According to the report by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, this week the Nevada Supreme Court overturned a 2022 ruling that prohibited the Nevada Board of Pharmacy from classifying cannabis as a Schedule I Controlled substance.
In 2022, District Judge Joe Hardy Jr. of Clark County ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada, after the latter's medicinal marijuana claims were deemed valid.
The lawsuit, filed by Antoine Poole and the Cannabis Equity and Inclusion Community organization, with representation from the American Civil Liberties Union, claimed that the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy failed to honor Nevada voters' will after the Nevada Medical Marijuana Act was passed in 2000 and the Initiative to Regulate and Tax Marijuana in 2016.
The Board of Pharmacy, which operates within the executive branch and oversees pharmacies—entities that do not distribute cannabis—lacks the authority to grant licenses for marijuana sales or consumption, as noted by Benzinga's Rolando García.
Judge Hardy directed the Board of Pharmacy to take cannabis off the Schedule I list, although she did not specify when this would happen. Furthermore, he made it clear that the ACLU's case did not address the question of reversing convictions for crimes involving cannabis, as reported at the time by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Nevada Cannabis Saga Continues as Lawmakers Advocate for Federal Rescheduling of Marijuana
The ongoing process began in late November 2022 when the Nevada Board of Pharmacy announced its intention to appeal a ruling regarding cannabis classification. During the spring appeal hearing for the case *Nevada Board of Pharmacy v. CEIC*, Justice Kris Pickering highlighted the inconsistency between Nevada’s legislative progress in cannabis legalization and its continued classification as a substance with high abuse potential and no recognized medical benefits.
The court stated, "While the declarations show that Poole and at least one member of CEIC were convicted for marijuana possession after medical marijuana was legalized, there is no direct link between those convictions and the Board's classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance."
Meanwhile, several US lawmakers are pushing Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram to reschedule marijuana, which is contributing to the ongoing media attention surrounding Nevada's cannabis issue. A letter sent to the public last week expressed the senators' support for the request by the DEA to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
ACLU Criticizes Court's Decision, Citing Voter Intent and Medical Use Recognition
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada has harshly condemned the Nevada Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Nevada Board of Pharmacy's classification of cannabis as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. The ACLU claims that the citizens of Nevada, who have consistently shown their support for the legalization of cannabis, have been blatantly disregarded in this judgment. When they passed the Nevada medicinal Marijuana Act in 2000, voters recognized the potential medicinal advantages of cannabis. This was followed by the 2016 Initiative to Regulate and Tax Marijuana, which made it legal for recreational use. Even though cannabis is legal in the state, the ACLU contends that the court's decision to classify marijuana with drugs like heroin undercuts the will of the people.
The ACLU of Nevada's Policy Director, Holly Welborn, criticized the court's ruling, claiming it perpetuates harmful and antiquated misconceptions about cannabis. Welborn claims that the ruling ignores Nevada's enormous advancement in the acceptance of marijuana's therapeutic benefits. Cannabis's classification as a Schedule I drug, according to her, is glaringly at odds with voter intent and legislative measures that have expressly recognized its medicinal advantages. "This ruling not only ignores the will of the people but also perpetuates the stigma surrounding cannabis, which has no place in a state where its medicinal use is legally recognized," stated Welborn.
The continued disagreement between state-level legalization initiatives and federal or state agencies' regulations, which still categorize marijuana as a narcotic with no recognized medicinal value, is further brought to light by the ACLU's criticism. Significant difficulties are presented by this classification for patients, medical professionals, and the Nevada legal cannabis market. Additionally, it makes for a complex legal environment when a chemical that one jurisdiction recognizes as useful is regarded as a harmful drug by another state's regulatory system. The ACLU contends that this discrepancy is harmful to people who depend on cannabis for medicinal reasons in addition to being nonsensical.
The ACLU is also concerned that this decision may have effects that go beyond how cannabis is classified. They contend that by permitting the Board of Pharmacy to keep marijuana classified as a Schedule I drug, the court is establishing a precedent that may obstruct further initiatives to defend and advance the rights of Nevadans who use cannabis. The possible effects on people convicted of cannabis-related felonies are of particular concern to the ACLU, particularly for those convicted after medicinal marijuana became authorized. Even while the court's ruling did not specifically address the question of overturning such convictions, the ACLU thinks that keeping those people in Schedule I may make it more challenging for them to receive justice.
Bottom Line
The Nevada Supreme Court's decision to uphold cannabis as a Schedule I Controlled Substance has reignited tensions between state legalization efforts and outdated federal classifications. Despite Nevada voters legalizing medical and recreational marijuana, the court's ruling contradicts these legislative advances, aligning cannabis with substances like heroin. The ACLU of Nevada condemns this decision, arguing it undermines voter intent, perpetuates harmful stigmas, and disregards the recognized medicinal benefits of cannabis. This ruling poses significant challenges for patients, healthcare providers, and the legal cannabis market in Nevada. Additionally, the decision raises concerns about the broader implications for those with cannabis-related convictions, especially after the legalization of medical marijuana. As lawmakers push for federal rescheduling, this case highlights the ongoing conflict between state and federal perspectives on cannabis, creating a complex legal environment that hinders progress and justice in the evolving landscape of marijuana regulation.
