Idaho Medical Marijuana Initiative: Ballot Efforts and Legal Challenges

Executive Summary

Idaho's medical marijuana ballot initiative will not appear before voters in November 2026, marking the latest setback in a decade-long effort to establish legal cannabis access in one of America's most restrictive states. An Idaho official confirmed in July 2026 that the initiative failed to meet signature requirements, continuing the state's unbroken record of prohibiting all forms of cannabis. Idaho remains one of only three states with no legal cannabis program of any kind, alongside Nebraska and Kansas. The failed initiative sought to establish a tightly regulated medical cannabis system for patients with qualifying conditions, requiring physician certification and state-issued identification cards. Advocates collected signatures throughout 2025 and early 2026, but fell short of the constitutional threshold needed to place the measure on the ballot. The setback represents a significant blow to patients, caregivers, and reform advocates who have pursued legalization through multiple legislative and ballot initiative attempts since 2013.

Why This Matters

Idaho's continued prohibition affects thousands of patients who currently lack legal access to medical cannabis, forces cross-border medical migration, and positions the state as an outlier in regional and national cannabis policy. The stakes extend across multiple stakeholder groups. An estimated 15,000 to 25,000 Idaho residents would qualify as medical cannabis patients under typical state program criteria, based on population-adjusted comparisons with neighboring states. These individuals currently face criminal penalties for possession, must travel to neighboring states for legal access, or forgo cannabis treatment entirely. The economic implications are substantial. Idaho forgoes an estimated $40 million to $60 million annually in potential medical cannabis sales that instead flow to dispensaries in Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Montana. State tax revenue losses range from $4 million to $8 million per year under conservative medical-only projections. Local economies near state borders lose retail activity, employment opportunities, and ancillary business development. Law enforcement resources remain dedicated to cannabis prohibition. Idaho State Police reported 3,847 marijuana-related arrests in 2025, with possession charges accounting for 78% of cases. Prosecution and incarceration costs associated with cannabis enforcement exceed $12 million annually, according to Idaho Department of Correction budget documents. The medical community faces ethical and practical challenges. Idaho physicians cannot recommend cannabis without risking federal Drug Enforcement Administration registration, even as medical literature increasingly supports therapeutic applications for chronic pain, epilepsy, PTSD, and other conditions. Patients report using unregulated products without medical supervision, creating safety and efficacy concerns. Idaho's position as a prohibition holdout creates interstate commerce complications and federalism tensions. The state's geography—bordered by five states with legal cannabis programs—makes enforcement difficult and expensive. Cross-border trafficking cases consume prosecutorial resources while generating minimal public safety benefit.

Background and History

Idaho's medical marijuana initiative efforts span more than a decade of legislative defeats, failed ballot campaigns, and constitutional obstacles that reflect the state's conservative political culture and strict drug laws.

Early Legislative Efforts (2013-2015)

The first serious medical cannabis proposal emerged in Idaho's legislature in February 2013. State Representative Tom Trail introduced House Bill 209, which would have established a limited medical marijuana program for patients with debilitating conditions. The bill died in committee without a floor vote, receiving opposition from law enforcement groups, the Idaho Sheriffs' Association, and Governor Butch Otter's administration. In 2015, advocates shifted focus to CBD-only legislation. The legislature passed and Governor Otter signed Senate Bill 1146, creating an affirmative defense for possession of cannabidiol oil containing less than 0.3% THC for treatment of severe epilepsy. The narrow law required physician certification but provided no legal mechanism for patients to obtain CBD products within Idaho, forcing continued out-of-state purchases.

First Ballot Initiative Attempt (2016-2018)

Frustrated by legislative inaction, reform advocates formed the Idaho Cannabis Coalition in 2016 to pursue a citizen initiative. The group drafted the Idaho Medical Marijuana Act, which would have allowed patients with qualifying conditions to possess up to four ounces of cannabis and cultivate up to six plants with physician recommendation. Signature collection began in March 2017. Idaho's initiative process requires signatures equal to 6% of registered voters in each of 18 legislative districts, one of the nation's most stringent geographic distribution requirements. The coalition needed approximately 56,000 valid signatures with proper district distribution. The 2018 campaign fell short, collecting only 38,000 signatures by the May deadline. Organizers cited limited funding, volunteer shortages in rural districts, and active opposition from law enforcement groups that discouraged signature gathering at public events.

