politics a level essay plans

A Level Politics Model Essays

See how a top-level answer is written.

Model Essays are a powerful resource to help see a Level 5 answer in practice. Model Essays from Study Politics have been marked at an A* before, so you can see how to structure an essay and the different elements that go into it.

Why should I use A Level Politics Model Essays?

Wide range available.

We’ve made available a wide range of Model Essays that demonstrate how to answer questions for a range of topics.

Essay Structure

A Level Politics Model Essays give you an idea about how to structure an essay, and what to include.

Put technique to practice

Paired with our Exam Technique resources, Model Essays show you how to apply what you’ve learned previously.

Try out our A Level Politics Model Essays

Get started today

With A Level Politics model essays and many more features included, become a Study Politics member today. You can get instant access and unlock your A* potential in A Level Politics right away!

Study Politics has a huge library of model essays available for all areas of the course, including UK, USA and Global. We have model essays for all question types, including short questions, extract questions and longer essays.

• Case Studies
• Course Notes
• Exam Guidance
• Model Essays
• PDF Downloads
• Practice Papers
• Progress Tracking
• Summary Grids
• Video Lessons
• StudyBot (beta)

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

A-Level Politics Essay Plans - UK Politics

Subject: Government and politics

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

19 June 2023

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

A/A* Quality A-Level Politics Essay Plans.

• Over 75 plans.
• Suitable for Edexcel, AQA and WJEC.
• Including examples up to May 2023.
• Ideal for revision and exam prepration.
• Cover 95% of the specification.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

Can you trust 2024 election polls on Donald Trump and Joe Biden? Here's how to cut through the noise.

Love them or hate them, political polls aren’t going anywhere. As the 2024 presidential election kicks into high gear, the internet will be flooded with surveys tracking the horserace between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

Keeping track of the numbers can be daunting: Who's ahead in national polls? Who's ahead in state-level surveys? Figuring out which numbers to pay attention to – and whether any of it actually matters – can be even more challenging.  

Luckily, the USA TODAY Network has got you covered. Here’s a refresher on why polls matter, whether you can trust them and what to look out for this year.  

What do polls tell us about the election?  

Think of polls as quick snapshots rather than crystal ball readings.  

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

They don’t necessarily predict the results of an election. Rather, they’re used to gauge how people feel about a race during a specific period. Pollsters may ask questions about the future, but surveys have more to say about the voters' current temperature.

Polls also tend to have a short shelf life. Public opinion can shift quickly, meaning that the results of polls are often only a reliable measure of the state of a race during the time they were taken. 

A survey taken two months ago won’t reflect the state of a race today, and a poll fielded tomorrow won’t tell us who is going to win the presidential election in November.

However, that doesn't mean polls captured at the beginning of a campaign cycle don't matter. The insights from early polls tease out the major issues voters are thinking about that could shape the race.  They also help trace the trendlines of how a candidate is performing – whether they’re gaining traction, stagnating or losing support. 

Pollster John Zogby likened the importance of looking at early polling to checking benchmarks while trying to reach an exercise goal.  

“Am I going to get on the scale the day before to see how I did?” said Zogby. “No, I get on the scale every so often to say what am I doing? How am I doing? What am I doing right?” 

Conducting polls early in a race and often throughout the course of an election allows political scientists, journalists and the public to track trends and spot major inflection points in campaigns.  

Beware of two-candidate polls  

Not all polls are built the same. The way a survey is designed, from how questions are worded to the demographics of the participants chosen, can influence the accuracy of its results.  

David Paleologos , director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, said political polls are most accurate when they replicate as closely as possible the questions and options voters will see on their ballot.

For instance, he said that polls on the 2024 presidential election should include choices beyond the two major party candidates – Trump and Biden – because most ballots will contain third-party and independent candidates who will garner some support.  

“If the polls only show a binary choice, between Trump or Biden, you're not getting the full picture,” Paleologos said.

He pointed to close margins in critical swing states, including Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia, during the 2020 election as an example. Trump lost in those states by fewer votes than Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen received.  

If Jorgensen had not been in the race, the results in those battlegrounds, and possibly the outcome of the election nationally, could have looked markedly different, Paleologos said.

The Libertarian Party hasn’t yet chosen its candidate for the 2024 election. But early polls that include the party and other independent candidates as options are likely to more accurately show how disaffected voters are looking at their options, he explained.

