This paper analyzes the economic, legal, and social aspects of the legal cannabis industry in the United States. These analyses include the history, current status, and future of all three components, all with an emphasis on reforming the existing systems in place in order to achieve the most beneficial cannabis industry possible. Many reformative legal implications are made, stressing the importance of decriminalizing cannabis, releasing nonviolent and cannabis-related criminals from prison, and expunging their criminal records. The paper places a heavy emphasis on the importance of designing the legal system to be fair and equal across all racial and ethnic groups, given that people of color have been hit the hardest in terms of cannabis-related issues. Economic components such as tax design and access to proper financial institutions are also included, as well as the social implications that have both gone into and are a product of the long-standing war on drugs. While there is no comprehensive solution for how to fix every aspect of the industry, this paper highlights key aspects to be aware of in the design stages of potential federal legalization.

The United States Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana in 2020, requiring all states to convict criminal defendants by a unanimous jury. However, this case only applied to petitioners on direct, and not collateral, appeal. In this thesis, I argue that the Ramos precedent should apply to people on collateral appeal as well, exploring the implications of such a decision and the criteria that should be used to make the decision in the case before the court, Edwards v. Vannoy (2021). Ultimately, I find that because the criteria currently used to determine retroactivity of new criminal precedents does not provide a clear answer to the question posed in Edwards, the Court should give more weight to the defendant's freedoms pursuant to the presumption of innocence while considering the potential for any disastrous outcomes.