibition
Beckett and Herbert (2009) point out that the overall the
goal of marijuana prohibition and regulation, to eliminate
use, has not been achieved, stating that, “despite recent
increases in marijuana arrests, the price of marijuana has
dropped; its average potency has increased; it has become
more readily available; and marijuana use rates have often
increased during the decade of increasing arrests” (p. iv).
U.S. News’ Morgan Fox concurs, commenting on the fact
that the threat of arrest, even in states with significant
penalties for possession, does not deter users, and has not
altered rates of use.
Additionally, African American users are targeted
disproportionately to White Americans, further
segregating populations and continuing the cycle of
poverty within minority groups and low-income
communities.
Efforts for Policy Reform
In 1972, the National Organization for Reform of
Marijuana Laws (NORML) petitioned for the
rescheduling of marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule
II drug. After years of court challenges, the petition was
eventually denied in 1986 despite the acknowledgement
from a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young that
marijuana was in fact “one of the safest, therapeutically
active substances.”
The reclassification of marijuana could be beneficial in
that it would allow for scientific research on the substance,
but not enough to protect against current medical
marijuana programs, recreational use, or change federal
penalties and interference. The Drug Policy Alliance
(DPA) also notes that reclassifying marijuana does not
mean that the DEA or National Institute on Drug Abuse
(NIDA) would approve the amount of research necessary,
and argues that it is not rescheduling, but de-scheduling, a
full removal from the controlled substances list, that is
needed to make proper reforms. (In 2010, Oregon
rescheduled marijuana at the state level). A de-scheduling
of marijuana would allow scientific research and give
doctors the ability to prescribe medical marijuana.
The DPA believes that patients must have safe and
immediate access to medical marijuana. This includes
cultivation in one’s own home and that existing state
medical marijuana programs, like those with functioning
dispensaries, must be protected. Furthermore, the alliance
“In strict medical terms, marijuana is far
safer than many of the foods we commonly
consume.” – Judge Francis L. Young
Source: Wikipedia, 2016
Source: Bernie Quotes, 2016

4. promotes the elimination of all barriers to marijuana
research that marijuana is of should be regulated similarly
to alcohol. States like Colorado and Washington, which
have decided to legalize marijuana for adult recreational
use, should be allowed to do so without federal
interference.
Suggestions for Policy Reform
Mark Kleiman of the Washington Monthly makes a few
suggestions on how to control the consequences if
marijuana is to become legally available - the first being
cost. He believes that to avoid a large escalation in heavy
marijuana use, policies must be put in place to keep
pricing for the drug about where it is currently by utilizing
taxes. Caulkins et al. (2015) stress the need for
policymakers to determine how, and at what stage of
production, taxes will be collected and to “determine the
base—the measuring stick, such as price or weight—for
any tax” (p. 7).
Kleiman suggests limiting the supply, similar to current
regulation in Colorado and Washington, in which there are
production limits on growers.
Requiring testing and labeling of chemical content,
outreach prevention via education on safer use, and point-
of-sale communication are also beneficial tactics.
Critiquing current policies, like the fact that in Colorado
and Washington sales agents have no professional
obligation to communicate or promote safer use, we can
better inform future Federal policy. Furthermore, by
looking at policies elsewhere, such as Uruguay, which
recently became the first nation to legalize marijuana, we
can examine useful policies. For example, Uruguay differs
from Colorado and Washington policies on professional
distribution and promoting safer use by requiring cannabis
vendors to be registered pharmacists.
Conclusion
As of now, the Federal Prohibition on Marijuana has
proved ineffective in dealing with cannabis sales and use
and has caused the United States to lean toward major
reform of policies and many organizations as well as
political officials including Bernie Sanders are pushing for
change. Kleiman states, “Unless something happens to
reverse the trend in public opinion, it seems more likely
than not that the federal law will change to make cannabis
legally available at some point in the next two decades.”
Ending the prohibition would allow marijuana to be
regulated, and create a boost in revenue for the country.
Additionally, legalization of medical marijuana has the
potential to help those who are suffering nation-wide with
debilitating medical problems. De-scheduling of the drug
would help to generate more time for law enforcement to
dedicate to other criminal activity. Lastly, a change in laws
has the ability to interfere with illegal drug traders due to
the substance’s decrease in profitability and in turn, could
decrease violence associated with drug crimes and trade.
By looking at what U.S. states and other countries have
done successfully and unsuccessfully in terms of
decriminalization and legalization, new federal policies
can begin to be developed.
References
“A Look at U.S. Marijuana Laws.” (April 30, 2015). CNN
Politics. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/
2014/01/politics/map-marijuana/
Beckett, K., and Herbert, S. (2009). The Consequences and
Costs of Marijuana Prohibition. American Civil Liberties Union
of University of Washington: Seattle, WA.
“Bernie Quotes for a Better World: War on Drugs.” (2016).
Retrieved from:
http://www.betterworld.net/quotes/bernie/bernie39.htm
Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., Kleiman, M. A., MAcCoun, R. J.,
Midgette, G., Oglesby, P., Pacula, R. L., and Reuter, P. H.
(2015). Options and issues regarding marijuana legalization.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

5. Controlled Substance Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91- 513, 84 Stat
1242, 21 C.F.R. §§ 1308.11-1308.15 (1970).
“Drug Classifications, Schedules I, II, III, IV, V.” (2014).
Retrieved from: http://medshadow.org/drug-classifications-
schedule-ii-iii-iv-v/
Fox, Morgan. (2012, October 30). “Stop Wasting Time
Pretending Marijuana Prohibition Works.” U.S. News.
Retrieved from: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-
marijuana-use-be-legalized/stop-wasting-time-pretending-
marijuana-prohibition-works
Kleiman, Mark. (2014, May). “How Not to Make a Hash out of
Cannabis Legalization.” Washington Monthly. Retrieved from:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/
march_april_may_2014/features/how_not_to_make_a_hash_o
ut_of049291.php?page=all
“Marijuana and the Controlled Substances Act: Federal
Marijuana Penalties and State Developments.” (2014).
Congressional Digest.
Marijuana Policy Project. (2015) . Bernie Sanders Introduces
Bill in Senate to End Federal Marijuana Prohibition [Press
Release]. Retrieved from:
https://www.mpp.org/news/press/bernie-sanders-introduces-
bill-in-senate-to-end-federal-marijuana-prohibition/
“Marijuana Timeline.” (2014). Frontline PBS. Retrieved from:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.
html
“Medical Cannabis in the United States.” (2015). Wikipedia.
Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_c
annabis_in_the_United_States
“Removing Marijuana From the Controlled Substances Act.”
(2013, May). Drug Policy Alliance. Retrieved from:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact%20sh
eet_Marijuana%20Reclassification_May%202013.pdf
Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act
(1970). §812 U.S.C. Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811
et seq.)
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/812.htm