Another day, another story about medical marijuana, right? While it seems like we discuss medical marijuana a lot in this blog, it’s fascinating how these stories relate to the medical, legal, and political aspects of this controversial form of treatment.
As is often the case, these recent developments relate to federal laws. As you probably know, marijuana is illegal under federal law, both recreationally and medically. Medical marijuana is legal in more than half of the fifty U.S. states (and Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam) and a growing number are making the drug legal for recreational use.
In fact, the U.S. federal government not only considers marijuana illegal, it classifies it as a Schedule I drug. That means that it doesn’t approve marijuana for any use, which seems to have made it more difficult for researchers to obtain it so they can study it.
Recent legal and political developments about medical marijuana seem rather contradictory. In 2016, a federal court made it illegal to use federal funds to fight state laws that have legalized the use of medical marijuana. In 2017, both houses of the U.S. Congress passed a provision that essentially said the same thing.
But that same year, in May 2017, U.S. president Donald Trump claimed that he will ignore this law. Many people believe that this might give permission for Trump’s attorney general Jeff Sessions to allow the Justice Department to prosecute more states for violating policies on marijuana.
Sessions has spoken out against many drugs, including marijuana, throughout his career as a senator and attorney general. As the leader of the Department of Justice, Sessions’s opinions can carry influence. Of course, whether he and others translate these opinions into actions remains to be seen.
Since President Trump took office in early 2017, are these opinions of a new administration trying to assert itself to the American people? To others around the world? Are these real opinions on real, longstanding beliefs? Again, time will tell. But these words are yet another example of how policies about drugs aren’t fixed and static, but could be reflections of governments and people who helped elect them.
