The Evolving Federal Response to State Marijuana Reforms
I have just posted a new article discussing how the federal government’s response to state marijuana reforms has evolved over the past 23 years (and through 4 presidential administrations). Readers might be especially interested in the last section of the article, where I discuss how the federal response to state reforms is likely to change in the near future (to what I call Capitulation).
The article is based on the keynote lecture I gave at a recent symposium at the University of Delaware Law School. It will be published soon in the Widener Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
The states have launched a revolution in marijuana policy, creating a wide gap between state and federal marijuana law. While nearly every state has legalized marijuana in at least some circumstances, federal law continues to ban the substance outright. Nonetheless, the federal response to state reforms has been anything but static during this revolution. This Essay, based on my Distinguished Speaker Lecture at Delaware Law School, examines how the federal response to state marijuana reforms has evolved over time, from War, to Partial Truce, and, next (possibly) to Capitulation. It also illuminates the ways in which this shifting federal response has alternately constrained and liberated states as they seek to regulate marijuana as they deem fit.
And here is the link to the full article on SSRN:
Robert A. Mikos, The Evolving Federal Response to State Marijuana Reforms, 25 Widener L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2019).