Suffolk University and USA TODAY have a partnership collecting polling data and insights.

Who's being polled?

Another factor that can impact a poll’s accuracy is the sample population surveyed. Polls randomly select a small sample of people designed to represent the broader views and attitudes of a larger population. But every organization uses different methodologies to create their samples.  

For instance, some election polls take the temperature of the general population, while others only include active voters or likely voters. They also may weigh demographic information, such as the ratio of Democrats to Republicans, differently.  

In the 2024 race, Zogby, author of the forthcoming book "Beyond the Horse Race: How to Read Polls and Why We Should," suggested that the most accurate polls include only likely voters, the pool of people already planning to cast a ballot in November.

“A likely voter today may not be a likely voter on October 31,” Zogby said, but capturing these voters allows political scientists to better understand the Americans who will choose the next president.

Should I pay attention to national polls or state surveys?

Pollsters were lambasted in 2016 for projecting that then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton would win the election over Trump.

But national polls , which are supposed to reflect the popular vote across all states, were technically right. Overall, Clinton won nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump.  

So, what went wrong? Many analysts overstated Clinton’s lead in national polls, and few organizations conducted state-specific polls in former Democratic strongholds, such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, that Trump was able to capture. His wins in those states ultimately landed him the electoral college victory.  

That’s not to say that national polls are inferior to state polls, but you should think of them differently.

“National polls are more valuable to understand what the issues are impacting likely voters,” Paleologos said, while state polls better represent the horserace.

He and other polling experts told USA TODAY that Biden needs to lead Trump by three to four percentage points in a national poll to be tied with the Republican in the electoral college . That's because large liberal-leaning states like California and New York tend to tilt the results of national polls in Democrats’ favor, whereas the "electoral college these days skews Republican," Zogby said.

In other words, a national poll showing Biden and Trump tied would tell a similar story to a swing state poll that shows Trump leading Biden by a few points.  But generally, experts warn against comparing national and state surveys, which are built off of different methodologies, against one another.

Can you trust the polls?  

Mostly. Because polls are analyzing a myriad of shifting factors, they'll always have some level of uncertainty baked in, regardless of the specific election. Organizations also don’t collaborate on what states they plan to poll, or when, which means there’s always potential for blind spots, like in 2016. 

Some political observers rely on poll averages, such as a tally from Real Clear Politics. These are generally reliable, but they can miss trends.

But when interpreted properly, polls often provide an accurate portrait of the state of an election. 

“There are folks that will say, ‘Oh, you missed the election by two points,’” Zogby said. "Well, two points – that showed the ballpark of what was going to happen.” 

And the more polls there are, the easier it is to evaluate the race.  

Utah high school removes class assignment on student essay titled ‘It Is So Hard to Be Trans’

The essay, published in the new york times, contained no explicit or “pornographic” content that would have required its removal under utah law..

(Google Maps) Herriman High School, as shown in a 2021 Google Maps image, in Herriman, Utah. Jordan School District officials ordered that a class assignment at the school involving a transgender student's essay be removed.

Jordan School District officials ordered that an assignment involving a Texas student’s essay published in The New York Times titled “It Is So Hard to Be Trans” be removed from a Herriman High School class’s curriculum after it was brought to the attention of administrators.

“We apologize to any student offended by a Herriman High School classroom assignment involving a New York Times student essay and the disruption to learning it may have caused,” district spokesperson Sandra Riesgraf said in a statement Monday.

The district investigated the assignment, “which asked students to break down parts of speech in the essay,” after school administrators were notified, Riesgraf said. The assignment was ultimately removed and is “no longer part of the class.”

“Appropriate administrative action will be taken,” the statement continued, though the statement did not specify what that action would entail.

The district also did not specify why the assignment was removed. The content does not seem to violate Utah’s sensitive materials law .

But it did seem to prompt outrage after photos of the printed-out, stapled essay made rounds in conservative social media circles as early as last Thursday, with some posts claiming students were required to write a response to the essay explaining why being transgender “isn’t a choice.”

Riesgraf said that claim was false. “Students were not required to take a stance or form an opinion on why being trans isn’t a choice,” Riesgraf said. “The assignment was to review the writing, not the subject.”

