Probation and Parole Medical Marijuana Access: Rights and Restrictions

Executive Summary

Millions of Americans under criminal justice supervision remain barred from accessing medical marijuana despite state legalization and federal rescheduling efforts. As of August 2026, individuals on probation and parole face a patchwork of restrictions that often prohibit cannabis use even when state medical marijuana programs explicitly authorize it for qualifying conditions. This conflict creates a fundamental tension between therapeutic access and criminal justice oversight, affecting an estimated 3.7 million people on probation and 870,000 on parole nationwide. The issue has intensified following discussions of federal rescheduling, which would move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act but would not automatically resolve state-level supervision restrictions. Probation and parole officers retain broad discretion to impose conditions of supervision, and many jurisdictions maintain blanket prohibitions regardless of medical authorization. This policy gap disproportionately impacts patients with chronic pain, PTSD, and other debilitating conditions who have turned to cannabis as an alternative to opioids, creating what advocates describe as a choice between legal compliance and medical necessity.

Why This Matters

The intersection of medical marijuana access and criminal justice supervision affects more Americans than any other cannabis policy conflict. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 4.5 million adults were under community supervision at year-end 2024, representing roughly 1 in 58 U.S. adults. These individuals face conditions of supervision that frequently include mandatory drug testing and abstinence requirements, creating a direct collision with state medical marijuana programs that now operate in 38 states and the District of Columbia.

The financial implications extend beyond individual patients. States invest billions annually in medical marijuana programs—California alone generated $1.1 billion in cannabis tax revenue in 2025—while simultaneously spending an estimated $2.8 billion on probation services nationwide. When probation violations occur due to medical marijuana use, the costs multiply: revocation hearings, potential reincarceration, and lost tax revenue from patients forced out of legal markets.

For patients, the stakes are deeply personal. Veterans with PTSD, cancer patients managing chemotherapy side effects, and chronic pain sufferers who have avoided opioid addiction through cannabis face an impossible choice. A 2025 study published in the Journal of Criminal Justice found that 23% of probationers in medical marijuana states reported a qualifying condition, yet fewer than 8% received explicit authorization to use cannabis as part of their supervision terms. The remainder either violated their probation conditions, returned to pharmaceutical alternatives with higher abuse potential, or suffered untreated symptoms.

The issue also highlights broader questions of criminal justice reform and medical autonomy. Advocacy organizations including the Last Prisoner Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have identified probation cannabis restrictions as a critical barrier to successful reentry, noting that untreated medical conditions correlate with higher recidivism rates.

Background and History

The conflict between medical marijuana and criminal justice supervision emerged immediately after California became the first state to legalize medical cannabis in 1996. Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, created a framework for physician recommendations and patient access but remained silent on how the new law would interact with existing probation and parole conditions. Within months, California courts began grappling with cases where probationers tested positive for THC while holding valid medical marijuana cards.

Early Court Decisions (1997-2005)

The California Court of Appeal addressed the issue directly in People v. Tilehkooh (2003), ruling that trial courts possess discretion to prohibit medical marijuana use as a condition of probation even when state law authorizes it. The court reasoned that probation represents a privilege, not a right, and that rehabilitation goals could justify abstinence requirements. This precedent established the framework that most jurisdictions still follow: medical marijuana authorization does not automatically override supervision conditions.

Other early-adopting states reached similar conclusions. In Oregon, the Court of Appeals ruled in State v. Menteer (2001) that probation officers could prohibit medical marijuana despite the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act. The court emphasized that federal law still classified cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance, and probation conditions could reflect federal standards even when state law diverged.

Federal Policy Development (2006-2013)

The U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Office issued internal guidance in 2008 clarifying that federal probation officers should not approve medical marijuana use regardless of state law. This position aligned with the Department of Justice's enforcement priorities at the time, which treated marijuana as a dangerous drug despite growing state-level legalization. Federal probationers and parolees faced zero tolerance policies, with any cannabis use—medical or otherwise—constituting a violation subject to revocation.

