Words Can Be Deceiving: A Review of Variation among Legally Effective Medical Marijuana Laws in the United States

Rosalie L. Pacula 1 , Anne E. Boustead 2 , and Priscillia Hunt 1
  • 1 RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St., Santa Monica, CA 90407, USA
  • 2 Pardee RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, CA 90407, USA
Rosalie L. Pacula, Anne E. Boustead and Priscillia Hunt

Abstract

When voters in two US states approved the recreational use of marijuana in 2012, public debates for how best to promote and protect public health and safety started drawing implications from states’ medical marijuana laws (MMLs). However, many of the discussions were simplified to the notion that states either have an MML or do not; little reference was made to the fact that legal provisions differ across states. This study seeks to clarify the characteristics of state MMLs in place since 1990 that are most relevant to consumers/patients and categorizes those aspects most likely to affect the prevalence of use, and consequently the intensity of public health and welfare effects. Evidence shows treating MMLs as homogeneous across states is misleading and does not reflect the reality of MML making. This variation likely has implications for use and health outcomes, and thus states’ public health.

  • ADS. 1996. “1996 Ballot Propositions: Your Future, Your Choice,” Arizona Department of State. [online]. http://www.azsos.gov/election/1996/General/1996BallotPropsText.htm.

    • Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ASA. 2013. The Medical Cannabis Advocate’s Handbook 2013. Washington, DC: American for Safe Access.

  • B18-622 (D.C. 2010).

  • Conant v. Walters, 309 F.2d 629, 632 (9th Cir. 2002).

  • Lipscomb, D. 2009. “D.C. Officials Cautious on Legal Marijuana,The Washington Times, December 10. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/10/council-cautious-on-legal-marijuana/.

    • Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McCaffrey, B. 1996. “The Administration’s Response to the Passage of California Proposition 215 and Arizona Proposition 200,” Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC.

    • Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MPP. 2011a. Model Medical Marijuana Bill. Washington, DC: Marijuana Policy Project.

  • MPP. 2011b. State-by-State Medical Marijuana Laws. Washington, DC: Marijuana Policy Project.

  • NCSL. 2013. “State Medical Marijuana Laws,” National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, CO. [online]. Accessed September 2013. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Office For Medicinal Cannabis [online]. Accessed May 21, 2013. http://www.cannabisbureau.nl/en/.

  • S.B. 420 (Cal. 2003).

  • S.B. 308 (Md. 2012).

  • S.B. 423 (Mont. 2011).

  • S.B. 5073 (Wash. 2012).

  • S.B. 76 (Vt. 2004).

  • State v. McQueen, 828 N.W.2d 644, 647–8 (Mich. 2013).

  • State v. McQueen, 811 N.W. 2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Search