Sen. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, weighed in on X , formerly Twitter, arguing that he didn’t see how the essay would “fit into any curriculum that is state approved.”

“I’ve asked the district to investigate,” he wrote.

McCay did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Salt Lake Tribune.

The assigned essay had been selected as one of the Top 11 winners in a 2023 student editorial contest through the The Learning Network, a free resource for teachers curated by The New York Times.

It was written by then 16-year-old Callisto Lim, a student at the Kinder High School for the Performing and Visual Arts in Houston, Texas. The essay details why Callisto felt scared for their “right to exist,” citing several states that had passed anti-transgender legislation.

“I am scared that if I stay in Texas I will be denied the health care that I need because of people like Governor Greg Abbott,” Callisto wrote.

Callisto’s essay contains no explicit “pornographic or indecent material” that would make it illegal under Utah’s current sensitive materials law.

Utah law also does not explicitly prohibit classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, though lawmakers have made attempts to pass legislation banning such topics in the past.

Earlier this year, Rep. Jeff Stenquist , R-Draper, proposed a bill that would have prevented school officials from “endorsing, promoting, or disparaging certain beliefs or viewpoints,” building upon existing restrictions meant to uphold “constitutional freedom” in Utah public schools.

The bill would have specifically added “gender identity,” “sexual orientation,” and “political and social viewpoints” as restricted topics, but it ultimately failed to pass .

A year prior, Stenquist also ran a bill that would have prohibited any discussion of sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. HB550 took language directly from a controversial Florida bill that became more widely known as the “Don’t Say Gay” measure.

But after pushback from the LGBTQ community, Stenquist revised his draft , lifting the proposed ban on sexual orientation and gender identity but keeping the prohibition on sexuality. The bill failed to pass.

Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible

RELATED STORIES

Utah plan to ban pride flags in classrooms is rejected by house, transgender jordan school district student speaks out as adults discuss school restroom use, school districts await statewide book ban list as utah plans to retroactively enforce new law, weber state university takes utah nurse to next level in life, career., we know more about what ryan smith wants in his nhl, nba entertainment district, mitt romney’s idea to quell student protesters: don’t forgive their college loans., judge will hear phil lyman’s demand to keep running mate on friday as utah’s ballot print deadline looms, bagley cartoon: signs of the times, evictions at trailer court in moab ‘devastating,’ city council says, featured local savings.

Trump says it’s up to states whether to punish, monitor women for abortions

Former president Donald Trump said in an interview published Tuesday that he would not intervene in state decisions on abortion policy, including in situations where states seek to monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.

Trump also declined during the interview with Time magazine to commit to veto any additional federal restrictions if they were to come to his desk upon a possible return to the White House.

Asked by Time if he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions outside limited periods permitted by state laws, Trump suggested the federal government should have no role.

“It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not,” Trump said. “It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.”

Trump’s comments highlight the fraught politics of the stance on abortion that he outlined earlier this month.

Trump announced on social media that policy should be left to the states, after months of mixed signals about his position. Trump has consistently taken credit for overturning Roe v. Wade — three of the justices who ruled on the case were appointed by him — yet has distanced himself from the political repercussions of the decision.

Shortly after Trump articulated his states-rights stance this month, Arizona’s Supreme Court revived an 1864 law passed before it was granted statehood that forbids abortions except to save a mother’s life and punishes providers with prison time. In that case, Trump said the state had gone too far.

During the Time interview, however, Trump repeatedly emphasized his support for state autonomy, at least in concept.

When asked, for instance, about the federal Republican-sponsored Life at Conception Act, which would grant “full legal rights to embryos,” Trump said: “I’m leaving everything up to the states.”

He declined to say whether he would veto such a bill, suggesting he wouldn’t be presented with that decision.

“I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,” Trump said, “because we now have it back in the states.”

Asked by Time if states should monitor women’s pregnancies to detect whether they get abortions after a ban takes effect, Trump said: “I think they might do that.”

“Again, you’ll have to speak to the individual states,” he said. “Look, Roe v. Wade was all about bringing it back to the states.”

Democrats have sought to make abortion the dominant issue in the 2024 elections, highlighting Trump’s role in appointing the three conservative Supreme Court justices who helped overturn a constitutional right to abortion in 2022, and legislation pushed by Republican lawmakers to ban or severely restrict access to the procedure.

