Abstract
In 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) outlawed cannabis in the United States. Since then, advocates have petitioned to have cannabis rescheduled in a less restrictive manner and sixteen states have decriminalized cannabis for approved medical use. This thesis seeks to explain why certain federal organizations have oppositional policy positions on medical cannabis. It questions the common opinion that the conflict over medical cannabis is either a disagreement over scientific facts or a clash between political motivated actors. Instead, it examines motivations of the federal executive organizations tasked with oversight of the CSA in an attempt to understand their policy position on cannabis. More specifically, this thesis focuses on the policy position on medical cannabis of three organizations: The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). By examining key documents from each organization, I conclude that the DEA and NIDA support the current Schedule I status of cannabis and the NIH questions this status by determining that cannabis has medical efficacy. I further conclude that the DEA and NIDA demonstrate a paternalistic worldview toward the legal ability to use cannabis as medicine, while the NIH supports the autonomous use of cannabis as medicine provided that a reasoned attempt is made to determine if cannabis use is appropriate. The ethical position of the DEA and NIDA could explain why these organizations do not support the rescheduling of cannabis and why they will likely oppose future rescheduling attempts. It also has implications for what might be required to change federal policy in this area.