The landscape began shifting incrementally after the Ogden Memo in 2009 and the Cole Memo in 2013, which deprioritized federal enforcement against state-compliant medical marijuana operations. However, these prosecutorial guidance documents did not extend to probation policy, and the U.S. Probation Office maintained its prohibition stance.

State-Level Reforms (2014-2020)

Pennsylvania became the first state to explicitly address the issue legislatively when it passed the Medical Marijuana Act in 2016. The statute included language stating that medical marijuana certification "shall not be considered in determining whether an individual is impaired" for purposes of supervision compliance. However, implementation proved inconsistent, with county probation departments adopting varying interpretations.

Illinois followed with more explicit protections in its 2019 Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, which prohibited discrimination against medical cannabis patients in "any other right or privilege" and specifically mentioned criminal justice contexts. The Illinois Probation Division issued a directive in January 2020 instructing officers that medical marijuana use could not automatically constitute a violation, though officers retained authority to impose restrictions based on individual case circumstances.

New York took a different approach in 2020 by amending its medical marijuana regulations to classify cannabis as a "prescribed medication" for purposes of probation and parole. This reclassification theoretically placed cannabis on par with other prescription drugs, though practical implementation remained contested in individual cases.

Federal Rescheduling Discussions (2021-2026)

The Department of Health and Human Services recommended in August 2023 that the DEA reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under 21 U.S.C. § 812. The DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in May 2024, initiating the formal administrative process. As of August 2026, the rescheduling remains under review following public comment periods and administrative law judge hearings.

Critically, Schedule III status would not legalize cannabis federally—it would remain a controlled substance subject to regulation. Legal experts including Professor Robert Mikos at Vanderbilt Law School have emphasized that rescheduling would not automatically resolve probation conflicts, as supervision conditions can prohibit legal substances including alcohol and prescription medications when deemed contrary to rehabilitation goals.

Recent Developments (2024-2026)

The landscape has continued evolving through state-level reforms and court decisions. In June 2024, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in State v. Anderson that probation conditions must be "reasonably related" to rehabilitation and that blanket medical marijuana prohibitions require individualized justification. The decision marked a significant departure from the discretionary framework established in earlier cases.

Massachusetts implemented administrative reforms in September 2024 requiring probation officers to document specific reasons for denying medical marijuana access, creating a presumption in favor of allowing use absent compelling countervailing factors. Early data from the Massachusetts Probation Service showed that medical marijuana approval rates increased from 12% to 67% in the six months following the policy change.

Conversely, Texas and several other states have moved in the opposite direction. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles issued guidance in March 2025 explicitly prohibiting medical marijuana use for all parolees, citing federal law and the board's authority to impose conditions promoting law-abiding behavior. The policy applies even to the state's limited Compassionate Use Program, which allows low-THC cannabis for specific medical conditions.

Key Players

Federal Agencies

The Drug Enforcement Administration maintains ultimate authority over cannabis scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA's Administrative Law Judges have conducted extensive hearings on the proposed Schedule III reclassification, with a final decision expected in late 2026 or early 2027. The agency's position directly impacts federal probation policy, though it exercises no direct control over state supervision systems.

The U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Office, operating under the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, sets policy for approximately 130,000 individuals under federal supervision. The office has maintained that medical marijuana use violates federal probation conditions regardless of state law, a position unchanged since formal guidance issued in 2008.

State Probation and Parole Agencies

State-level agencies operate with substantial autonomy, creating the patchwork of policies that defines the current landscape. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation oversees the nation's largest parole population, with approximately 48,000 individuals under supervision as of 2025. The department's policy allows parole agents to approve medical marijuana on a case-by-case basis following consultation with medical staff, though approval rates vary significantly by region.

The New York State Division of Parole adopted formal regulations in 2023 permitting medical marijuana use when recommended by a physician and approved by a supervising parole officer. The policy requires documentation of the qualifying condition and ongoing medical oversight, creating a structured pathway that has served as a model for other jurisdictions.