President Biden’s campaign seized on the Time interview after it was published Tuesday.

Biden campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said Trump’s latest remarks are proof that reproductive health care is at stake in the election.

“Donald Trump’s latest comments leave little doubt: if elected he’ll sign a national abortion ban, allow women who have an abortion to be prosecuted and punished, allow the government to invade women’s privacy to monitor their pregnancies, and put IVF and contraception in jeopardy nationwide,” Rodriguez said in a statement. “Simply put: November’s election will determine whether women in the United States have reproductive freedom, or whether Trump’s new government will continue its assault to control women’s health care decisions.”

Trump declined to answer directly when asked by Time if he thinks women should be able to obtain the abortion pill mifepristone .

“Well, I have an opinion on that, but I’m not going to explain. I’m not gonna say it yet.” He said he would announce his position “probably over the next week.” When pressed for an answer, Trump sought more time. “I will be making a statement on that over the next 14 days.”

Trump spoke with writer Eric Cortellessa at his home in Florida on April 12 and had a follow-up phone interview April 27, the magazine reported. On Tuesday it published a story about the interview along with a transcript .

The interview comes as Republicans brace for fallout from their newly pushed restrictions.

Florida’s ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy takes effect this week, one of the strictest in the nation.

The Republican-led Arizona Senate is expected to vote on a repeal of the state’s near total abortion ban after the state Supreme Court ruled a Civil War-era bill can take effect following the overturning of Roe v. Wade . Arizona’s House last week voted to repeal the law, after prominent antiabortion Republicans such as Senate candidate Kari Lake reversed course on the issue .

Trump, who once described himself as “very pro-choice,” said in 2000 that he would “indeed support a ban.” As a candidate, Trump struggled to adopt a position to fully satisfy leading members of the antiabortion movement while shielding himself and Republicans from blowback at the ballot box.

During the GOP nominating contests, Trump declined to take a firm stance on federal legislation and criticized Florida’s six-week abortion ban as a “terrible mistake.” In a CNN town hall last year, Trump would not say whether he would sign a federal abortion ban. Instead he said the antiabortion movement was in a “very good negotiating position” after the Supreme Court overturned Roe.

As president, Trump backed a 20-week abortion ban that did not have the votes to pass Congress and at the time conflicted with Roe, which gave Americans nationwide a right to abortion until a fetus was viable outside the womb, often pegged at roughly 24 weeks of pregnancy.

After publication of the Time interview Tuesday, Trump celebrated the piece while speaking to reporters outside the courtroom in New York, where he is on trial.

“I want to thank the Time magazine,” he said. “They did a cover story, which is very nice.”

“It’s at least 60 percent correct, which is all I could ask for,” Trump said, without identifying anything that he might say were inaccuracies. Trump walked away and ignored questions shouted by reporters.

Isaac Arnsdorf contributed to this report.

U.S. abortion access, reproductive rights

Tracking abortion access in the United States: Since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade , the legality of abortion has been left to individual states. The Washington Post is tracking states where abortion is legal, banned or under threat.

Abortion and the election: Voters in about a dozen states could decide the fate of abortion rights with constitutional amendments on the ballot in a pivotal election year. Biden supports legal access to abortion , and he has encouraged Congress to pass a law that would codify abortion rights nationwide. After months of mixed signals about his position, Trump said the issue should be left to states . Here’s how Biden and Trump’s abortion stances have shifted over the years.

New study: The number of women using abortion pills to end their pregnancies on their own without the direct involvement of a U.S.-based medical provider rose sharply in the months after the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right to abortion , according to new research.

Abortion pills: The Supreme Court seemed unlikely to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone . Here’s what’s at stake in the case and some key moments from oral arguments . For now, full access to mifepristone will remain in place . Here’s how mifepristone is used and where you can legally access the abortion pill .