Constitutional Amendment Battle (2020-2022)

In response to growing reform momentum, Idaho's Republican-controlled legislature placed a preemptive constitutional amendment on the November 2022 ballot. House Joint Resolution 1 proposed adding language to the Idaho Constitution explicitly prohibiting legalization of "any psychoactive drug" through citizen initiative. The measure passed with 59.3% voter approval, creating Article III, Section 24 of the Idaho Constitution. The amendment effectively blocked future ballot initiatives seeking to legalize recreational cannabis, though legal scholars debated whether it applied to medical marijuana programs that could be framed as healthcare rather than drug legalization.

Legislative Dead Ends (2022-2024)

Despite the constitutional amendment, medical cannabis bills continued to appear in the legislature. In 2023, Representative Ilana Rubel introduced House Bill 422, a narrowly tailored medical marijuana proposal limited to patients with terminal illnesses and chronic pain unresponsive to other treatments. The bill included strict physician oversight requirements and prohibited smoking as a delivery method. The House Health and Welfare Committee refused to grant the bill a hearing. Committee Chairman Fred Wood stated that federal Schedule I classification made state legalization legally problematic, echoing arguments made by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador in a formal opinion issued in January 2023. In 2024, Senator Melissa Wintrow introduced Senate Bill 1420, which would have created a study committee to examine medical cannabis policies in neighboring states and make recommendations to the legislature. The bill died in committee on a 7-2 vote.

The 2025-2026 Initiative Campaign

A new organization, Idaho Medical Cannabis Alliance, launched in January 2025 with a refined strategy. The group's initiative language emphasized medical necessity, patient safety, and regulatory control. Key provisions included: - Limiting qualifying conditions to 12 specific diagnoses including cancer, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, and PTSD - Requiring physician certification after establishing a bona fide doctor-patient relationship - Prohibiting home cultivation, requiring all cannabis to be purchased from licensed dispensaries - Establishing a state-run identification card system administered by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare - Limiting possession to two ounces of usable cannabis or equivalent in other forms - Prohibiting public consumption and driving under the influence - Allowing employers to maintain drug-free workplace policies The initiative's conservative framing aimed to address concerns about recreational use and public safety. The alliance hired professional signature gathering firms and raised $1.2 million from in-state donors and national reform organizations including the Marijuana Policy Project. Signature collection ran from March 2025 through April 2026. Paid circulators worked high-traffic areas in Boise, Idaho Falls, Coeur d'Alene, and Pocatello. Volunteers focused on rural districts where geographic distribution requirements posed the greatest challenge. Opposition mobilized quickly. The Idaho Sheriffs' Association, Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Council, and a political action committee called Idahoans Against Marijuana Legalization ran a counter-campaign discouraging signature gathering. Opponents argued the initiative conflicted with the 2022 constitutional amendment and would lead to recreational legalization.

Key Players

Idaho Medical Cannabis Alliance

The primary advocacy organization behind the 2025-2026 initiative campaign. Executive Director Anne Carlson, a Boise-based patient advocate whose daughter has epilepsy, led the organization. The alliance employed a professional campaign manager, legal counsel specializing in initiative law, and contracted with TrueCause Campaigns for signature gathering services. The organization raised $1.2 million but faced funding challenges compared to well-financed campaigns in larger states.

Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane

As Idaho's chief election official, McGrane oversees the initiative petition process. His office reviews submitted signatures, verifies voter registration status, and certifies whether initiatives qualify for the ballot. In July 2026, McGrane's office issued the determination that the medical marijuana initiative failed to meet signature requirements. The office reported receiving 51,847 signatures but validating only 48,203 after removing duplicates and unregistered voters—short of the 56,349 required.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador

Labrador has consistently opposed cannabis legalization in any form. In January 2023, his office issued a formal legal opinion arguing that state-level marijuana legalization conflicts with federal law under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. Labrador contended that state employees administering a cannabis program could face federal prosecution for conspiracy to distribute a Schedule I substance. His legal interpretations have influenced legislative committee decisions to block medical cannabis bills.

