Ask the Expert: How federal laws impact cannabis research in Michigan 

People across Michigan are purchasing cannabis at high levels, but researchers are unable to study many of the products their neighbors are consuming. As cannabis use continues to grow, experts are calling for better research policies and changes to federal laws so they can better support public health information, decisions and research.

Michigan State University expert Omayma Alshaarawy studies cannabis use and cardiometabolic health and has more than 50 published papers on related topics. Here, the associate professor in the MSU College of Human Medicine shares her perspective on the importance of expanding cannabis research to reflect the products Michigan residents use. Excerpts are taken from Alshaarawy’s article in The Conversation.

How prevalent is cannabis use in Michigan?

Per capita sales in Michigan now rank among the nation’s highest. Customers are met with a dazzling array of products including high-potency vape cartridges, gourmet gummies, premium marijuana flowers and more. Michigan’s robust legal cannabis market has recently seen a wave of dispensary closures due to oversaturation and falling prices. However, access is still widespread.

Are researchers able to study the cannabis products that Michigan residents are buying?

No. As a researcher, I face severe restrictions under federal law that mean I cannot study the products that are for sale here in Michigan. Under federal law, cannabis is a Schedule I drug. According to this designation, cannabis has “a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use,” even though millions of Americans consume it every day.

Federal law limits researchers to studying cannabis samples provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which often bears little resemblance to the products Michiganders are using. The institute supplies low-potency, standardized products, while the commercial market is flooded with high-potency concentrates, edibles and vapes. This limits the real-world applicability of our findings.

How does this compare with other states in the nation?

While Michigan has taken a limited step by supporting cannabis research focused on post-traumatic stress disorder and mental health outcomes among veterans, that is essentially the only state-funded or state-supported research area to date. Compared to leading states like California and Colorado, which have dedicated millions in cannabis tax revenue to study a wide range of products, high-potency concentrates and real-world public health outcomes, Michigan’s investment remains narrow and underfunded.

Who would benefit from cannabis research in Michigan?

Data that my colleagues and I have collected confirms that use is not only high overall but notably prevalent among specific populations like pregnant women and older adults.

As more women of reproductive age use cannabis, it becomes more important to research how prenatal exposure affects the health of mothers and babies. This information would allow researchers to provide guidance to families across Michigan who are making decisions in a landscape where cannabis is legally accessible and socially normalized.

A significant portion of my research seeks to clarify the effects of cannabis use on heart health. This work is particularly urgent in Michigan, where the rates of heart disease are persistently high. Michigan grapples with a high burden of chronic diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. The risk of these conditions increases with age. In southeast Michigan, this burden is even more acute. A Forbes analysis ranked Detroit as the least healthy city in the nation, with the highest rates of diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity. These conditions disproportionately affect Black residents, who make up nearly 80% of the city’s population.

My research team and others are also investigating cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, a condition characterized by cycles of severe nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain that can result from chronic cannabis use. As regular cannabis use grows among Michiganders, understanding who is at risk and how to treat this debilitating syndrome has become a critical clinical priority.

What barriers still prevent effective cannabis research?

Even when rescheduling happens, significant barriers to cannabis research will remain.

Schedule III was designed for prescription pharmaceuticals, such as steroids and testosterone, not for a substance available at a store down the street. Moving cannabis to Schedule III does not resolve the fundamental conflict between federal drug policy and real-world consumption in Michigan and around the U.S.

The mismatch between federal law and the patchwork of state cannabis policies also means that federally funded, multisite studies remain limited to states where cannabis is fully legal, narrowing the geographical scope and diversity of our research. It also does not eliminate the unique administrative burdens that apply only to cannabis research. Those burdens add years and drive up the cost of studies that are urgently needed.

What could improve cannabis research?

The Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act of 2022 was a step in this direction. It aimed to streamline the application process for researchers and expand the supply of research-grade cannabis. However, it did not eliminate the fundamental Schedule I classification or the redundant federal reviews that continue to delay research.

Moving cannabis to Schedule III would facilitate larger, more rigorous longitudinal studies, like my team’s Cannabis Legalization in Michigan, or CALM, cohort. For instance, if a Michigander has high blood pressure and uses high-THC vape products, we want to know how that affects their heart health compared to using other forms of the drug. We cannot design a rigorous study answering this question because we are barred from using the specific products consumers purchase in dispensaries.

For the people of Michigan, where cannabis is easy to buy and chronic disease is common, these policy restrictions leave families without the science they need to make informed decisions.