William L. Witham Jr. of Dover is a retired Kent County resident judge who served over 40 years in Delaware’s justice system.
While our new cannabis law is in its infancy, the evidence on the widespread use of marijuana is troubling to many.
The door is now wide open to potential abuse, given the number of recreational marijuana stores popping up in all counties of Delaware. And this may increase, given the legislative push for commercial dispensaries, despite local opposition.
The federal government has created classifications for controlled substances, based on potential for abuse and accepted medical uses.
The Trump administration, on Dec. 18, 2025, issued an executive order reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III drug. The stated purpose is to increase medical marijuana and cannabidiol research. This would put marijuana in the same class as anabolic steroids, hydrocodone and codeine mixed with aspirin or acetaminophen. According to the Food and Drug Administration, a Schedule III classification will mean that the drug has “a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.” This reclassifying goes too far.
A reclassification to a Schedule II drug makes more sense. Schedule II drugs include opioids such as oxycodone (OxyContin, Percocet), morphine, fentanyl and barbiturates. These substances are described as having a “high potential for abuse but also a currently accepted medical use,” though, potentially, with severe restrictions to avoid abuse.
A reclassifying of the drug to a Schedule II would have the same rules for medical research as Schedule I drugs do. Medical research funding is just as available. This class also allows for the use of cannabichromene (CBC), a product derived from cannabis. While this may be unlikely to create a pathway to federal compliance for state-legal marijuana businesses and financial institutions, it would mean that cannabis companies could take deductions on their federal tax returns, a move that would lower taxes, drive up profits and likely increase business. This will mean that those states that piggyback on the federal income tax law (unlike Delaware) could ease tax restrictions on growers and sellers with permissible laws for cannabis.
With 22 states having laws that grant recreational marijuana use, we are finding that younger generations are increasingly adopting the so-called California-sober lifestyle — abstaining from hard drugs and alcohol, while using marijuana and psychedelics. Since 2010, the share of Americans who have used marijuana in the past 30 days has doubled to 29% among those 19-30 years old and tripled to 25% among adults over 35.
It is a known scientific fact that THC, marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient, soaks into the brain and binds to receptors that are involved in executive function, decision-making, coordination, memory and emotion, seriously affecting judgment. THC levels in marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s were much lower than today’s high-potency cannabis. We know that teen brains are especially vulnerable to the drug and that there are changes on medical imaging linked to impaired decision-making and psychosis. We also know that the effects apply past age 21.
We also know that unlike alcohol, marijuana stays in your system up to 90 days, depending on how often an individual uses it. Currently, there is no reliable system to test for THC levels, so law enforcement is at a disadvantage in detaining people for DUI charges. In 2025, a study found that 40% of drivers who died in collisions in an Ohio county tested positive for THC.
A stunning new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds a surge in young adults nationwide showing up at emergency rooms with cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. This condition causes cyclical vomiting, often with nausea and stomach pain that is far more severe than what someone might experience after a night of heavy drinking. It is caused by heavy marijuana use. While I am not aware of the impact of this disorder in young people in Delaware, it is apparent that this syndrome has contributed to surprising political news in Massachusetts. As highlighted below, recent research over a number of years indicates that the evidence of marijuana’s medical benefits is weak or inconclusive.
A study at Mass General Brigham found that the share of adolescents with psychiatric emergencies who tested positive for THC jumped nearly fourfold after the drug was legalized for recreational sale and consumption in the state. The prevalence of other cannabis-related disorders among adolescents increased by similar amounts.
Legalization removes a stigma from marijuana use, as well as increases its availability. These results have sparked a referendum campaign to reverse Massachusetts’ 2016 legalization of recreational marijuana.
Some studies show that cannabis use can reduce pain, especially neuropathic pain and lower-back pain, but the studies are mixed. Other studies found that daily cannabis users had significantly lower pain tolerance compared to nonusers. This suggests that cannabis might actually decrease the ability to withstand pain over time, based on research at Boston University and the National Institutes of Health. There are two other notable studies that have highlighted the dark side, as well as the questionable merits, of cannabis use, making legalization questionable. A study in California in The American Journal of Medicine finds that there is no medical evidence that marijuana use reduces pain. The second one, from the American College of Cardiology, finds that individuals without significant cardiovascular morbidity younger than 50 have a higher risk of myocardial infarction, a fourfold increase of stroke, a twofold increase of heart failure and a threefold increase of cardiovascular death from the use of marijuana. The risk factor varies with the use, but a regular diet of marijuana use increases the risk.
It seems clear that our Delaware legislature chose to either ignore the clear medical warning signs or let social pressure and cannabis special-interest groups win the day with the recent legislation.
Former Gov. John Carney was right to veto this legislation.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