• States where abortion is on the ballot in the 2024 election April 15, 2024 States where abortion is on the ballot in the 2024 election April 15, 2024
• States where abortion is legal, banned or under threat May 1, 2024 States where abortion is legal, banned or under threat May 1, 2024
• Tears and despair at Florida abortion clinic in final hours before ban May 1, 2024 Tears and despair at Florida abortion clinic in final hours before ban May 1, 2024

Morning Rundown: NYPD says gun accidentally fired when clearing campus protest, China launches probe to far side of the moon, and Britney Spears 'safe' after hotel figh t

Biden administration plans to reclassify marijuana, easing restrictions nationwide

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration will take a historic step toward easing federal restrictions on cannabis, with plans to announce an interim rule soon reclassifying the drug for the first time since the Controlled Substances Act was enacted more than 50 years ago, four sources with knowledge of the decision said.

The Drug Enforcement Administration is expected to approve an opinion by the Department of Health and Human Services that marijuana should be reclassified from the strictest Schedule I to the less stringent Schedule III. It would be the first time that the U.S. government has acknowledged its potential medical benefits and begun studying them in earnest.

Attorney General Merrick Garland submitted the rescheduling proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Tuesday afternoon, a source familiar with the situation confirmed.

Any reclassification is still months from going into effect. After the proposal is published in the Federal Register, there will be a 60-day public comment period. The proposal will then be reviewed by an administrative law judge, who could decide to hold a hearing before the rule is approved.

What rescheduling means

Since 1971, marijuana has been in the same category as heroin, methamphetamines and LSD. Each substance under the Schedule I classification is defined as a drug with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule III substances include Tylenol with codeine, steroids and testosterone.

By rescheduling cannabis, the drug would be studied and researched to identify concrete medical benefits, opening the door for pharmaceutical companies to get involved with the sale and distribution of medical marijuana in states where it is legal.

For the $34 billion cannabis industry, the move would also eliminate significant tax burdens for businesses in states where the drug is legal, notably getting rid of the IRS' code Section 280E, which prohibits legal cannabis companies from deducting what would otherwise be ordinary business expenses.

The Justice Department’s rescheduling decision could also help shrink the black market, which has thrived despite legalization in states like New York and California and has undercut legal markets, which are fiercely regulated and highly taxed.

Years in the making

President Joe Biden directed the Department of Health and Human Services in October 2022 to review marijuana’s classification. Federal scientists concluded that there is credible evidence that cannabis provides medical benefits and that it poses lower health risks than other controlled substances.

Biden even made history in his State of the Union address this year, for the first time referring to marijuana from the dais in the House chamber and making note of the federal review process. “No one should be jailed for using or possessing marijuana,” he said.

When Biden was vice president in the Obama administration, the White House opposed any legalization of marijuana, saying it would “pose significant health and safety risks to all Americans.”

Jim Cole, who was deputy attorney general in the Obama administration, wrote the famous Cole Memo in 2013 , paving the way for the modern marijuana market. The memo scaled back federal intervention in states that had legalized marijuana as long as they implemented “strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, distribution, sale and possession of marijuana.”

Cole, who is now a member of the National Cannabis Roundtable, said in an interview this week that reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III would “open up the ability to actually test it and put it in a laboratory without all of the restrictive measures” of a Schedule I drug.

Kevin Sabet, president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana and a former Obama administration adviser, said the decision to reclassify marijuana is "the result of a politicized process," arguing that it "will be devastating for America’s kids, who will be bombarded with attractive advertising and promotion of kid-friendly pot products."

"The only winner here is the marijuana industry, who will receive a new tax break and thus widen their profit margins," Sabet said. “Reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III drug sends the message that marijuana is less addictive and dangerous now than ever before. In reality, today’s highly potent, super strength marijuana is more addictive and linked with psychosis and other mental illnesses, IQ loss and other problems.”

Researchers have raised concerns about high-potency marijuana and cannabis-induced psychiatric disorders, particularly among young men.

Some challenges ahead

Once the DEA formally makes its announcement, the marijuana industry would see an immediate benefit. But with the DEA’s proposed rule change comes a public review period that could lead to a challenge, and perhaps even a change, to the rescheduling proposal.

Once the public comment period has concluded and the Office of Management and Budget reviews the decision, Congress would also be able to overturn the rule under the Congressional Review Act, which gives it the power to weigh in on rules issued by federal agencies. Democrats control the Senate with a 51-seat majority, and for an overturn under the CRA to succeed, two-thirds of the House and the Senate would be needed to support it, meaning the marijuana rescheduling would most likely survive.

