American Bar Association

Committee on Cannabis Law

Marijuana Law, Policy, and Authority

Making Preemption Less Palatable: State Poison Pill Legislation

Marijuana Localism

Marijuana Law, Policy, and Authority is a first-of-its-kind law school casebook in a rapidly-emerging and exciting new field. The accessible, comprehensive, and engaging material guides students through the competing approaches to regulating marijuana, the purposes and effects of those approaches, and the legal authorities for choosing among them. The helpful organization intersperses these issues of substantive law, policy, and authority throughout the discussion of users, suppliers, and third parties. Substantive law materials cover either prohibitions or regulations targeting users, suppliers, or third parties. Policy materials cover the goals of marijuana law and policy as well as the research on the impact of different marijuana policies. Authority materials address the different levels of government federal, state, and local. Notes, questions, and numerous problems in each chapter provide additional thought-provoking material and help to reinforce student learning. Current, news-headlining cases keep the discussion interesting and lively.  Key Features:   Internationally renowned author Robert Mikos is the premier authority on marijuana law. He draws upon nearly a decade of professional experience teaching, lecturing, consulting, and writing about marijuana law and policy. Three distinct but inter-woven topics are covered: the substantive law governing marijuana; the policy rationales behind and outcomes produced by different approaches to regulating the drug; and the legal authority to regulate the drug. Students are guided through the multi-faceted legal and policy issues now confronting lawyers, lawmakers, judges, and policy analysts working in this emerging field. Written in a style that is familiar to law students, but also accessible to a much broader audience, including graduate and upper level undergraduate students in courses in policy studies, political science, and criminology. Cutting-edge issues are included that are intellectually engaging for students and professors alike e.g., how are conflicts between state/ federal law resolved? What are the roles of courts and executive officers in terms of policy? Dives deeply into classic legal issues: contract enforceability and powers of court, Congress, and the state. Notes and Questions following cases offer stimulating fodder for discussion. 

Marijuana Law, Policy, and Authority (Aspen Casebook)

Vanderbilt is a dynamic center of research, learning and growth - a private research university of 6,300 undergrads and 5,300 grad/professional students.

Vanderbilt University

Robert Mikos is one of the nation’s leading experts on federalism and drug law. His most recent scholarship analyzes the struggle among federal, state, and local governments for control of marijuana law and policy, which includes a first-of-its-kind casebook, Marijuana Law, Policy, and Authority (Wolters Kluwer, 2017). In that vein, he has written, testified, and lectured on the states’ constitutional authority to legalize marijuana, federal preemption of state marijuana regulations, the political and budgetary considerations that limit enforcement of the federal marijuana ban, federal law’s influence on state regulation and taxation of the marijuana industry, and the desirability of marijuana localism. He has also written on the states’ constitutional authority to withhold information from the federal government, sanctuary cities, the political safeguards of federalism, accuracy in criminal sanctions, the economics of private precautions against crime, and remedies in private law. 

Mikos earned his J.D. summa cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School, where he served as articles editor on the Michigan Law Review and won numerous awards, including the Henry M. Bates Memorial Scholarship. After graduation, he was a law clerk for Chief Judge Michael Boudin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Mikos has taught at the University of California at Davis, where he was twice nominated for the school’s Distinguished Teaching Award, as well as at Notre Dame and the University of Michigan. He teaches courses in Federalism, Constitutional Law, Marijuana Law and Policy, Federal Criminal Law, and Drug Law and Policy.

Hemp Law

Sanctuary Cities

Opioid Abuse

Marijuana legalization

Marijuana Law and Policy

Federalism

Constitutional Law

Marijuana Law

Drug Laws

Pill Mills

Medical Marijuana

Cannabis Law

Faculty Page

Vanderbilt University News Profile

Colleges Ban Medical Marijuana Use, Even In States Where It Is Legal

Oregon Votes to Decriminalize All Drugs, Allow Psilocybin for Mental-Health Treatment

Medical Marijuana Loophole Case Headed To Arizona's Supreme Court

San Francisco Will Clear Thousands of Marijuana Convictions

Here Are The Proposed Laws That Could Protect Legal Pot in 2018

Forget Obamacare. Congress Should Repeal and Replace This Instead.

Ballot initiatives take the pulse of the nation

while-marijuana-will-soon-be-rescheduled-the-federal-governments-drug-scheduling-system-remains-tyrannical

Professor of Law

Earlier this year, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) announced that it would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), greatly reducing the restrictions on the drug. It represents a historic change in federal marijuana policy and a watershed moment for generations of activists that have sought legalization on a national level.

 While many advocates believe the shift bodes well for efforts to relax controls on other Schedule I drugs—including promising psychedelics like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD– Vanderbilt Law professor Robert Mikos argues that the marijuana rescheduling decision will not pave the way for rescheduling any other drug. Mikos explains that the decision preserves the barriers that make it virtually impossible to remove drugs from Schedule I. He labels those barriers the “tyrannies of scheduling.”

