Original Intent : Whether Recent Reforms Signal a Legislative Break from Marijuana Criminalization Under the Controlled Substances Act

As part of a Nixon-era set of reforms, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was not intended to be a harsh, punitive approach but in the intervening years, the CSA lost its original purpose as political winds changed in ways that focused more on punitive approaches to drug control. Moreover, the CSA has put states’ ability to regulate certain drugs—namely marijuana—in question as states consider whether to decriminalize certain drugs for clinical and non-clinical purposes. This tension has had a dramatic impact on communities of color and vulnerable people, affecting their ability to and exercise fundamental rights such as voting.Recent developments on drug policy and criminal justice seem to harken back to this period of reform when the CSA was passed: despite the political gridlock that has only seemed to worsen in recent times, Congress has come together to pass substantive legislation on substance abuse and criminal justice reform. Some might argue that the relative ease that Congress passed these bills could signal a policy shift and a political change in our views on drug policy and criminalization that we have not seen since in decades and could harken back to the original intent of the CSA. This paper argues that despite these seemingly monumental bills in a time of epic dysfunction, there is no fundamental shift in drug policy. This “policy plateau” is evident by the failure to amend the CSA to allow states to regulate marijuana