Legalized marijuana hits roadblocks after years of expansion
A recreational marijuana user smokes weed in the Bushwick section of the Brooklyn borough of New York City. This year, marijuana advocates are playing defense in multiple state legislatures. ()
As every state surrounding Idaho legalized marijuana, state Rep. Bruce Skaug started to view it as inevitable that the Gem State would follow suit.
Not anymore.
Skaug, a Republican, supported two bills this legislative session taking aim at marijuana use: one to impose a mandatory minimum $300 fine for possession and another that would take away the right of voters to legalize pot at the ballot box.
He believes other states are starting to regret liberalizing marijuana use, because of potential health concerns and lackluster revenues from marijuana sales.
'Looking around at other states that have legalized marijuana, it's not improved their states as a place to raise a family, to do business,' he said. 'It just hasn't come through with the promises that we heard years ago for those states.'
Idaho's not alone. After years of expanding legal access, lawmakers in several states this year have targeted marijuana in various ways.
To help close budget gaps, officials in Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey have proposed raising marijuana taxes. Health concerns have pushed lawmakers in states including Colorado and Montana to attempt to cap the level of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the primary psychoactive component in cannabis, in marijuana products sold at dispensaries. And some lawmakers have even tried to roll back voter-approved medical marijuana programs.
Looking around at other states that have legalized marijuana, it's not improved their states.
– Idaho Republican state Rep. Bruce Skaug
'This year in particular, we're playing defense a lot more than we have in the past,' said Morgan Fox, political director at the advocacy group National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML.
To some extent, he said, the pendulum on marijuana liberalization is swinging back. But Fox said recent legislative efforts are not indicative of waning public support for legalization. He said prohibitionist politicians have been emboldened to act against the will of voters.
Polling from the Pew Research Center has found little change in support for legalization in recent years: 57% of U.S. adults say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes.
Indiana Republican leadership seems as opposed as ever to marijuana legalization. In fact, this year bills are moving to ban advertising the illegal product in the state.
Colorado and Washington state began allowing recreational marijuana sales in 2014. Today, 24 states and the District of Columbia allow recreational sales, and 39 states and the district have sanctioned medical marijuana.
'There's been this air of inevitability for a while,' said Daniel Mallinson, an associate professor of public policy at Penn State Harrisburg who researches marijuana legalization.
With medical marijuana programs operational in most states, Mallinson said there is pressure to expand recreational marijuana, especially given uncertainty over whether the federal government will act on the issue.
'Recreational is still in its takeoff period,' he said.
But he acknowledged that new medical research has raised concerns among some lawmakers. One study published in January found a link between heavy marijuana use and memory function. Other studies have found a higher risk of heart attacks among people who use cannabis.
Mallinson said the research on marijuana is 'very young,' as many institutions are wary of conducting clinical trials because of federal drug laws. The federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug — the same classification as drugs such as heroin and ecstasy.
'There's a mixture of science and politics in this area,' he said. ' … I could imagine seeing in these really conservative states like Idaho, you know, this kind of a backlash, like, we don't want this here at all, so we're going to try to put up barriers to even considering it.'
In Idaho, Skaug said he pursued the state's new mandatory $300 fine for marijuana possession to bring more consistency to how the state handles marijuana cases.
While Idaho law previously allowed fines of up to $1,000, he said judges had issued fines as low as $2.50.
Pot smell and safety concerns ignite disputes over public smoking
'So that wasn't the right message. That's not even worth the time to write the ticket,' he said. 'So it's not that we're going to arrest more people for misdemeanor possession of marijuana, but there will be more citations in the amount of $300.'
Skaug also backed a proposed constitutional amendment that would give only the legislature the power to legalize marijuana and other drugs. That question will go to voters next year.
Skaug said he's worried outside groups would influence a public vote to legalize marijuana by pouring millions into a ballot initiative campaign. If the amendment he supports passes, it wouldn't ban pot — it would leave legalization up to lawmakers.
'If the evidence comes back that says marijuana or some other drug is positive in the medical community and a good thing, then the legislature can legalize that,' he said. 'But we're going to leave it with the legislature.'