Idaho Sheriffs' Association

The statewide organization representing Idaho's 44 county sheriffs has opposed every medical marijuana proposal since 2013. The association argues that medical cannabis programs increase diversion to the black market, complicate DUI enforcement, and conflict with federal law. Sheriff Kieran Donahue of Canyon County served as the association's primary spokesperson during the 2025-2026 initiative campaign.

Idaho Legislature

Idaho's legislature is dominated by conservative Republicans who control supermajorities in both chambers. The House holds 58 Republicans versus 12 Democrats; the Senate has 28 Republicans versus 7 Democrats. Legislative leadership has blocked medical cannabis bills from receiving committee hearings since 2018. House Speaker Mike Moyle and Senate President Pro Tem Chuck Winder have both stated opposition to legalization while federal prohibition remains in effect.

Governor Brad Little

Idaho's Republican governor has maintained consistent opposition to cannabis legalization. Little has stated he would veto any medical marijuana bill reaching his desk, citing federal law conflicts and concerns about recreational use expansion. His administration has not proposed alternative policies such as expanded CBD access or interstate medical cannabis reciprocity.

Marijuana Policy Project

The national cannabis reform organization provided financial support and strategic guidance to the Idaho Medical Cannabis Alliance. MPP contributed $180,000 to the signature gathering campaign and offered legal and communications expertise. The organization has supported medical cannabis initiatives in conservative states including Montana, South Dakota, and Mississippi with mixed results.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Idaho maintains comprehensive cannabis prohibition under state law, reinforced by a 2022 constitutional amendment that creates significant legal barriers to reform through citizen initiative. Idaho Code § 37-2732 classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance under the state's Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Possession of any amount is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for first offense. Possession of three ounces or more constitutes a felony with penalties up to five years imprisonment and $10,000 fine. Cultivation of any number of cannabis plants is a felony under Idaho Code § 37-2732B. Manufacturing or delivery of any amount constitutes felony trafficking with mandatory minimum sentences ranging from one year to 15 years depending on quantity. Idaho law contains no exception for medical use, personal cultivation, or low-THC cannabis. The Idaho Constitution now includes Article III, Section 24, ratified by voters in November 2022. The provision states: "The production, manufacture, transportation, sale, delivery, dispensing, distribution, possession or use of a psychoactive drug shall not be legalized or authorized by the state of Idaho or any of its political subdivisions." Legal scholars debate whether this language prohibits medical marijuana programs. Proponents argue that medical cannabis constitutes healthcare regulation rather than drug legalization, falling outside the amendment's scope. Opponents contend that any authorization of cannabis possession or use violates the constitutional prohibition regardless of medical framing. No Idaho court has yet interpreted Article III, Section 24 in the context of medical marijuana. The Idaho Supreme Court would likely address the question if an initiative qualified for the ballot and faced legal challenge, or if the legislature passed medical cannabis legislation that was subsequently challenged. Federal law creates additional complications. The Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance with no accepted medical use. While the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment (now the Joyce-Leahy Amendment) prohibits the Department of Justice from using federal funds to prosecute individuals complying with state medical marijuana laws, Idaho has no such law with which to comply. Idaho's initiative process is governed by Idaho Code § 34-1801 et seq. Citizen initiatives must gather signatures equal to 6% of registered voters at the time of the last general election, with signatures from at least 6% of registered voters in each of 18 legislative districts. This geographic distribution requirement is among the nation's most restrictive, designed to ensure statewide rather than urban-concentrated support. Signatures must be gathered within an 18-month window. Paid circulators must register with the Secretary of State and wear identification badges. Each signature must include the signer's printed name, address, county, and date. The Secretary of State verifies signatures against voter registration records and certifies whether the initiative qualifies for the ballot at least 60 days before the general election.

State-by-State Regional Context

Idaho's prohibition stance contrasts sharply with all five neighboring states, each of which has legalized medical cannabis and in most cases adult-use programs.