In his paper “Marijuana and the Tyrannies of Scheduling,” forthcoming in Fordham Law Review, Mikos lays out the core challenges posed by the existing scheduling process and offers a solution that would lead to “more rational scheduling decisions that better reflect the benefits and dangers of controlled substances, as Congress intended.”

The Role of Currently Accepted Medical Use in Scheduling Decisions The CSA creates five Schedules (I-V). Scheduling dictates how a drug is regulated under the statute. Schedule I drugs are subject to the most restrictive controls, and those controls are steadily relaxed as one moves down the schedules.

Congress made all the initial scheduling decisions when it passed the CSA in 1970, but it also empowered the DEA, working in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to reschedule drugs based on new information acquired after the passage of the statute. Agency scheduling decisions are supposed to be based on three core characteristics of a drug: its abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU). Unfortunately, these characteristics do not always suggest the same schedule for a drug. But as Mikos explains, the DEA has grossly simplified the scheduling process by suggesting that CAMU determinations should trump all other considerations. In particular, the agency has insisted that a drug with no CAMU must be placed on Schedule I, regardless of its abuse potential or dependence liability. According to Mikos, the DEA’s simplification of the scheduling process places tremendous weight on agency CAMU determinations and how the agency chooses to define this particular scheduling criteria.

The Tyranny of Science In the past, the DEA insisted that the only way to demonstrate that a drug has a CAMU was by completing multiple controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that a drug is effective at treating some medical indication, the same requirement for new drug approval under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

As Mikos has noted in his past work, completing such trials is “notoriously expensive and time-consuming,” requiring strict parameters and a large number of participants. The challenge is even more daunting for drugs already on Schedule I, because the CSA restricts research on such drugs. Due to regulatory restrictions, marijuana advocates have struggled to complete even a single RCT demonstrating marijuana’s medical efficacy. Indeed, in the past 50 years, only one Schedule I drug (Epidiolex) has ever been able to satisfy the DEA’s CAMU test, leading Mikos to label the agency’s science-focused approach the “Tyranny of Science.”

The Tyranny of the Majority In 2023, however, HHS devised an alternative CAMU test that emphasizes practical experience over scientific research. “Because more than 30,000 health care practitioners (HCPs) had already recommended the drug to their patients in the thirty-eight states with medical marijuana laws,” Mikos explains, “the agency concluded there was enough clinical experience to demonstrate that marijuana has a CAMU and thus could be rescheduled.”

But while this alternative test does not require completing RCTs – and thereby eliminates the Tyranny of Science – Mikos demonstrates that it is no less tyrannical than the DEA’s original CAMU test. According to Mikos, the alternative CAMU test simply “imposes a different form of tyranny: the Tyranny of the Majority.” He explains that to accumulate the clinical experience needed to satisfy the new test, advocates must convince popular majorities in a substantial number of states to legalize medical use of a drug. It took decades to build the public support necessary to do that for marijuana, and Mikos points out that no other Schedule I drug currently commands the same level of public support as marijuana. “Despite growing interest in the therapeutic value of [psychedelics, . . . less than a quarter of all Americans support legalizing psychedelics like psilocybin,” Mikos writes. “By comparison, 90% of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana.”

What is more, even if large numbers of states were to legalize medical use of a substance like psilocybin or MDMA, advocates will also have to convince large numbers of patients, their health care practitioners (HCPs), and their suppliers to risk federal sanctions in order to accumulate the clinical experience HHS demands to satisfy the new CAMU test.

“While marijuana was finally able to run the gauntlet, no other Schedule I is likely to replicate that feat anytime soon. Other promising Schedule I drugs like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD are likely to remain trapped on that schedule for the foreseeable future,” the paper states.

A New Way Forward Mikos argues that the agencies did not need to create a new CAMU test to reschedule marijuana. He suggests that the DEA has placed too much emphasis on CAMU in scheduling decisions. The DEA “has no authority, and no good reason, to hold (or place) a drug on Schedule I solely because the drug lacks a currently accepted medical use.” Indeed, Mikos suggests the agency’s emphasis on CAMU runs contrary to the text of the CSA and provides insufficient information about a drug’s benefits and risks to make sensible scheduling decisions.

Rather than propose yet another, less tyrannical CAMU test, Mikos suggests that the DEA should instead take a more flexible approach to scheduling, one that considers all 3 criteria – a drug’s abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether or not it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU)—to determine where a drug belongs among the statute’s five schedules.

“Although my approach would not make it any easier to demonstrate CAMU, it would reduce the dominant influence CAMU determinations now wield over scheduling decisions,” Mikos concludes. It would enable the agency to remove drugs like marijuana, psilocybin, or MDMA from Schedule I, even if they lack a currently accepted medical use, if their abuse potential and dependence liability so warrant. “As a result,” he notes, “my approach would foster more rational administrative scheduling decisions going forward.” 

While Marijuana Will Soon be Rescheduled, the Federal Government’s Drug Scheduling System Remains Tyrannical

marijuana-law-scholar-on-legalization-in-new-york

Robert Mikos, professor of law, is available for commentary on the legalization of recreational marijuana in New York.