Advocates have been trying without success to get enough signatures to put a medical marijuana question on the ballot for more than a decade in Idaho, said Democratic state Rep. Ilana Rubel. The House minority leader, Rubel said she hit 'a firm brick wall' in pitching medical marijuana legislation in Boise, where GOP lawmakers privately tell her they don't want to look soft on crime.
She views the proposed amendment as another example of the GOP-controlled statehouse being out of touch with regular Idahoans. She said the state's closed Republican primaries have led to more conservative stances from lawmakers.
'I think this is one of those issues where there is just a huge, huge gap between what the people of Idaho want and what they're going to get from their legislature,' she said.
A 2022 poll commissioned by the Idaho Statesman found that nearly 70% of Idahoans supported legalizing medical marijuana.
But even discussions about medical marijuana are shut down in Idaho because of concerns about problems with drugs in liberal cities such as Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Rubel said.
'A very large number of red states have legalized medical marijuana, and they haven't seen any of the parade of horribles that has been presented whenever we introduce this idea,' she said. 'There's just a lot of hysteria and paranoia about where this is going to lead that is really not tied to reality.'
In several states, lawmakers have aimed to restrict the potency of marijuana products.
Montana state Sen. Greg Hertz, a Republican, said he doesn't want to end recreational marijuana sales, which voters approved in 2020. But he said today's products are much stronger than people may realize.
'People were voting for Woodstock weed, not this new high-THC marijuana,' he said.
A bill he sponsored this year would have banned sales of recreational marijuana products, including flower and edibles, exceeding THC levels of 15%. Montana currently allows up to 35% THC in flower, with no limit on other products.
That legislation stalled, but Hertz said he plans to pitch a similar measure during Montana's next legislative session in 2027.
A separate bill reducing the state's dosage of THC for edibles just passed the legislature last week. The measure, which now heads to Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, would change the individual dosage limit on edibles such as gummies from 10 milligrams to 5 milligrams.
Hertz said the state rushed into its liberalization of marijuana without fully understanding the consequences.
He pointed to state health department data showing rising emergency room visits related to marijuana and dozens of cannabis poisoning cases in recent years — including 36 involving children 10 years or younger.
'We probably opened up the barn door too wide,' he said. 'I'm just trying to slow this down a little bit.'
With many states facing gaping budget holes this year, marijuana has proven a popular target from Democrats and Republicans looking to raise revenues without across-the-board tax increases.
CONTACT US
Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore in January proposed hiking the cannabis tax from 9% to 15% to help close the state's $3 billion budget hole. In March, lawmakers agreed to a budget framework that would raise the state marijuana tax to 12%.
Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine proposed doubling marijuana taxes from 10% to 20% — a notion that has so far faced opposition in the legislature.
In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer proposed a new 32% wholesale tax on marijuana growers to help fund road improvements. That tax would be on top of the 10% excise tax on recreational marijuana and the state's 6% sales tax.
Whitmer said it would close a loophole that has exempted the marijuana industry from wholesale tax, which is applied to cigarettes and other tobacco products. Michigan lawmakers, split sharply along partisan lines, have until Sept. 30 to approve a state budget.
Lawmakers in some states have even taken aim at voter-approved medical marijuana programs this year.
In South Dakota, a bill that failed in committee would have gutted the medical marijuana program overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2020.
In November, Nebraska voters widely supported ballot measures to roll out a medical marijuana program — winning majority support in each of the state's 49 legislative districts.
But setting up the regulatory scheme has proven controversial, the Nebraska Examiner reported. Lawmakers are pursuing legislation that would define which medical conditions and forms of cannabis would qualify.
Medical marijuana advocates say overly strict rules would hamper the program and undermine the will of voters. But some legislators insist on limitations to prevent widespread access to marijuana.