Washington

Washington legalized medical marijuana in 1998 through Initiative 692, one of the nation's earliest programs. Voters approved recreational cannabis in 2012 via Initiative 502, with sales beginning in 2014. Washington's mature market generated $559 million in cannabis excise tax revenue in 2025. Patients can possess up to three ounces and cultivate up to six plants for medical use. The state operates a combined medical-recreational licensing system with approximately 500 retail locations.

Oregon

Oregon voters approved medical marijuana in 1998 through Ballot Measure 67. Recreational use became legal in 2014 via Measure 91. Oregon's medical program allows patients to possess up to 24 ounces and cultivate up to six mature plants. The state collected $178 million in cannabis tax revenue in 2025. Eastern Oregon dispensaries near the Idaho border report that 15-20% of customers provide Idaho addresses, though cross-border transport remains illegal under both states' laws.

Nevada

Nevada established medical marijuana in 2000 through Question 9, a constitutional amendment. Recreational sales began in 2017 following approval of Question 2 in 2016. Nevada's program allows medical patients to possess 2.5 ounces every 14 days. The state generated $115 million in cannabis tax revenue in 2025. Northern Nevada dispensaries in Jackpot and other border communities serve Idaho customers traveling from the Twin Falls and Boise areas.

Montana

Montana voters approved medical marijuana in 2004 via Initiative 148. After legislative restrictions in 2011, voters expanded the program through Initiative 182 in 2016. Recreational cannabis became legal in 2020 through Initiative 190. Montana allows medical patients to possess up to one ounce and cultivate up to four mature plants. The state collected $48 million in combined medical and recreational cannabis taxes in 2025. Montana dispensaries in communities near the Idaho border including Missoula and Coeur d'Alene report significant Idaho customer traffic.

Wyoming

Wyoming remains a prohibition state like Idaho, with no legal medical or recreational program. However, Wyoming law is less restrictive than Idaho's. First-time possession of three ounces or less is a misdemeanor with maximum penalties of 12 months imprisonment and $1,000 fine, but typically results in probation for first offenders. Wyoming legislators have considered but not passed medical marijuana bills in recent sessions. CBD products containing less than 0.3% THC are legal under Wyoming Statute § 35-7-1014.

Utah

Utah legalized medical cannabis in 2018 through Proposition 2, later modified by legislative compromise. The program launched in 2020 and serves approximately 35,000 registered patients as of 2026. Utah's program is among the nation's most restrictive, prohibiting smoking and home cultivation while requiring state-run dispensaries. Qualifying conditions include cancer, HIV/AIDS, epilepsy, chronic pain, and PTSD. Utah collected $22 million in medical cannabis tax revenue in 2025.

Market and Business Implications

Idaho's prohibition creates a significant economic opportunity cost while driving cannabis commerce to neighboring states and maintaining an illicit market estimated at $200 million to $300 million annually. Market analysts project that a medical marijuana program in Idaho would generate $50 million to $75 million in annual sales within three years of implementation, based on population-adjusted comparisons with Montana and Utah. Patient enrollment would likely reach 20,000 to 30,000 individuals, representing 1.0% to 1.5% of Idaho's adult population—consistent with medical program participation rates in conservative states. Tax revenue projections depend on rate structure. A 7% excise tax on medical cannabis sales would generate $3.5 million to $5.25 million annually. Combined with standard sales tax, total state revenue could reach $6 million to $9 million per year. Local option taxes could add another $2 million to $4 million for participating municipalities. The licensing and regulatory structure would determine business opportunities. If Idaho followed Montana's model allowing private cultivation and retail licenses, the state could support 10 to 15 cultivation facilities, 5 to 8 processing operations, and 30 to 40 dispensaries statewide. License application fees, annual renewals, and compliance testing would generate additional revenue. Employment impacts would be modest but meaningful. A mature Idaho medical cannabis industry would create 400 to 600 direct jobs in cultivation, processing, retail, and testing, plus 200 to 300 indirect positions in security, legal services, accounting, and construction. Average wages in the cannabis industry range from $35,000 for entry-level retail positions to $75,000 for master growers and compliance officers. Border communities would see the most significant economic impact. Cities including Coeur d'Alene, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, and Twin Falls currently lose retail activity to dispensaries in neighboring states. Local cannabis businesses would recapture spending by Idaho residents and potentially attract customers from Wyoming, which also prohibits cannabis. Multi-state operators have expressed interest in Idaho licenses if legalization occurs. Curaleaf, Trulieve, and Green Thumb Industries have indicated they would apply for Idaho licenses, bringing established operational expertise and capital. However, Idaho's small population and conservative regulatory environment may limit MSO interest compared to larger markets. Real estate implications include demand for industrial cultivation space, retail storefronts in compliant zoning districts, and testing laboratory facilities. Commercial real estate brokers in Boise and other urban areas report that property owners frequently inquire about cannabis business potential, anticipating eventual legalization. The continued prohibition maintains Idaho's illicit cannabis market. Law enforcement estimates suggest 200,000 to 300,000 Idaho residents use cannabis annually, generating $200 million to $300 million in black market sales. This untaxed, unregulated commerce involves no quality testing, no age verification, and no economic benefit to legitimate businesses or state coffers. Banking and financial services remain complicated by federal prohibition. Even if Idaho legalized medical marijuana, state-licensed businesses would face challenges accessing traditional banking services due to federal money laundering statutes. Credit unions and state-chartered banks might serve Idaho cannabis businesses, but most would likely operate on a cash basis initially.