Florida's Department of Corrections, supervising approximately 166,000 individuals on probation and parole, maintains one of the nation's most restrictive policies despite the state's robust medical marijuana program serving over 800,000 registered patients. The department's position treats cannabis as a prohibited substance regardless of medical authorization, citing federal law and departmental regulations.

Advocacy Organizations

The Last Prisoner Project has emerged as a leading voice on the intersection of cannabis policy and criminal justice, launching its Probation and Parole Access Initiative in 2024. The organization provides legal support to individuals facing violations for medical marijuana use and advocates for legislative reforms at state and federal levels.

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws has published model legislation for states seeking to protect medical marijuana access for supervised populations. The model statute includes provisions requiring individualized assessments, prohibiting blanket bans, and creating appeal processes for denied requests.

Americans for Safe Access, focused specifically on medical marijuana patient rights, has documented hundreds of cases where probation violations for cannabis use resulted in reincarceration. The organization's 2025 report "Healing Interrupted" found that 34% of surveyed medical marijuana patients under supervision reported discontinuing cannabis due to probation restrictions, with 67% of that group reporting worsened symptoms.

Opposition and Concerns

The National Association of Drug Court Professionals has expressed concerns about medical marijuana access for individuals in treatment-oriented supervision programs. The organization's position, articulated in a 2024 policy statement, emphasizes that substance use disorders often involve cannabis and that abstinence-based treatment models remain evidence-based approaches for many participants.

Prosecutors' offices in multiple jurisdictions have opposed legislative reforms that would limit discretion to impose marijuana restrictions. The National District Attorneys Association submitted testimony to several state legislatures in 2025 arguing that supervision conditions must remain flexible to address individual circumstances and that medical marijuana authorization should not automatically override public safety considerations.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

The legal architecture governing probation and parole medical marijuana access spans federal controlled substances law, state medical marijuana statutes, and criminal procedure rules that define supervision authority. At the federal level, 21 U.S.C. § 812 establishes the five-schedule classification system, with Schedule I reserved for substances with "no currently accepted medical use" and high abuse potential. Cannabis has occupied Schedule I since the Controlled Substances Act's passage in 1970, though the proposed rescheduling to Schedule III would acknowledge accepted medical use while maintaining federal control.

Federal probation operates under 18 U.S.C. § 3563, which authorizes courts to impose conditions "reasonably related to" sentencing factors including deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation. The statute grants broad discretion, and federal courts have consistently upheld marijuana prohibitions as reasonable conditions. In United States v. Sousa (1st Cir. 2013), the court affirmed that medical marijuana use could be prohibited even when state-authorized, reasoning that federal law governs federal supervision.

State probation authority derives from individual state statutes and constitutional provisions. Most states follow the Model Penal Code framework, which authorizes courts to impose conditions that are "reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty." This standard creates tension when medical marijuana serves therapeutic purposes but conflicts with abstinence-based rehabilitation models.

State medical marijuana laws vary significantly in their treatment of criminal justice populations. Connecticut's Palliative Use of Marijuana Act explicitly states that certification "shall not affect any rights or privileges, including those relating to parole or probation." Arizona's medical marijuana law includes anti-discrimination provisions but carves out exceptions for "correctional facilities" and does not specifically address community supervision.

The interplay between state and federal law creates particular complexity. Under principles of federalism, states cannot compel federal officers to recognize state marijuana laws, but federal law does not preempt state decisions about state probation policy. This means states possess authority to permit medical marijuana for state probationers regardless of federal scheduling, though they cannot prevent federal prosecution for conduct that violates federal law.

Several states have addressed the issue through administrative regulations rather than legislation. The Ohio Adult Parole Authority adopted rules in 2022 establishing a petition process for medical marijuana authorization, requiring applicants to demonstrate a qualifying condition under Ohio Rev. Code § 3796.01, obtain physician certification, and show that alternative treatments proved ineffective. The regulations create a rebuttable presumption against approval for individuals with substance use disorder histories involving cannabis.

