Skip to main content
Article
The Consequences of Fickle Federal Policy: Administrative Hurdles for State Cannabis Policies
State and Local Government Review
  • Daniel J. Mallinson
  • A. Lee Hannah, Wright State University - Main Campus
  • Gideon Cunningham
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
12-1-2020
Identifier/URL
97121871 (Orcid)
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 medical 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 protections. 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.

DOI
10.1177/0160323x20984540
Citation Information
Daniel J. Mallinson, A. Lee Hannah and Gideon Cunningham. "The Consequences of Fickle Federal Policy: Administrative Hurdles for State Cannabis Policies" State and Local Government Review Vol. 52 Iss. 4 (2020) p. 241 - 254 ISSN: 0160-323x
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/a_hannah/15/