State Property: The People vs. The DEA
Drug Enforcement Administration Seal
Cannabis laws in the U.S. are changing fast, impacting everything from federal policies to state regulations. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has a significant role in these shifts, especially with new leadership steering cannabis rules in a fresh direction. To really understand the current situation, it’s important to look back at the history of cannabis prohibition, the effects of the War on Drugs, and recent changes in policy. Let’s take a (bad) trip down memory lane, shall we?
Back in the early 1900s, cannabis was pretty much legal and widely used in the U.S., much to the government’s frustration. However, the 1930s saw a rise in anti-cannabis propaganda fueled by racial and political biases, leading to its criminalization via the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. This law unfairly targeted communities of color, associating cannabis use with crime without any scientific backing. Then, in 1970, the Controlled Substances Act classified cannabis as a Schedule I drug, putting it in the same category as heroin and LSD, which reinforced harsh penalties despite increasing medical research that supported its benefits.
The War on Drugs, launched by President Nixon in 1971 and expanded under President Reagan in the 1980s, was framed as a public safety measure but disproportionately impacted Black and Latino communities. Reagan’s policies, influenced by the “tough on crime” era, led to mass incarceration for non-violent drug offenses, particularly cannabis-related crimes. The rhetoric of the time, fueled by Reaganomics, emphasized law enforcement crackdowns over public health solutions, ignoring emerging research on cannabis’s medicinal potential.
Fast forward to President Biden’s administration, where efforts to reform cannabis laws gained momentum. Biden’s focus on decriminalization and possible rescheduling of cannabis under federal law marked a significant shift from past administrations. His push for research and medical studies led to the expansion of state-level medical cannabis programs and a review of federal classifications. The 2024 Farm Bill extension maintained existing hemp regulations but left room for future modifications that could further support cannabis-related industries. These changes reflected a move towards evidence-based policymaking, but the political landscape remained divided.
DEA Administrator Derek S. Maltz
With the election of Donald Trump in 2024 and the appointment of Derek S. Maltz as the new head of the DEA, the direction of cannabis policy shifted again. Maltz, a strong opponent of cannabis reform, has echoed Reagan-era sentiments, arguing that marijuana is a gateway drug linked to mental health issues. His stance has already affected federal enforcement priorities, with a renewed focus on stricter regulations and potential rollbacks of state-level protections. This approach starkly contrasts with the progressive strides made under Biden and places cannabis reform at a crossroads.
The impact of these federal shifts trickles down to states, shaping how cannabis programs evolve. In D.C., the i-71 gifting market is being phased out as of March 31st because the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) set a deadline for unlicensed shops to transition to the legal market, following raids & closures of non-compliant businesses. Further south, Texas is pushing for stricter THC regulations with Senate Bill 3 (SB3), which aims to ban all THC products, leaving only CBD and CBG available, with a special session expected if the House does not act. That bill passed on March 19th but is still awaiting approval. In Georgia, Senate Bill 33 (SB33) seeks to ban THC-infused beverages and impose new restrictions on cannabinoids like delta-8 and delta-10 THC, reflecting the state's cautious stance on cannabis regulation. Meanwhile, on the brink of adult-use legalization while losing millions in revenue from waves of consumers heading across state lines, Pennsylvania may face challenges aligning state ambitions with federal uncertainty.
A historical comparison between Maltz and Terrence C. “Terry” Cole, DEA official & presidential nominee to be the next Administrator of the DEA, shows a very different set of perspectives and mirrors the ideological divide seen during the Reagan era. While Maltz’s views align with Reagan’s anti-drug policies, Cole represents a more modern, research-based approach. His focus on scientific evidence and harm reduction strategies aligns with the growing push for cannabis reform based on facts rather than fear-driven rhetoric. The contrast between these two figures highlights the ongoing debate over whether cannabis policy should be guided by outdated moral arguments or emerging medical research.
Terrence C. “Terry” Cole & President Donald Trump
Looking ahead, the role of science in cannabis reform is more critical than ever. Leaders like Terry Cole, who emphasize research, data, and factual policy-making, could be key in pushing the U.S. toward a more balanced and informed approach. His belief in studying cannabis’s medical potential and economic benefits offers a path forward that moves beyond the political tug-of-war. If the nation embraces a science-driven approach, it could usher in a new era of cannabis legislation that prioritizes public health, economic opportunity, and social justice over antiquated prohibitionist policies & the war on melanin.