State-by-State Breakdown

California

California permits medical marijuana use for probationers and parolees on a discretionary basis. The state's Compassionate Use Act does not create an absolute right to use cannabis while under supervision, but California courts have held that blanket prohibitions without individualized consideration may be unreasonable. Possession limits for approved users match the standard medical marijuana limits: 8 ounces of dried flower and six mature plants. Los Angeles County Probation Department data from 2025 showed approval rates of approximately 45% for medical marijuana requests.

Colorado

Colorado's approach varies by judicial district. The state's medical marijuana law does not specifically address probation, and courts retain discretion to prohibit use. The Colorado Judicial Branch issued guidance in 2021 recommending individualized assessments but not requiring approval. Denver County courts have adopted a relatively permissive approach, with approval rates exceeding 60%, while rural districts maintain more restrictive policies. Possession limits for approved users are 2 ounces of usable marijuana.

Florida

Florida maintains one of the nation's most restrictive policies. The Department of Corrections prohibits medical marijuana use for all individuals under supervision, treating it as a violation equivalent to illicit drug use. This policy persists despite Florida's medical marijuana program serving over 800,000 registered patients as of 2025. Legislative efforts to change the policy failed in the 2024 and 2025 sessions. Probation violations for medical marijuana use have resulted in approximately 1,200 revocations annually since 2022.

Illinois

Illinois law prohibits discrimination against medical cannabis patients and specifically mentions criminal justice contexts. The Illinois Department of Corrections issued directives in 2020 instructing probation officers that medical marijuana use cannot automatically constitute a violation. Officers must document specific reasons for denial related to individual case circumstances. Approval rates statewide averaged 71% in 2025. Possession limits are 2.5 ounces per 14-day period for approved users.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts implemented significant reforms in 2024 requiring probation officers to document specific reasons for denying medical marijuana access. The state's policy creates a presumption in favor of allowing use absent compelling countervailing factors such as recent substance use disorder treatment or conditions specifically prohibiting intoxicants. Approval rates increased from 12% to 67% following the policy change. Possession limits are 10 ounces in the home and 2.5 ounces in public for approved users.

Michigan

Michigan permits medical marijuana use for probationers when authorized by the supervising court. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in People v. Latz (2014) that medical marijuana use could be prohibited as a probation condition despite state law authorization, but many courts have since adopted permissive policies. Wayne County (Detroit) courts approve approximately 55% of requests. Possession limits are 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana and 12 plants for approved users.

New York

New York classifies medical marijuana as a "prescribed medication" for probation and parole purposes. The Division of Parole's 2023 regulations permit use when recommended by a physician and approved by a supervising officer. The policy requires documentation and ongoing medical oversight. Approval rates statewide averaged 58% in 2025. Possession limits are a 30-day supply as determined by the certifying practitioner, typically 2-3 ounces.

Ohio

Ohio established a formal petition process through Adult Parole Authority rules adopted in 2022. Applicants must demonstrate a qualifying condition under state law, obtain physician certification, and show alternative treatments proved ineffective. The rules create a rebuttable presumption against approval for individuals with cannabis use disorder histories. Approval rates averaged 38% in 2025. Possession limits are a 90-day supply, typically 8-10 ounces, for approved users.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act states that certification "shall not be considered in determining whether an individual is impaired" for supervision purposes, but implementation varies by county. Philadelphia courts have adopted relatively permissive policies with approval rates near 50%, while rural counties maintain more restrictive approaches. Possession limits are a 30-day supply, typically 2-3 ounces, for approved users.

Texas

Texas prohibits medical marijuana use for all parolees through Board of Pardons and Paroles policy issued in March 2025. The prohibition applies even to the state's limited Compassionate Use Program, which allows low-THC cannabis (0.5% THC or less) for specific conditions including epilepsy and terminal cancer. Probation policies vary by county, with most urban counties maintaining blanket prohibitions. Possession of any amount constitutes a violation subject to revocation.

Market and Business Implications

The exclusion of 4.5 million Americans under criminal justice supervision represents a significant market constraint for the medical marijuana industry. Industry analysts estimate that probation and parole populations would generate $800 million to $1.2 billion in annual medical marijuana sales if granted access at rates comparable to the general population. This figure accounts for higher prevalence of qualifying conditions among justice-involved populations, particularly chronic pain and PTSD.

