Remove Politics from Cannabis Policies, and Approach Guidance through Science

Cannabis Legalization: A Political Divide?

As cannabis legalization or other widespread reform spreads rapidly through the country, the average follower of American politics would assume that cannabis legalization itself has become a political issue. To their credit, it would be a fair assumption, as significant support for cannabis reform has become quite present on both sides of the legislative aisle. While support for cannabis reform up to the federal level is nearly universal among Democrats, Republicans themselves have become a spectrum of support for cannabis reform. One such contradictory example is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vehemently opposing cannabis reform, while Ohio Congressman David Joyce is a co-chair for the Congressional Cannabis Caucus.

A Public Health-Based Critique of Cannabis Policy

Yet, a recently published paper from the American Journal of Public Health¹ is highlighting why cannabis policy should be created and legalized based on public health concerns and the science behind cannabis overconsumption and dependence as opposed to political moves and which politicians are quoting usually unfulfilled support for cannabis reform simply to gain votes. 

In the journal entry, researchers at the University at Buffalo criticized current American cannabis policy, not only for the economic approaches that legalization measures have taken but also the confusing and wildly differing cannabis laws across the states and even individual municipalities, accurately described as “a lack of federal guidelines and inconsistent state-based regulations present a challenge to core public health functions regarding cannabis.” 

The Case for Federal Standardization

A cited example in the introduction summary of previously enacted federal legislation that led to contradictory cannabis laws was the 2018 Farm Bill, which essentially decriminalized industrial hemp and CBD, yet kept the psychoactive cannabinoids illegal.

Given the wide diversity of cannabinoids in cannabis plants that can greatly range in quantity, this has led to many synthesized and almost synthetic cannabinoids such as THC-O and delta 8 products existing in a complicated legal gray area. Because of this legal confusion and the concerning fact that most of these cannabis byproducts are unregulated, states such as the strange legislative bedfellows that are Texas and California have both passed laws or upheld Supreme Court rulings to ban these byproducts.    

The Inconsistent Scheduling of Cannabis

Within the journal entry itself, the researchers mention how cannabis is inexplicably listed as the usually highly dangerous Schedule I status, which indicates there being no accepted medical usage of the drug, despite medical cannabis being allowed for a various list of qualifying conditions in the majority of the states.      

Interestingly though, the journal entry was also critical of anti-cannabis and greater anti-drug platforms and policies of yesteryear which focused on outright abstinence instead of public education about cannabis, such as Nancy Reagan’s infamously ineffective “Just Say No” campaign.   

However, the primary critique of the journal entry discussed the lack of proper focus on public health and safety issues that can and occasionally do arise from cannabis legalization; youth consumption, overconsumption of highly potent cannabis products like extracts and driving under the influence.

“Legalized cannabis is a freight train coming down the tracks and public health is going to get completely run over if it’s only set up, as the slogan goes, to ‘Just say no,” – Daniel J. Kruger, PhD, Research Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at UB.

He continued, “We are saying the field should move toward harm reduction and health promotion, using the tools with which public health practitioners are already familiar.”

In the journal entry, Dr. Kruger, who’s fittingly a researcher with UB’s Clinical and Research Institute on Addictions, and his fellow researchers created a social ecological model which evaluates the effects on human health and behavior of various types of cannabis products on a chemical level. Instead of concentrates or joints, the researchers broke the cannabis plant down into its organic cannabinoids, focusing for instance on the different impacts of THCA consumption versus THC-O.

In the thought provoking conclusion, the University of Buffalo researchers mention the wide spectrum of possibly present cannabinoids and how a different approach may be needed depending on the chemical characteristics and cannabinoid combination of each cultivated crop. 

Notably, the conclusion ends with directly addressing the need for uniform federal cannabis policies.   

“Each cannabinoid may require unique harm reduction strategies.” the UB researchers summarized. “Acknowledging the diversity of cannabis products is crucial for consumers to make informed choices, for policymakers to develop appropriate regulations, and for health care and public health professionals to provide accurate and informed guidance. Standardization of cannabis policies at the federal level in the United States would benefit consumers and promote safer and more effective usage of cannabis products.”

Study Reference:

^{1. Kruger, D. J., Bone, C. C. B., & Kruger, J. S. (2024). A social-ecological model for understanding cannabis risks and promoting harm reduction. American Journal of Public Health, 114(S8), S628–S630. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307742}