'We make it legal for anything and everything, it's essentially recreational marijuana at that point,' state Sen. Rick Holdcroft, a Republican, told the Nebraska Examiner this month.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
29 minutes ago
- Axios
San Antonio City Council election results show changing politics
San Antonio City Council District 1 incumbent Sukh Kaur held on to her seat in Saturday's runoff election, in which three new city councilmembers were also elected in a political shakeup. Why it matters: A new generation of councilmembers can help shape a range of transformative city plans as they work with new mayor Gina Ortiz Jones over the next four years — but they'll also have to contend with a possible budget deficit and cuts to services. By the numbers: Kaur beat out conservative neighborhood leader Patty Gibbons 65% to 35% in the downtown area district, which now also includes some neighborhoods north of Loop 410. The big picture: The San Antonio City Council could have a starker political divide. It'sgaining one more progressive and one more conservative member, who are taking over seats previously held by business-friendly and moderate Democrats. Ortiz Jones is expected to lead as a progressive. The latest: In District 6 on the Far West Side, Ric Galvan (50.1%) beat Kelly Ann Gonzalez (49.9%) by just 25 votes. Both have progressive backgrounds running in a district that has previously elected Republicans and business-friendly Democrats. In District 8 on the Northwest Side, Ivalis Meza Gonzalez (57%) beat Paula McGee (43%). Meza Gonzalez is the former chief of staff to Mayor Ron Nirenberg, while McGee had experience on city boards and support from the Republican Party of Bexar County. In District 9 on the North Side, Misty Spears (57%) beat Angi Taylor Aramburu (43%), putting this more conservative district back in Republican hands for the first time in eight years. Spears has been the director of constituent services for Republican Bexar County Commissioner Grant Moody. Flashback: The four districts headed to the June runoff after no one earned more than 50% of the vote in the May 3 election. District 4 on the Southwest Side is newly represented by Edward Mungia, a former staff member in the office. He won outright in the May election.


Axios
29 minutes ago
- Axios
San Antonio mayor live election results: Gina Ortiz Jones wins race
San Antonio on Saturday elected Gina Ortiz Jones as its next mayor, choosing a Democrat instead of Republican Rolando Pablos for a nonpartisan race that became distinctly about politics. Why it matters: The mayoral election, the city's first in 16 years without an incumbent on the ballot, drew money and influence from across the state and nation. Neither Ortiz Jones nor Pablos have held elected office before, and San Antonio has not elected a mayor who hasn't served on the City Council since Phil Hardberger in 2005. The latest: Unofficial vote results showed Ortiz Jones with 54% of the vote compared to 46% for Pablos. All precincts were counted. What they're saying: Ortiz Jones told supporters at a watch party at The Dakota East Side Ice House that voters "reminded folks what San Antonio stands for," adding "that our city is about compassion and it's about leading with everybody in mind." "But you know what, our country — I think we're going through a blip right now, but San Antonio has had the opportunity to say, you know what? We're going to move past this," she added. Pablos conceded at his watch party, per KSAT. "We tried. I want to thank everybody for your support. It was a tough race, and I'm just happy that everybody came together for this community," he said. State of play: Ortiz Jones, who is believed to be the first openly gay woman elected San Antonio mayor, served as an Air Force undersecretary in the Biden administration and was twice the Democratic nominee for the 23rd Congressional District. During the runoff campaign, both candidates leaned into their families' immigrant backgrounds. Ortiz Jones spoke of being raised by a single mother who immigrated from the Philippines and Pablos of his family moving from Mexico to El Paso when he was 8 years old. Pablos is a former Texas secretary of state who has served as a senior adviser to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. Follow the money: Pablos and his supporters appeared to both outraise and outspend Ortiz Jones in the runoff election, campaign finance reports show. Pablos raised nearly $333,000 and spent more than $275,000 from late April through May 28. He got a big boost from the Texas Economic Fund, a political action committee run by Abbott's former political director, which raised $1.35 million and spent over $623,000 during that time. Ortiz Jones raised nearly $249,000 and spent over $133,000 in the same period. She had help from Fields of Change, a national Democratic PAC, which spent more than $160,000 for her campaign. The big picture: The new mayor will lead San Antonio at a pivotal time, as officials seek to gain public support for a new downtown Spurs arena that could be surrounded by a sports and entertainment district. They will also lead the city through the remaining years of the Trump administration, under which San Antonio has lost millions of dollars in federal funding. The city is also expecting a budget deficit. Catch up quick: Mayor Ron Nirenberg reached his term limits after eight years in office, making him the city's longest-serving mayor since Henry Cisneros in the 1980s. San Antonio's next mayor will serve for four years after voters approved increasing term length from two years. They will work alongside several new city councilmembers members. Flashback: Nirenberg's departure left a rare opening that drew a crowded 27-candidate field to replace him. Four sitting city councilmembers struggled to break through the noise as traditional backers in local elections, like the police union, sat out the first round of voting. By the numbers: Voters showed low enthusiasm for the May 3 election, which overlapped with Fiesta, at 9.26%. In the runoff, turnout rose to nearly 17%.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Stein is making the conservative case for FEMA
