#Generated by AL
It was only a matter of time. It’s not just our opioid laws that are a bona fide mess. Regulations regarding delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary active component of marijuana, are a chaotic patchwork of flawed, conflicting regulations, all but ensuring we’d face cases where the “science” is both contradictory and unfounded.
Perhaps nothing illustrates this better than the dysfunctional relationship between federal and state regulators regarding marijuana (cannabis). As of October 2024, 27 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. have decriminalized marijuana in some form, meaning that possession of small amounts of marijuana is treated as a civil infraction or a minor offense rather than a criminal one.
Yet, the DEA still (and ridiculously) classifies cannabis as a Schedule I (1) controlled substance, meaning that:
- It has a high potential for abuse.
- It has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S.
- There is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.
I defy you to name a universe in which a coherent explanation exists for the diametrically opposed state and federal policies.
Medical Marijuana vs. Horn goes to the Supreme Court
Largely due to the senseless nature of our marijuana regulations, the Supreme Court is now hearing the case of a truck driver, Douglas Horn, who is suing Medical Marijuana Inc. for selling a product called Dixie X, which the company advertised as “0% free THC” CBD. Horn’s wife purchased the product in 2012, hoping to control the severe pain following a trucking accident, but only after being reassured by the company that its claim was correct. It was anything but. The Horns, both truckers, were acutely aware that any indication of marijuana use would cost Mr. Horn his job.
Shortly thereafter, Horn failed a random drug test due to the presence of THC, which led to his immediate termination. This was particularly distressing given his long career with no prior drug use or failed tests. Horn determined that the THC could have only come from the CBD, so he ordered a second bottle and sent it to a lab where THC was detected. The Horns then began legal action against the company, claiming that its mislabeled product cost him their livelihoods, and sought a significant settlement (2).
The case before the Supreme Court is more subtle than the obvious disconnect between Federal and State laws, but in some ways, it is just as important. Why? At the heart of the case is the sticky problem of the detection of THC and the absence of any way to determine where the THC came from, when it was consumed, and whether it could have impaired his driving.
Because of the high-stakes nature of the Horns’ occupation, federal law—and their employer— required the Horns to undergo random drug tests… Neither of the Horns had used marijuana in their adult lives
Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court under Docket No. 23-365.
The issue of THC-impaired driving is not new. In 2023, Dr. Henry Miller and I published a piece in the journal Law360 about the impossibility of 1) measuring THC and determining when it was consumed, 2) defining the blood levels of the drug that would represent impairment, and 3) determining whether any THC detected resulted from the use of marijuana or CBD oil. The latter is legal under the 2018 Farm Bill, provided that it is made from hemp and contains less than 0.3% THC.
Why marijuana science fails
Read more at https://www.acsh.org/news/2024/10/21/supreme-court-thc-case-highlights-our-flawed-drug-laws-49062