Professor Mikos is one of the nation’s leading experts on federalism and drug law. His most recent scholarship analyzes the struggle among federal, state and local governments for control of marijuana law and policy, which includes a first-of-its-kind casebook, Marijuana Law, Policy, and Authority. He has written, testified and lectured on:
States’ constitutional authority to legalize marijuana Federal preemption of state marijuana regulations Political and budgetary considerations that limit enforcement of the federal marijuana ban Federal law’s influence on state regulation and taxation of the marijuana industry Desirability of marijuana localism 

Marijuana law scholar on legalization in New York

This is the FULL VERSION VIDEO of Professor Robert Mikos in the 1st Meeting of Tennessee's Medical Cannabis Task Force In Nashville 9 21 2017! On September 21st 2017, there were at least twelve guests and I’d like to start with the first one and describe who he was and what a great presentation he gave! Professor Robert Mikos, who got a degree in law from Vanderbilt University of Law, is one of the nation’s leading experts on federalism and drug law. He came to the meeting representing himself, not Vanderbilt, and he goes into his speech giving a good background on what the Drug Schedules are, and how they got onto the list in the first place. Plus, he talks more about how other drugs can and cannot be placed onto the official Drug Scheduled list, as well as moved around on list either. To learn more about him, go to https://law.vanderbilt.edu/bio/robert-mikos.

First speaker
Professor Robert Mikos
Vanderbilt University Of Law
https://law.vanderbilt.edu/bio/robert-mikos

Tennessee’s Medical Cannabis Task Force

Representative Jeremy Faison, R-Cosby
https://www.jeremyfaison4tn.com/
https://www.facebook.com/JeremyFaison4TN/

Senator Steven Dickerson, R-Nashville
http://votestevedickerson.com/
https://www.facebook.com/dickersonfors20/

Representative Bob Ramsey, R-Maryville
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/members/h20.html
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008383546224

Senator Rusty Crowe, R-Johnson City
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/members/s3.html
E-Mail : Sen.rusty.crowe@capitol.tn.gov

Senator Richard Briggs, R-Knoxville
http://www.briggsforsenate.com/
https://www.facebook.com/VoteBriggs/

Representative Sam Whitson, R-Franklin 
http://sam4staterep.com/
https://www.facebook.com/votesamwhitson/

Representative Sheila Butt, R-Columbia
http://www.sheilabutt.com/
https://www.facebook.com/SheilaButt4TN/

Senator Joey Hensley, R-Hohenwald
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Senate/members/s28.html
https://www.facebook.com/DrJoeyHensley

Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville
http://www.jeffyarbro.com/
https://www.facebook.com/jeff.yarbro/

Raumesh Akbari, D-Memphis
http://www.raumeshakbari.com/
https://www.facebook.com/repakbari/
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/members/h91.html

FULL VERSION VIDEO: Robert Mikos 1st Meeting of Tennessee's Medical Cannabis Task Force 9 21 2017

Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Robert Mikos, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, discusses the potential revenue implications if California legalizes marijuana.
     Mikos speaks from Nashville, Tennessee, with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television's "Fast Forward."  (Source: Bloomberg)

Mikos Says Pot Legalization May Not Raise Expected Funds

Source:
https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-3i7gz-9de3ec

As more and more states move to legalize marijuana, Is federal law making pot illegal just so much smoke?
Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Professor Robert Mikos to discuss marijuana law and policy. A Professor of law at Vanderbilt, Robert is a leading expert on federalism and drug law, specializing in marijuana law, and is the author of the first ever casebook on the subject, entitled Marijuana Law, Policy, and Authority.
In today’s episode, Aaron and Robert discuss a variety of topics relating to marijuana law, medical marijuana and the discrepancies that exist between State and Federal law on the subject. Considering there is still a federal ban on marijuana there are barriers that are imposed by the federal government that can make the issue of marijuana, both for medical and recreational use, difficult. Robert details the challenges that states (and D.C.) face as well as the legal maneuvers and loopholes that some states have resorted to and how successful they have been. Aaron and Robert also talk about the current administration, the D.O.J., the factors driving the increased acceptance of marijuana and marijuana polices, and the potential next states that may legalize marijuana for recreational use.
Robert first began teaching at the University of California Davis. Beginning his career as a federalism scholar, Robert was at UC Davis when Gonzalez v. Raich came before the Supreme Court. Robert explains that this is where his interest in the subject began as a portion of the Gonzalez case that was being considered was potentially going to be applied to the notion of medical marijuana. A graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, Robert has also taught at Notre Dame and the University of Michigan. He teaches courses in Federal Criminal Law, Drug Law and Policy, Marijuana Law and Policy, Constitutional Law, and Federalism.
Host: Aaron Freiwald
Guest: Robert Mikos
 
Follow Good Law | Bad Law:
YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law
Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw
Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

Good Law | Bad Law #104 - Is Anti-Cannabis Federal Law All Smoke? w/ Robert Mikos

Media Inquiry