# An Analysis of the CDC’s Role in Cannabis Regulation

**By Pat Anson**

In light of recent controversies surrounding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), many individuals are likely to harbor skepticism regarding its recommendations and regulatory capabilities, especially regarding the ongoing discourse surrounding cannabis. If you believe the CDC mishandled its response to COVID-19 tests and inaccurately informed the public about opioid pain medication risks, then you might find it concerning that a federal advisory panel is now advocating for a more expansive role for the CDC in cannabis policy.

## NASEM’s Recommendations for the CDC

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has presented a proposal urging the CDC to increase its involvement in shaping federal cannabis policies. This initiative includes expanding the agency’s efforts on monitoring cannabis use and developing “best practices” that states should adopt in their regulatory frameworks. The aim is to establish guidelines akin to those previously developed for opioid prescriptions. However, this proposal extends much further, proposing a comprehensive model for cannabis regulation.

“It is imperative that the guidelines cover a wide range of areas including marketing restrictions, age limitations, operational constraints on physical retail spaces, taxation policies, pricing limitations, product design considerations, and measures to significantly restrict youth access to cannabis products,” NASEM emphasized in its recently released 312-page report. The ultimate goal is to implement these best practices into model legislation that states can follow.

## Current legal Landscape and the Push for Federal Involvement

As it stands, cannabis remains prohibited at the federal level. However, a significant number of states—38, to be precise—along with the District of Columbia, allow for varying degrees of medical and recreational cannabis use. Following the Biden Administration’s recommendations, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is reviewing a proposal to reclassify cannabis to a Schedule III controlled substance. If approved, this would enable limited medical use of cannabis under federal legislation, although a definitive decision is expected to take some time, likely not until next year.

Against this backdrop of potential shifts in federal cannabis policy, the patchwork of existing state regulations has led NASEM to call for increased involvement from federal agencies and Congress in developing a cohesive framework for legalized cannabis. As highlighted by Steven Teutsch, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California and the committee chair behind the NASEM report, “There is an urgent need for a coordinated public health approach to cannabis policy in the U.S. Our findings indicate that current cannabis regulation prioritizes sales and revenue streams over health considerations. Now is the critical moment for the federal government to provide appropriate guidance to states that have legalized cannabis to ensure public health remains a priority.”

## Closing legal Loopholes in Hemp Regulation

One of the primary recommendations from NASEM is for Congress to take action and revamp the regulations surrounding hemp, which was legalized by the 2018 Farm Bill. This legislation has inadvertently permitted cannabis companies to modify the chemical composition of hemp-derived Delta-8 THC, enhancing its potency. As a result, intoxicating edibles formulated with Delta-8 THC are now readily available, marketed under the guise of candy, cookies, gummies, and beverages—even in states where both medical and recreational cannabis remains illegal.

NASEM suggests that to protect public health effectively, Congress needs to modify the definition of hemp to ensure that Delta-8 THC falls under the same regulatory scrutiny as other cannabis products.

## The Need for Public Health Campaigns

The NASEM report advocates for the CDC to initiate “targeted public health campaigns” aimed at educating the public about the potential dangers associated with cannabis use, particularly among vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women, and older adults. The report notes that older adults represent one of the fastest-growing demographics utilizing cannabis products; a recent survey revealed that 12% of Americans over 50 reported using a THC-containing product within the past year, an increase from just 3% in 2006. Notably, many of these individuals turn to cannabis for pain management after facing difficulties accessing opioids, a consequence of the problematic application of the CDC’s earlier opioid guidelines.

NASEM’s report raises alarm regarding the influence of the cannabis industry on regulatory practices, particularly noting legislative shifts in states like Colorado and Washington where certain cannabis regulations have been weakened. There are concerns about potential conflicts of interest and “financial entanglements” between state regulators and the industry, highlighting the risk of lobbying efforts compromising unbiased policy development.

The report states, “The influence of the burgeoning legal cannabis industry on policy development raises concern about potential bias. Lobbying efforts by the industry have demonstrably impacted regulation.” This sentiment underscores the need for transparency and accountability, particularly when considering the CDC’s mixed history concerning its own guidelines and the lobbying that has sometimes been associated with it.

## Opposition and Criticism

It’s essential to recognize that critics, especially those aligned with conservative viewpoints, are unlikely to endorse any federal involvement from the CDC in cannabis regulation. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has called explicitly for the CDC to see significant reductions in its budget and to have its power in shaping health policies curtailed. Roger Severino, a former director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services during the Trump administration, has been vocal about the CDC’s previous missteps during the COVID-19 pandemic, stating, “COVID-19 exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government.”

Severino argues that public health officials should never again be permitted to conceal or misrepresent information regarding health interventions.

## The Future of CDC’s Involvement

As the discourse progresses, the CDC has acknowledged the receipt of NASEM’s recommendations and indicated a willingness to explore them further. However, there is a clear indication that additional funding will be required to turn these proposals into reality.

In this intricate political and regulatory landscape, tools like the AI legalese decoder can prove invaluable. By translating complex legal jargon into more understandable language, individuals and stakeholders can gain clearer insights into the implications of potential regulations, ensuring they remain informed and able to advocate for their interests effectively. This tool could help demystify the recommendations proposed by NASEM, making it easier for citizens, policymakers, and businesses in the cannabis sector to navigate the evolving regulatory environment.