Though cannabis remains a divisive topic on Capitol Hill, there has been growing support on a bipartisan basis for marijuana reforms, largely driven by the electorate. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes, according to a Pew Research poll last month. Cannabis is legal in 24 states for recreational use.

Congress is considering its own bills

Congress is considering its own measures that would make it easier for legal marijuana businesses to thrive and allow for more small and minority-owned shops to flood the marketplace.

The SAFER Banking Act , for example, which would grant legal marijuana businesses access to traditional banking and financial services, could pass both chambers by the end of the year.

Lawmakers are also considering the HOPE Act , another bipartisan bill that would provide states and local governments with resources to automatically expunge criminal records for petty, nonviolent cannabis offenses.

There is also a Democratic-only effort to remove cannabis entirely from the Controlled Substances Act, empowering states to create their own cannabis laws and prioritize restorative and economic justice for those affected by the “war on drugs.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., praised the administration for its move, saying it amounts to "finally recognizing that restrictive and draconian cannabis laws need to change to catch up to what science and the majority of Americans have said loud and clear."

At the same time, he said he is "strongly committed" to moving forward with both the SAFER Banking Act and the Democratic bill to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act entirely. “Congress must do everything we can to end the federal prohibition on cannabis and address longstanding harms caused by the War on Drugs," he said in a statement.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., also praised the administration’s move but cautioned that “we still have a long way to go.”

Booker called on Congress in a statement to "follow the lead of states around the country and legalize cannabis for adult-use and create a comprehensive taxation and regulatory scheme."

“Thousands of people remain in prisons around the country for marijuana-related crimes. Thousands of people continue to bear the devastating collateral consequences that come with a criminal record,” he said. “Legal marijuana businesses, especially those in communities hardest hit by the War on Drugs, still have to navigate a convoluted patchwork of state laws and regulatory schemes. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially those who represent constituents benefitting from medical or adult-use programs, join me to pass federal legislation to fix these problems.”

But there is weariness among lawmakers who remember the last time Congress made law surrounding the drug.

The Republican-led Senate legalized hemp production in the 2018 farm bill, a decision that led to synthetic and exotic cannabinoids’ being sold over the counter, often without regulation, particularly in states where marijuana isn’t legal.

It’s a gray area that has drawn pushback from both sides of the aisle, most recently with the rise of Delta-8 , a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol product that uses chemicals — some of them harmful — to convert hemp-derived CBD into Delta-8 THC.

Julie Tsirkin is a correspondent covering Capitol Hill.

Monica Alba is a White House correspondent for NBC News.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Justice Dept. Recommends Easing Restrictions on Marijuana

The move kicks off a lengthy rule-making process and could amount to a major change in federal policy.

By Eileen Sullivan ,  Glenn Thrush and Zolan Kanno-Youngs

Reporting from Washington

The Justice Department said on Tuesday that it had recommended easing restrictions on marijuana in what could amount to a major change in federal policy.

Even though the move, which kicks off a lengthy rule-making process, does not end the criminalization of the drug, it is a significant shift in how the government views the safety and use of marijuana for medical purposes. It also reflects the Biden administration’s effort to liberalize marijuana policy in a way that puts it more in line with the public as increasingly more Americans favor legalizing the drug.

The decision comes at an opportune time for President Biden, who is trailing the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald J. Trump, as they approach the November election, according to a recent CNN poll .

It could also lead to the softening of other laws and regulations that account for the use or possession of cannabis, including sentencing guidelines, banking and access to public housing.

People familiar with the recommendation, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland planned to tell the White House Office of Management and Budget that the government should change the drug’s categorization. After the office assesses the recommendation, it will still face a long road before taking effect, including being subject to public comment.

The Associated Press earlier reported the Justice Department decision.

For more than half a century, marijuana has been considered a Schedule I drug , classified on the same level as highly addictive substances like heroin that the Drug Enforcement Administration describes as having no currently accepted medical use. Moving marijuana to Schedule III, as the Department of Health and Human Services recommended in August, would put it alongside less addictive substances like Tylenol with codeine, ketamine and testosterone, meaning that it would be subject to fewer restrictions on production and research, and that eventually it could be prescribed by a doctor.

The recommendation came despite concerns from Anne Milgram, the administrator of the D.E.A., which has long relied on federal research and data to support these decisions, according to a law enforcement official familiar with the matter.