Multi-state operators including Curaleaf, Trulieve, and Green Thumb Industries have identified criminal justice reform as a market expansion opportunity. Curaleaf's 2025 investor presentation noted that "removing supervision barriers could increase addressable medical markets by 8-12% in key states." The company has supported legislative efforts in Florida and Texas to permit probation access, though these initiatives have not yet succeeded.

The economic impact extends beyond direct sales. Patients forced to choose between probation compliance and medical marijuana often turn to pharmaceutical alternatives, particularly opioids for pain management. A 2024 study in Health Economics found that states with permissive probation policies saw 14% lower opioid prescription rates among supervised populations compared to restrictive states, suggesting significant substitution effects. This dynamic has implications for pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and state Medicaid programs.

Dispensaries in states with permissive policies report that probation patients represent a stable customer base with high retention rates. A survey of Massachusetts dispensaries conducted in early 2026 found that probation patients averaged 2.3 visits per month compared to 1.8 for general medical patients, likely reflecting ongoing medical needs and limited ability to stockpile due to possession restrictions.

The testing industry has also adapted to the policy landscape. Laboratory companies including Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp offer specialized panels that distinguish between THC and CBD metabolites, allowing probation departments to permit CBD use while prohibiting THC. Some jurisdictions have adopted this approach, creating a middle-ground policy that permits non-intoxicating cannabinoids.

Tax revenue implications are substantial. California's cannabis excise tax generated $1.1 billion in 2025, with medical sales accounting for approximately 35% of the total. If California's 48,000 parolees accessed medical marijuana at average patient rates, the state would collect an estimated $18-22 million in additional annual tax revenue. Scaled nationally, full probation and parole access could generate $200-300 million in new state tax revenue.

What Experts Say

Medical professionals, legal scholars, and criminal justice researchers have articulated sharply divergent positions on probation medical marijuana access. Dr. Sunil Aggarwal, a palliative care physician and medical marijuana researcher, has emphasized that denying cannabis to patients with serious medical conditions constitutes a form of medical abandonment. In testimony before the Washington State Legislature in 2024, Aggarwal noted that many probation patients have conditions including cancer, HIV/AIDS, and severe chronic pain where cannabis provides relief unavailable through other medications.

Professor Douglas Berman at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law has analyzed the issue through a constitutional lens, arguing that blanket prohibitions on medical marijuana may violate substantive due process when they lack rational connection to legitimate supervision goals. In a 2025 law review article, Berman wrote that courts should apply heightened scrutiny to conditions that restrict access to physician-recommended treatments, particularly when alternative medications carry higher risks.

The perspective from addiction medicine differs significantly. Dr. Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, has cautioned that cannabis use disorder affects approximately 30% of regular users and that individuals with criminal justice involvement face elevated risk. According to Sabet's analysis presented at a 2025 conference, permitting medical marijuana for probationers may undermine recovery for those with substance use histories and normalize drug use in populations requiring structure and accountability.

Research from the RAND Corporation has examined recidivism outcomes in states with varying policies. A 2024 study found no statistically significant difference in re-arrest rates between probationers permitted to use medical marijuana and those subject to blanket prohibitions, after controlling for offense type and demographic factors. The researchers concluded that medical marijuana access neither increased nor decreased recidivism risk, suggesting that concerns about public safety impacts may be overstated.

From a patient advocacy perspective, Steph Sherer, founder of Americans for Safe Access, has documented cases where probation marijuana restrictions led to severe health consequences. Sherer's organization compiled data showing that cancer patients forced to discontinue cannabis during probation experienced higher rates of opioid use, hospitalization, and treatment discontinuation. The research emphasized that for some patients, cannabis represents not merely a preference but a medically necessary intervention.

