By Joanna R. Lampe

Federal law generally prohibits the production, distribution, and possession of marijuana for both medical
and recreational purposes. In April 2024, news outlets reported that the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) planned to change the status of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by moving
it from Schedule I to the less restrictive Schedule III. Such a move would relax some controls over
marijuana but would not immediately legalize medical or recreational use of marijuana under the CSA.
Notwithstanding the strict federal control of marijuana, in recent years, many states have repealed state
law criminal prohibitions on some marijuana-related activities, and medical and recreational cannabis
businesses now operate openly in some parts of the United States.
In response to the disparity between state and federal law, Congress has enacted appropriations legislation
prohibiting the Department of Justice (DOJ) from expending appropriated funds to prevent states from
implementing their own medical marijuana laws. Federal courts have interpreted the appropriations rider
to prohibit DOJ from bringing criminal drug prosecutions against certain persons and entities involved in
the state-legal medical marijuana industry, but they have differed as to the scope of conduct the rider
shields from prosecution.
This Legal Sidebar first outlines the legal status of marijuana under federal and state law. It then discusses
the medical marijuana appropriations rider and analyzes how federal courts have interpreted the
provision. The Sidebar closes with key considerations for Congress related to the appropriations rider and
the disparity between federal and state marijuana policy more generally.
Federal and State Marijuana Regulation
The plant Cannabis sativa L. and products derived from that plant have a number of uses and may be
subject to several overlapping legal regimes. In recent years, a significant divide has developed between
federal and state marijuana laws. On the federal side, the CSA imposes stringent regulations on the
cannabis plant and many of its derivatives. Activities involving controlled substances not authorized
under the CSA are federal crimes that may give rise to large fines and significant prison sentences.
Unless an exception applies, the CSA classifies cannabis and its derivatives as marijuana. Congress
classified marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance when it enacted the CSA, reflecting a legislative

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2024. 5p.

By Rebecca Tiger

The number of people incarcerated in the U.S. now exceeds 2.3 million, due in part to the increasing criminalization of drug use: over 25% of people incarcerated in jails and prisons are there for drug offenses. Judging Addicts examines this increased criminalization of drugs and the medicalization of addiction in the U.S. by focusing on drug courts, where defendants are sent to drug treatment instead of prison. Rebecca Tiger explores how advocates of these courts make their case for what they call “enlightened coercion,” detailing how they use medical theories of addiction to justify increased criminal justice oversight of defendants who, through this process, are defined as both “sick” and “bad.” Tiger shows how these courts fuse punitive and therapeutic approaches to drug use in the name of a “progressive” and “enlightened” approach to addiction. She critiques the medicalization of drug users, showing how the disease designation can complement, rather than contradict, punitive approaches, demonstrating that these courts are neither unprecedented nor unique, and that they contain great potential to expand punitive control over drug users. Tiger argues that the medicalization of addiction has done little to stem the punishment of drug users because of a key conceptual overlap in the medical and punitive approaches—that habitual drug use is a problem that needs to be fixed through sobriety. Judging Addicts presses policymakers to implement humane responses to persistent substance use that remove its control entirely from the criminal justice system and ultimately explores the nature of crime and punishment in the U.S. today.

New York; London: NYU Press,  2012

by Stephen Whitehead and Carolyn Lipp

Family Drug and Alcohol Courts provide a therapeutic, problem-solving court approach to care proceedings for parents with drug or alcohol problems which often co-occur with trauma, domestic abuse and mental health illnesses.

Marking 15 years since their establishment, this paper provides an overview of the existing research regarding Family Drug and Alcohol Courts, with findings providing a strong case for additional investment to expand these courts across England and Wales.

