The study, which looked at government-funded cannabis research in legalized states, found that some of these states are too “risk-averse” or “uncertain how to navigate the complicated federal requirements for research” because marijuana is still classified as Schedule I by federal law.
In total, it is found that only 17 out of the 38 state laws that are either adult or medical use have a specific funding mechanism.
The report published in this month’s Journal of Cannabis Research states that “States can benefit from the scientific advances in cannabis research, particularly as they deal with a multitude of issues in public policy without the support of a federal framework.” However, less than half the states who have legalized marijuana in any form provide funding for research. This is an opportunity that states are missing to better understand cannabis’ risks and benefits.
In order to fully understand cannabis’ risks and potential benefits, the authors said that more states should adopt mechanisms for cannabis research.
Researchers have identified a lack of adequate research funding as being the main barrier to the cannabis industry,” wrote the team. The National Institutes of Health published a Request for Information in August 2022 to solicit input from the scientific communities on obstacles for performing cannabis-related research. In 2024, NIH stated that responses to the RFI from 2022 indicated increased funding as being the most pressing need.
The 17 state with legislation that directs funding for research represents about 45 percent (of the 38) of states who have legalized some form marijuana. This proportion is slightly greater in adult-use states where 46 percent (1 out of 24 states) of them put money into cannabis research. In the fourteen states that only allow medical marijuana, six of them (43%) direct their funds towards research.
Researchers found that states with legalized marijuana but no funding for cannabis research include Alabama, Maine Pennsylvania Rhode Island, West Virginia and West Virginia.
The analysis of the team excluded all laws that were passed at the local level, as well as those in U.S. territory and Washington, D.C.
This new study was written by the Director of Research Policy Analysis and Coordination at the University of California Office of the president, an independent researcher on health policy in Minneapolis and the former executive director of the Cannabis Policy Lab.
According to the study, state funding for cannabis research is “significantly” different. The study notes that most states provide funding either to universities or state agencies.
According to this study, in the category of funding, there were $1.5 million allocated by the Florida state government for university studies of clinical marijuana outcomes, $2,000,000 from Kentucky to the University of Kentucky and $2.5,000,000 from Minnesota legislators to the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. $650,000 was also provided in Utah for the establishment of the University of Utah Center for Medical Cannabis Research.
It adds that Washington State cannabis laws allocate 1 percent of the total tax revenues from marijuana legalization to research funding at Washington State University and University of Washington.
Arizona is one state that has allocated funding for cannabis research to its Arizona Biomedical Research Centre. Illinois also allocates 2 percent of their tax revenues for this purpose.
Report: Michigan legalization legislation provided $20 million per year to the state’s Cannabis Regulatory Agency for marijuana research among veterans. New York’s Office of Cannabis Management also supports cannabis research.
California uses both methods, providing funding for research via state agencies and direct grants to universities. Proposition 64 for instance legalized cannabis and allocated $2 million annually for the University of California San Diego Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, along with $10 millions annually for a 10 year period for public universities in California selected by Department of Cannabis Control.
DCC has, on its own, allocated “nearly 50 million dollars to universities throughout the state to fund research projects that address a variety of public policy topics, such as public health, criminal law, public safety and economic, environmental, and industry-related impacts.
According to the study, federal funding is responsible for the vast majority of marijuana research. The amount has “increased tenfold” over the last 20 years as agencies on all levels grappled difficult issues such as criminal law and product safety.
It adds that, “Unfortunately funding for marijuana research hasn’t kept up with legalization,” pointing out, as of 2021 federal funding “was still 35% less than alcohol-related and almost 40% lower than tobacco-related” research.
This study states that the funding disparity, and the fact that the federal government has a general laissez-faire attitude towards legal marijuana means “states are in a unique position to advance scientific knowledge on cannabis,” especially when they form new laws and regulations governing cannabis products.
As the Trump administration tries to reduce federal funding, which includes support for research in science, it is possible that the states’ role in marijuana research will become even more crucial in the coming years. In a recent announcement, for example, the Department of Government Efficiency announced its decision to cancel federal grant funds allocated for a research study on cannabis and risk among LGBTQ+, nonbinary, and heterosexual women.
The researchers of the new study identified “a missed chance for researchers and regulators to collaboratively inform policy options and develop future evidence-informed marijuana regulations”
The report states that “Many states have deliberately incorporated research into their policymaking efforts.” California and Colorado, for example have over the years identified policy-related knowledge gaps and provided funding to academic institutions. Although, the majority of states do not invest in research to support their marijuana legislation.
According to the research team, there could be “many” reasons why states have not chosen to invest money in cannabis research. The federal ban on cannabis could prove to be a significant obstacle.
Authors wrote that “the current Schedule I designation in federal law poses a significant obstacle in conducting research, particularly because Schedule I prohibits researchers working directly with marijuana sold on markets sanctioned by state.” It is likely that this has led to states being hesitant to fund research or not knowing how to deal with the complex federal regulations imposed on research.
They continued that the research spending in Minnesota, and Utah should be “an encouragement to other states adopting a cannabis funding policy.”
Report: “States interested in funding research on cannabis could use cannabis-specific taxes, whether in fixed amounts annually or as a percentage of revenue. The report suggests that fixed amounts are more predictable, but percentages from tax revenue would provide more variability in funding. However, they could make money more available if sales were higher.
The study suggests that other non-monetary methods by which states could support cannabis research include sharing regulatory market data or embedding researchers in state agencies.
Among some of the findings from state-funded cannabis research, a Minnesota study last month found that people with cancer who used cannabis “report significant improvements in cancer-related symptoms.” The study noted, however, that marijuana’s high price can make it prohibitive for patients who are less well-off and may raise questions about the affordability and availability of cannabis therapy.
A study from Washington State found a decline in marijuana use among adolescents and teenagers over the last few years. Also, the results showed that students’ perceptions of cannabis access among teens have generally declined since 2012 when Washington legalized it for adults.
A newly-leaked federal memo lists “marijuana,” as one of more than two dozen “controversial” or “high-profile” topics that researchers and staff at the National Cancer Institute are required to discuss with superiors before they write about them.
It advises that, depending on the type of information, the NCI Director, Deputy Directors, NIH and HHS could be asked to review it and clear it. In some cases the materials will only need to be reviewed once, however the NCI Clearance Team may share them with NCI leadership and/or NIH for their knowledge.
A study found that switching to outdoor marijuana cultivation could reduce industry emissions by up to 76%.
National Institute of Standards and Technology.