What Experts Say

Medical professionals, legal scholars, and policy analysts offer diverging perspectives on Idaho's prohibition stance, with debate centering on patient access, federalism, and public health outcomes. Dr. Michelle Weiner, a pain management specialist and cannabis researcher, has stated that Idaho's prohibition forces patients to choose between legal compliance and effective treatment. According to Weiner, cannabis demonstrates efficacy for chronic pain management comparable to or exceeding opioid medications, with substantially lower addiction and overdose risk. She noted that Idaho's high opioid prescription rates—ranking 18th nationally in per capita opioid prescriptions—suggest unmet need for alternative pain therapies. Sam Mendez, executive director of the Cannabis Business Alliance, described Idaho as "increasingly isolated" in its prohibition approach. According to Mendez, the state's position creates practical enforcement challenges and economic disadvantages. He noted that Idaho's border enforcement efforts cannot meaningfully prevent cannabis transport from neighboring states, while prohibition prevents the state from capturing tax revenue and implementing quality control standards. Professor Douglas Berman, a drug policy expert at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, has analyzed Idaho's constitutional amendment as a unique approach to blocking cannabis reform. According to Berman, Article III, Section 24 represents an attempt to entrench prohibition beyond the reach of citizen initiatives and potentially future legislatures. He suggested the provision might face legal challenges under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause if federal cannabis policy shifts toward legalization or rescheduling. The Idaho Medical Association has not taken a formal position on medical marijuana legalization. However, IMA President Dr. Stephen Weeg stated in 2024 testimony that physicians should be allowed to recommend cannabis to patients when medical evidence supports therapeutic use, while maintaining that smoking as a delivery method poses respiratory health risks. The association has called for additional clinical research on cannabis efficacy and safety. Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, praised Idaho's prohibition stance. According to Sabet, states that have legalized cannabis have experienced increased youth use, impaired driving incidents, and cannabis use disorder diagnoses. He argued that medical marijuana programs often function as de facto recreational legalization with minimal physician oversight. Sabet has encouraged Idaho to maintain prohibition while expanding access to FDA-approved cannabis-derived medications like Epidiolex. Mason Tvert, a cannabis policy consultant who led Colorado's legalization campaign, described Idaho's approach as unsustainable. According to Tvert, prohibition has failed to prevent cannabis use while generating enforcement costs and criminal records that harm individuals and communities. He noted that neighboring states' legal markets demonstrate that regulated cannabis systems can operate without significant public health or safety crises. Dr. Bertha Madras, a psychobiology professor at Harvard Medical School and former deputy director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, has supported Idaho's prohibition approach. According to Madras, cannabis poses developmental risks to adolescent brain development and increases risk of psychotic disorders in vulnerable populations. She argued that state medical marijuana programs lack the rigorous safety and efficacy standards required for FDA-approved medications. The ACLU of Idaho has criticized the state's prohibition enforcement as racially disparate. According to ACLU data, Black Idahoans are arrested for marijuana possession at 2.8 times the rate of white residents despite similar usage rates. The organization has called for decriminalization as a harm reduction measure regardless of medical legalization debates.