Many of the families involved in care proceedings have multiple and complex needs. For example, drug and alcohol use is a major factor in nearly two-thirds of the cases in which a local authority is initiating care proceedings due to suspected child abuse or neglect.1 Moreover, some parents are repeatedly brought back in front of the courts with their subsequent children removed and put into state care (called recurrent care proceedings), with recent research suggesting that approximately 1 in 3 care applications are made regarding a mother who has already had previous children removed from their care.2 Family Drug and Alcohol Courts (FDACs) try and break these patterns, providing parents with access to intensive treatment and support, while the court regularly reviews their progress. The primary aim of FDAC is to improve outcomes for children and families, ensuring that children can either live safely with parents at the end of care proceedings (reunification) or, where reunification is not possible, have the best chance for permanency and stability outside the family home. Since the first FDAC pilot site opened in 2008, the model has been of significant interest to researchers. The initial pilot was the subject of a robust quasi-experimental outcomes evaluation3 which was later revisited to review long-term outcomes for FDAC families.4 Beyond this, there have been two mixed-methodology studies of local sites5 and a number of qualitative studies seeking to understand the functioning of the FDAC model.6 Most recently, Foundations, the Government what works centre for children’s social care, published a major national evaluation of FDAC, conducted by Natcen, which compared all cases from 14 FDAC sites with a matched comparison group, in the most comprehensive study of the model to date. Outside of the UK, the US Family Drug Treatment Court model, of which FDAC is an offshoot,-has been the subject of extensive outcomes research which was brought together in a meta-analysis in 2019.7

London: Centre for Court Innovation, 2023. 8p.

By Don Weatherburn, Steve Yeong, Suzanne Poynton, Nikky Jones and Michael Farrell

The Drug Court has been in operation in New South Wales since 1999. It is reserved for drug dependant individuals residing in Western or South Western Sydney who have (or intend to) plead guilty to a non-violent summary offence and are likely to receive a prison sentence. Participation in the Drug Court involves intensive supervision and monitoring by the court, frequent drug testing, sanctioning for non-compliance and treatment for drug dependency. The current study extends an earlier evaluation of the NSW Drug Court undertaken by Weatherburn et al. (2008). It aims to assess whether the Drug Court has any long-term positive effect on re-offending. Specifically, it compares individuals accepted into the Drug Court with individuals referred to but not accepted onto the program across five outcomes:
1. Time to first new offence of any type;
2. Time to first new person offence;
3. Time to first new property offence;
4. Time to first new drug offence;
5. Total number of reconvictions after referral to the Drug Court.

Sydney:  NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2020. 16p.

By Saba Rouhani, Catherine Tomko,  Noelle P. Weicker, Susan G. Sherman 

 In March 2020, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced that drug and paraphernalia possession as well as prostitution would no longer be prosecuted in Baltimore City. • In the 14-month period following the policy change, we observed significant declines in arrests for drug and paraphernalia possession as well as prostitution, as reported by both the Baltimore Police Department and the State’s Attorney’s Office. Using Baltimore Police Department-reported arrest data, we estimated that 443 drug and paraphernalia possession arrests were averted in the 14-month period following the policy change, the majority (78%) of which were averted among Black individuals. • Using Maryland Courts Judicial Information Systems arrest data, we found an extremely low prevalence of rearrests for serious crimes, such as robbery and assault, in the 14-month period following the policy change: 0.8 percent, or six of the 741 individuals whose drug and prostitution charges were dropped. This suggests that the vast majority of direct beneficiaries of the policy change did not go on to commit crimes threatening public safety. • There was no evidence of an increase in public complaints pertaining to drugs or prostitution, measured by 911 calls made in Baltimore City, following the policy change. • Though causality cannot be established, these preliminary findings suggest that declining to prosecute low level drug and prostitution offenses may avert arrests among individuals with intersecting vulnerabilities without posing a threat to public safety or resulting in increased public complaints. Ensuring that these individuals can access health and social service instead of criminal punishment is a public health priority.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health ,  Department of Health, Behavior and Society:  2023. 21p. 

By Jarred Williams

As one component of the Strengthening the Foundation – A Researcher and Practitioner Partnership project funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, this research brief provides a snapshot of the existing evidence base behind the adult drug court model, while also identifying potential areas of interest to seed the next generation of drug court research. Our findings document the data-driven successes of the drug court model, the evidence-based mechanisms that are associated with positive participant outcomes, and lastly, our recommendations for future research. Continuing to seek answers through rigorous study will open up exciting avenues for future research and programming to continue to provide the best possible treatment for participants. 

New York: Center for Justice Innovation, 2023. 16p.