How Medical Marijuana Policies Reproduce the Status Quo

Public attitudes have dramatically transformed from stigmatization to acceptance of medical marijuana legalization. However, the federal government upholds its Schedule I Classification, preventing medical access and barring scientific research. States rapidly working towards the legalization of medical marijuana points to progressive future policies, but as long as the federal government fails to acknowledge marijuana’s medicinal properties and continues the War on Drugs, legal changes remain at a standstill. This paper uses the umbrella term conflict paradigm to incorporate common ideological tenets of conflict theories. In relation to medical marijuana legislation, the law is viewed as repressive via differential law enforcement. In addition, the law is not considered value-neutral in relation to economic accessibility seemingly skewed toward the wealthy. Lastly, the law functions as a tool for the powerful elite as noted through discarded scientific research and links to special interest groups. As illustrated by the conflict paradigm, racist legal prejudices, economic burdens, and the politicized federal hesitancy to legalize medical marijuana portray how current medical marijuana laws reproduce social hegemony. In utilizing this theoretical framework to evaluate Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Program, this review argues that without movement on the federal level, states’ medical marijuana policies will fail to provide relief to many vulnerable populations and reproduce social inequalities.