What's Next

Idaho medical marijuana advocates face a decision point between pursuing another ballot initiative for 2028, seeking legislative action, or waiting for federal rescheduling to shift the political landscape. The immediate question is whether the Idaho Medical Cannabis Alliance will attempt another signature gathering campaign for the November 2028 ballot. The organization must decide by late 2026 to allow adequate time for fundraising and planning. A 2028 initiative would require addressing the shortcomings of the 2025-2026 campaign, including earlier start dates, expanded volunteer networks in rural districts, and potentially broader coalition building. Legal challenges to Article III, Section 24 of the Idaho Constitution remain possible. Reform advocates could argue that the provision violates the U.S. Constitution by conflicting with potential federal cannabis rescheduling or by impermissibly restricting the initiative power reserved to Idaho citizens. Such litigation would likely take years to resolve through the Idaho court system and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court. The Idaho Legislature convenes in January 2027. Medical cannabis bills will likely be introduced again, though prospects for passage remain dim given Republican supermajorities and leadership opposition. However, individual legislators including Representative Ilana Rubel and Senator Melissa Wintrow have indicated they will continue introducing reform proposals to build public awareness and legislative support over time. Federal cannabis policy changes could alter Idaho's political calculus. The Drug Enforcement Administration's ongoing review of marijuana's Schedule I classification could result in rescheduling to Schedule III, which would acknowledge accepted medical use. Such a change might reduce Idaho officials' federalism objections to state medical marijuana programs, though it would not compel state legalization. The 2026 gubernatorial and legislative elections could shift Idaho's political landscape. While Republicans are expected to maintain control, the margin of control and individual legislators' positions on cannabis could change. Medical marijuana advocates plan to make cannabis policy a campaign issue, particularly in competitive districts where patient access resonates with moderate voters. Regional developments may increase pressure on Idaho. If Wyoming legalizes medical marijuana—a possibility given recent legislative activity—Idaho would become increasingly isolated as the only prohibition state in the Northwest. Montana's expanding program and Utah's successful implementation of a conservative medical model provide templates that Idaho could adopt. Patient advocacy efforts continue regardless of legislative or initiative outcomes. Idaho families affected by epilepsy, cancer, chronic pain, and PTSD maintain grassroots organizing through social media, community events, and legislative testimony. These personal stories humanize the issue and may gradually shift public opinion toward support for medical access. Public polling will influence strategic decisions. The most recent Idaho-specific cannabis poll, conducted in March 2025 by the Boise State University Public Policy Center, found that 61% of Idaho voters support medical marijuana legalization, while 52% oppose recreational legalization. These numbers suggest medical cannabis could win voter approval if an initiative reaches the ballot, though the 2022 constitutional amendment creates legal uncertainty. The timeline for any Idaho medical marijuana program remains uncertain. Even if an initiative qualified for the November 2028 ballot and won voter approval, legal challenges could delay implementation for months or years. If the legislature eventually passes medical cannabis legislation, implementation would likely take 12 to 18 months for rulemaking, licensing, and program launch.

Further Reading

• Idaho Code § 37-2732 (Controlled Substances Act marijuana provisions) - https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title37/T37CH27/SECT37-2732/
• Idaho Constitution Article III, Section 24 (psychoactive drug prohibition) - https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idconst/ArtIII/Sect24/
• Idaho Secretary of State Initiative Process Guide - https://sos.idaho.gov/elect/inits/initinfo.html
• Idaho Medical Cannabis Alliance official website - https://idahomedicalcannabis.org/
• Marijuana Policy Project Idaho campaign page - https://www.mpp.org/states/idaho/
• Boise State University Public Policy Center cannabis polling data (March 2025) - https://www.boisestate.edu/sps/public-policy-center/
• Idaho State Police annual crime statistics - https://isp.idaho.gov/BCI/
• ACLU of Idaho marijuana arrest disparity report - https://www.acluidaho.org/
• Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title21/html/USCODE-2021-title21-chap13.htm
• DEA marijuana scheduling review docket - https://www.federalregister.gov/