Administration officials have privately acknowledged the political benefit of easing marijuana restrictions: It could energize younger voters dissatisfied with the White House and please criminal justice advocates who have pressed Mr. Biden to overhaul the nation’s drug policy.

While Mr. Biden has been slow to embrace such a change, he has for years said that designating marijuana on the same level as heroin or LSD made little sense. He hinted during his State of the Union address in March that change could soon be coming; about a week later, Vice President Kamala Harris said that the D.E.A. must reassess marijuana “as quickly as possible.”

Support for easing marijuana restrictions has grown over the years, shifting from a point of focus among the left flank of the Democratic Party to becoming a more bipartisan issue. A Gallup poll from November found that 70 percent of Americans believed marijuana use should be legal, an increase from 50 percent in 2013.

Still, the decision will do little to alter the current landscape, with the most immediate impact on the cannabis industry itself.

“A lot of people are going to be disappointed and probably a bit surprised about how very little changes,” said Paul Armentano, deputy director of the advocacy group NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Already, 38 states, the District of Columbia and three territories have approved its use for medical reasons. Many of those places have also approved it for recreational use.

But the D.E.A.’s move does not make state laws on using medical marijuana compliant with the federal law .

And for states that have not approved the use of marijuana for medicinal or recreational purposes, downgrading the drug would not automatically change state and local criminal statutes.

The bigger shift, many say, is cultural.

“It is a strong signal that the war on drugs and the crimes that are associated with the war on drugs should continue to be re-evaluated and should continue to be reformed and change,” said Ed Chung, the vice president of initiatives at the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice, which focuses on criminal justice reform. “There is a huge messaging aspect to that.”

The cannabis industry stands to benefit the most from the recommended change, which would ensure that state-licensed businesses are eligible for a steep tax cut, possibly leading to lower prices for consumers.

This tax relief is estimated to free up millions of dollars for companies to put toward things like hiring, expansion and product development, all of which could be a boon to local economies.

Under tax law, businesses related to controlled substances that are classified in the top two tiers are deemed ineligible for most credits or reductions.

Categorizing marijuana as a Schedule III drug removes such restrictions, allowing plant-touching businesses like cultivators, processors and retailers to claim common deductions for expenses like rent, payroll and marketing.

It is not yet clear how rescheduling would affect businesses’ access to financial services, or the lack thereof. Currently, many cannabis businesses are forced to operate in cash only, because most banks do not want to risk handling cash made from selling an illegal substance under federal law. Doing so is considered money laundering.

Kevin Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser during the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations, said the data did not exist to support rescheduling marijuana.

“Politics and industry influence have loomed over this decision from the very beginning,” said Mr. Sabet, now the president of the group, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which focuses on aligning marijuana policy with scientific research.

The federal government last considered rescheduling marijuana at the end of the Obama administration. Ultimately, the D.E.A. declined to do so , based on a recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services. At the time, officials cited federal health experts’ assessments that “marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision.”

But in the past decade, more states have moved to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana and make it available for medical use, and the industry has pressured the federal government to revisit that 2016 decision.

During his 2020 campaign, Mr. Biden vowed to decriminalize cannabis and erase convictions over its use, and as president he has moved toward that, issuing pardons and commutations over nonviolent drug offenses. It is a shift for a president who has not supported legalizing marijuana and who as a senator championed aggressive drug laws, including the 1994 crime bill that led to mass incarceration.

In October 2022, Mr. Biden pressed his administration to quickly review the classification of the drug. Less than a year later, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended that marijuana be reclassified from Schedule I to Schedule III.

The decision was leaked, giving the public an unusual look into the agency’s findings. Health officials found that while regular use of marijuana did create a dependence on the drug, “the likelihood of serious outcomes is low.”

Ashley Southall and Andrew Jacobs contributed reporting.

Eileen Sullivan  covers breaking news, the Justice Department, the trials against Donald J. Trump and the Biden administration. More about Eileen Sullivan

Glenn Thrush covers the Department of Justice. He joined The Times in 2017 after working for Politico, Newsday, Bloomberg News, The New York Daily News, The Birmingham Post-Herald and City Limits. More about Glenn Thrush

Zolan Kanno-Youngs is a White House correspondent, covering President Biden and his administration. More about Zolan Kanno-Youngs