In November, Florida voters will consider a ballot initiative, Florida Amendment 3 (FL3), which would allow for the recreational use of marijuana within the state of Florida. Trump’s decision on this important initiative could, and likely will, reshape the cannabis landscape nationally, and that could be a very, very good thing.
Cannabis is a plant with several legal definitions associated with it. The psychoactive substance in cannabis is called tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. When referred to legally, cannabis containing more than 0.5% THC is called “marijuana.” Therefore, states that regulate “marijuana” are regulating cannabis plants with more than 0.5% THC by weight. Cannabis plants with less than 0.5% THC are legally designated as “hemp.” To complicate matters further, some states regulate marijuana as a medical solution, others as a recreational substance, and some do not regulate it at all. For the most part, hemp is unregulated. The 2018 Farm Bill, which Trump signed, shifted the regulation of hemp to state agricultural oversight. Most state agricultural departments have done very little to regulate hemp, and the regulations that have occurred are often knee-jerk and ill-conceived. For instance, the Governor of Missouri recently issued an executive order requiring all hemp to be sold in cannabis dispensaries in the state. This effectively places hemp under Missouri’s cannabis regulatory framework by executive fiat. One must wonder who advises these decisions.
The designations of “hemp,” “recreational or adult use,” and “medical” as applied to cannabis are ludicrous—it’s all just cannabis. You do not grow “medical” cannabis any differently than you grow “adult use” cannabis. I recently visited a very impressive grow facility in Michigan where they are cultivating adult use cannabis. I had to wear a Tyvek suit to enter their grow. No joke. I have been in “medical” marijuana grows that were not very “sterile,” but still produced very good product. The point is, while there are many simple to sophisticated ways to grow cannabis, it’s basically the same agricultural exercise whether you’re growing hemp, medical, or adult use cannabis. Further, making products from cannabis, like gummies or vape cartridges, is also regulated in most states. Should these regulations differ for “hemp” versus “marijuana” versus “adult use marijuana”? Most states are horribly overburdened trying to regulate one plant in several different ways. This seems silly and easy to fix, but it isn’t.
We also have the common tale of a state passing a “medical” marijuana law only to be overridden by an “adult use” law later. This leaves the state with two different regulatory infrastructures that basically do the same thing. Moreover, the “medical” aspects of cannabis have not been appropriately studied by any state agencies to date. Most state actions appear to be erosive, merely adding to the regulations. In most states that have passed medical marijuana laws, the incidence of opiate use and overdose has dropped dramatically. The abuse of other prescription drugs has also declined. Alcohol consumption has changed as well; while the jury is still out, it certainly looks like cannabis legalization is causing alcohol abuse to trend downward. Mental health outcomes appear to have improved but need to be studied more. Teen use has not increased. Medical cannabis is now accepted by over 88% of Americans.
Cannabis also represents one of the biggest disconnects between “we the people” and those we elect to govern us. Forty-five states have some form of cannabis laws. And yet Congress, year after year, fails to properly regulate cannabis in any form. Cannabis can only be studied as a medicine under very special circumstance. And because it is federally illegal and classified as a Schedule I narcotic, most University researchers will not work with it. The 2018 Farm Bill, which addressed hemp, kicked the regulatory can to the states, and this is probably where it belongs. However, the failure of the U.S. Congress to act at all, despite 45 states giving some form of cannabis a “thumbs up,” is a massive failure of democracy. One must question why Congressional representatives do not represent their districts on this issue.
If Donald Trump chooses to vote “yes” on FL #3, it will represent a “watershed” moment for cannabis in politics. No Republican, running for national office, that I can recall, has ever stated a positive position on cannabis and been elected. No Republican in Congress will even have a conversation about it—it is that verboten. So if Trump chooses to vote yes, I think it will unleash a groundswell of support not just for Trump but also for cannabis. Further, Trump voting yes would signal a willingness to study cannabis as a medicine, and this has to happen. Cannabis impacts the endocannabinoid system, which is a very important scientific and therapeutic area that needs deeper study. It functions above our central nervous system and is thought to be our master regulatory system. The study of this system would happen via grant dollars allocated to the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation, driven by the sitting administration.
A YES from Trump on FL3 would, for all practical purposes, end the black market for cannabis in Florida. The black market exists due to “need.” Some people in Florida do not qualify for the medical program yet would still like to use cannabis, so they buy it from the black market. Some patients feel that dispensaries charge too much, and usually, the black market has lower prices (but also variable quality). Making cannabis available to anyone over 21, that is safe, of high quality, and tested, would greatly shrink, if not effectively eliminate, the black market in Florida. It also puts cannabis, as a medicine, into the hands of patients who need it but could not qualify under the medical program.
Should Trump choose to vote yes on FL3, this could set the tone for how cannabis should and could be regulated. It will be a watershed moment and an opportunity to reshape policy in many states. In Oklahoma, we will petition the state with a potential law that would put all cannabis regulation and natural product regulation under one state agency. There is no need for a “hemp,” “medical,” and “adult use” separation anymore. This would greatly simplify Oklahoma’s regulatory situation and lessen both the cost and the administrative burden on the state. I would guess that other states will do the same, and in fact, some states may team up on common language. Cannabis needs to be reformed in every state that currently has laws. No one has this right yet. A YES from Trump will open the door for many states to begin reforming their programs.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2813866
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38650490
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6960330
https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/cannabis-overview
By Chip Paul
Chip is a endocannabinoid researcher and cannabis activist.