It's a classic Trump-era irony: The president's polarizing voice has triggered a burst of bipartisan agreement. When President Donald Trump floated the notion of scrapping FEMA entirely after Hurricane Helene, it sounded like the start of another bare-knuckle partisan fight. Instead, it sparked a rare consensus: FEMA is flawed, but it's also essential. Right now, the surprisingly high-profile defender of that notion is North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein. And in another ironic twist, the most liberal governor North Carolina has ever elected is sounding . . . conservative. Over the past two weeks, Stein has launched a media blitz to rescue FEMA from its own dysfunction — and from the president's crosshairs. He's appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, penned an op-ed in USA Today, lobbied Republican U.S. Sens. Thom Tillis and Ted Budd and written directly to the Trump administration with proposed reforms. His argument is simple: Disaster response is a core function of the federal government, and it saves money and gets better results if states don't go it alone. 'It's about streamlining and reforming and improving FEMA, not eliminating it,' Stein said in a recent podcast interview with Spectrum News. That may not sound revolutionary, but in today's political climate, it's a noteworthy response. Where many Democrats, like former Gov. Roy Cooper, may have used Trump's comments to raise money or fire up the base, Stein is taking a different tack. He's responding thoughtfully, and with a message that Republicans might actually hear. FEMA makes for a convenient punching bag. After any disaster, emotions are raw as survivors try to make sense of their losses. When calls go to voicemail or a form gets rejected on a technicality, the natural response is anger. Police officers often talk about trying to give people grace because they recognize they're meeting everyone on the worst day of their life. FEMA workers are in the same position but may not always realize it, or be equipped to respond. That doesn't mean FEMA gets a pass, of course, and there were plenty of problems with its response to Hurricane Helene. Red tape kept people waiting for temporary housing. It took multiple calls from elected officials to get FEMA to extend hotel vouchers to keep people from being turned out into a snowstorm. North Carolina's own shortcomings made matters worse. An after-action report from the state's Emergency Management Division showed deep cracks in the response to Helene — unclear communications, insufficient coordination with counties and a lack of planning around debris and housing. FEMA may have failed in some areas, but so did the state. Still, it would've been easy — even expected — for Stein to point fingers or escalate the fight as President Trump continues down the path toward eliminating FEMA. Instead, he's lowering the temperature. Trump's proposal to eliminate FEMA might be a negotiation tactic rather than a policy plan. He's known for throwing rhetorical grenades to draw people to the table. Some see that as bluster, while others see leverage. Either way, if the goal is to force FEMA to improve, there's plenty of common ground. And Stein is proving to be an effective messenger. He's called for FEMA to be faster, more flexible, and less redundant. He wants a single application process, more upfront money for permanent repairs and greater use of block grants to give states more discretion. This isn't the burn-it-down approach of the MAGA right, nor is it a progressive defense of bureaucracy. It's something rarer these days: a sober, statesmanlike argument for targeted federal responsibility and reform. As a conservative, I've long believed in limiting federal power. I've written before that North Carolina should stop waiting on Washington and take control of its own future. So I sympathize with Trump's instinct to scrap FEMA entirely. There's philosophical merit to the idea. The federal government tries to do too much. State governments are more nimble, more accountable. Pushing power down is almost always the right move. But not in every case. President Reagan famously said the nine scariest words in the English language were: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' And yet Reagan also signed the Stafford Act — the law that governs FEMA to this day. That law has real flaws, and some of them are exactly what we're grappling with now. That's another classic Trump-era irony. The liberal governor of North Carolina is defending FEMA with a Reaganesque argument, to preserve a program the Gipper helped create. I still believe in federalism. But on this one, Stein has convinced me. FEMA needs to stay.