Legal practitioners have noted practical implementation challenges. Rachel Gillette, a Colorado attorney specializing in cannabis law, has observed that even in permissive jurisdictions, the approval process often involves significant delays and bureaucratic hurdles. According to Gillette's experience representing probation clients, the average time from request to approval exceeds 90 days in many Colorado counties, during which patients must either violate probation or forego treatment.

What's Next

The trajectory of probation and parole medical marijuana access will be shaped by federal rescheduling decisions, state legislative activity, and ongoing litigation through 2027 and beyond. The DEA's final decision on Schedule III reclassification is expected by December 2026 or early 2027. While rescheduling would not automatically resolve probation conflicts, it would eliminate the argument that cannabis has "no accepted medical use," potentially influencing state policy debates and court decisions.

Legislative activity is anticipated in at least 15 states during 2027 sessions. Bills have been pre-filed or are under development in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin. The proposals vary in approach, with some creating absolute rights to medical marijuana access and others establishing presumptions subject to individualized rebuttal. Florida's proposed legislation has attracted particular attention given the state's large supervised population and restrictive current policy.

Litigation is pending in multiple jurisdictions. A class action lawsuit filed in Florida federal court in June 2026 alleges that the Department of Corrections' blanket prohibition violates equal protection and substantive due process. The case, Johnson v. Florida Department of Corrections, argues that the policy irrationally distinguishes between probationers and the general population without legitimate penological justification. A decision on the state's motion to dismiss is expected in late 2026.

Administrative reforms may proceed more quickly than legislation in some states. Advocates are pressing probation and parole agencies to adopt Massachusetts-style presumptive approval policies through internal rule changes that do not require legislative action. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has developed model administrative policies and is working with state agencies to implement reforms.

The federal probation system faces particular pressure to revisit its policies. If the DEA reschedules cannabis to Schedule III, the U.S. Probation Office's blanket prohibition would become increasingly difficult to justify, as Schedule III substances (including ketamine and anabolic steroids) can be prescribed and used legally. Federal defenders have indicated plans to challenge marijuana conditions more aggressively following any rescheduling decision.

Technological developments may also influence policy. Continuous monitoring devices that detect recent cannabis use (as opposed to metabolites indicating use days or weeks prior) could allow more nuanced supervision conditions. Several companies are developing transdermal sensors and breathalyzers that measure active THC, potentially enabling policies that prohibit intoxication while permitting medical use.

Key dates to monitor include the DEA's final rescheduling decision (expected Q4 2026 or Q1 2027), Florida legislative session (January-March 2027), and the Johnson v. Florida Department of Corrections decision on motion to dismiss (expected November-December 2026). Additional state supreme court cases are pending in Wisconsin and North Carolina that could establish new precedents on the reasonableness of blanket medical marijuana prohibitions.

Further Reading

• 21 U.S.C. § 812 - Controlled Substances Act scheduling provisions - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2022-title21/pdf/USCODE-2022-title21-chap13-subchapI-partB-sec812.pdf
• 18 U.S.C. § 3563 - Federal probation conditions statute - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2022-title18/pdf/USCODE-2022-title18-partII-chap227-subchapA-sec3563.pdf
• DEA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Cannabis Rescheduling (May 2024) - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/21/2024-10521/schedules-of-controlled-substances-rescheduling-of-marijuana
• Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2024 - https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/probation-and-parole-united-states-2024
• Americans for Safe Access, "Healing Interrupted: Medical Marijuana Access Barriers for Supervised Populations" (2025) - https://www.safeaccessnow.org/healing_interrupted_2025
• People v. Tilehkooh, 113 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003) - California Court of Appeal decision on probation marijuana restrictions - https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/113/1433.html
• Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, 410 ILCS 705 - https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=4276
• Massachusetts Probation Service, Medical Marijuana Policy Guidelines (2024) - https://www.mass.gov/service-details/probation-medical-marijuana-guidelines
• RAND Corporation, "Medical Marijuana and Recidivism: Evidence from State Probation Systems" (2024) - https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2234-1.html
• National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Model Probation Medical Marijuana Access Act - https://norml.org/laws/model-probation-medical-marijuana-access-act/