Template:Past, Present, and Future of Cannabis Laboratory Testing and Regulation in the United States/Overview of the cannabis industry in the United States/Testing and research

1.4 Testing and research

One area that continues to expand—while taking advantage of new scientific research and techniques—is the laboratory sphere, particularly in research, regulation, and standardization activities. According to July 2016 testimony from Susan R.B. Weiss, Division Director at NIDA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) alone supported 281 cannabinoid research projects totaling more than $111 million in 2015. By the end of 2021, that number had risen to $198 million.

While the research, analysis, and processing of cannabis has been ongoing for centuries, it wasn't until 1896 that Wood et al. conducted one of the first documented chemical experiments to determine the constituents of cannabis. Several years later, the researchers were able to correctly identify the extracted and isolated cannabinol from the exuded resin of Indian hemp as C₂₁H₂₆O₂. As of mid-2018, somewhere between 104 upwards to more than 140 of the more than 750 constituents of Cannabis sativa have been identified as cannabinoids, "a class of diverse chemical compounds that act on cannabinoid receptors in cells that modulate neurotransmitter release in the brain."

Yet in the United States, when it comes to 1. enacting the broad level of testing required to ensure public safety—whether it be medical, recreational, or industrial use of cannabis—and 2. researching and better understanding the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (medical use and benefit) of cannabinoids in the human population, many have argued that laboratory testing of cannabis is still in its infancy and evidence-based research of marijuana continues to be slow and bogged down in regulation. In regards to the first issue, as some form of legalization continues to sweep across states, regulators, users, and industry are recognizing the need for improved standardization of the production and testing of medical and recreational marijuana; the current state of improper labeling and potentially harmful contaminants will only serve to hinder the industry. To the second issue, in 2016, some within the federal government seemed to recognize the roadblocks to improved evidence-based research and began working to slowly improve how researchers can legally acquire and test marijuana in the U.S. Those attempts were largely rebuffed by the Justice Department, however.

Regardless, an excerpt from the previously mentioned testimony of NIDA's Dr. Weiss illustrates the sentiment still felt by many researchers today:

The current state of the research on marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids suggests the potential for therapeutic value for a number of conditions; however, more evidence is needed before marijuana or cannabinoid products (beyond those already approved through the FDA) are ready for medical use. Promising preclinical findings do not always prove to be clinically relevant, and even fewer lead to new treatments. Moreover, clinical studies of sufficient quality to meet FDA standards for drug approval are currently lacking for most conditions. Among the factors that impact this research are the specific statutory requirements and treaty obligations that govern research on marijuana. NIH is working closely with the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and FDA to explore ways to streamline these processes to facilitate research.

In the meantime, government entities such as the NIH and non-profits such as jCanna have continued to push forward with scientific conferences, summits, and roundtables that bring scientists and interested parties together to share existing knowledge and testing techniques. Some U.S. lawmakers have since further discussed the issue of cannabis research; an official hearing scheduled for January 2020 provided an opportunity to further highlight to Congress the "catch-22" of regulation and medical research: "Research is restricted because cannabis is currently considered a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, yet more research would better determine if marijuana should be rescheduled or descheduled."

Encouragingly, the DEA finalized its amended "21 Code of Federal Regulations 1318 to facilitate the cultivation of marihuana for research purpose and other licit purposes to ensure compliance with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and treaty obligations" in December 2020 This added an additional five grow-ops to support researchers, though the impact of this change on research organizations is unclear at this early juncture.