Sam Kamin is the first ever Vicente Sederberg Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy at the Sturm College of Law, and within this position, one of the most notable and sourced experts in the marijuana industry. He has been featured in publications such as Slate and the Denver Post’s marijuana-focused off-shoot The Cannabist. His course at Sturm, “Representing the Marijuana Client,” is regularly waitlisted, and has become a beckoning feature of DU’s law program. The Clarion spoke with the professor to get an inside look at what it is like to be one of the first and foremost experts in a completely new and innovative field.
Q: When and how exactly did you find yourself getting into marijuana law and its intricacies?
A: In 2009 I was reading a copy of Westword when I noticed pages of very explicit ads for marijuana naming particular strains and prices. I wondered what had made all of these businesses decide that it was a good idea to advertise in the paper that they were engaging in federal crimes. I started talking to some friends and former students in the area and I haven’t looked back since.
Q: Marijuana law is not only a very hot topic at the moment, but a completely new field of expertise. How has it been being one of the leading authorities in the field?
A: I feel very fortunate. I happened to get interested in a topic at the time and in the place where it would become important. For all its growth, Denver is still a small community and the legal community and cannabis industry are even tighter. I was able to meet, work with and learn from so many of the important players in this field from day one. If this had happened anywhere else, I would not have had the same kind of access I had here.
Q: How has the response been to the “Representing the Marijuana Client” course? Has there been negative feedback or has the response from society and students been wholly positive?
A: The feedback has been almost entirely positive. I was the butt of a few late night TV jokes but that’s to be expected. The student reaction has been very positive; the class has been oversubscribed each time I’ve taught it and I’m planning to add other marijuana law classes to the curriculum. I have had calls from lawyers around town and across the country who have wanted to take the course. My dean and the administration have been nothing but positive about the course and my research interests in this area.
Q: Law is just one part of the industry, with so many different occupations and specialities inherent within it. Do you see the possibility for an increase in higher education courses regarding marijuana and its surrounding industry?
A: I absolutely do. Marijuana regulation and policy affect everything from neuroscience to criminal justice to business to public health. In the legal community, I have run into very few lawyers who have not had their practices impacted by legal change in this area. As marijuana law reform becomes a major issue at the federal level, its salience will only increase.
Q: You served on Governor Hickenlooper’s Amendment 64 Task Force. Looking back now almost four years, what about the implementation of the amendment would you have changed?
A: We did not anticipate the popularity of edible products and the difficulties that would come from regulating them. Amendment 64 really contemplated people buying dried marijuana flowers and smoking them. While some people still consume marijuana in that way, increasingly people are consuming concentrates through vaping or edibles. Regulation was slow to react.
The other important piece which has still not been solved is the question of public use. Visitors who come to Colorado often find themselves with nowhere to go to consume the products they buy. This has pushed many inexperienced users toward edibles, which can be a challenging way for neophytes to begin consuming cannabis.
Q: In your opinion, do you believe that marijuana legalization—at least on the state level—will become a regular happening in the coming years?
A: I think the battleground will soon shift from the states to the federal government. After the 2016 election, it is almost certain that a majority of states, containing a super-majority of the American public, will have approved marijuana use for some adults. At that point, the continuing federal prohibition of marijuana in all instances will make very little sense. For me, the question is not whether the federal marijuana prohibition will disappear but what will rise up to take its place; the question on which policymakers should focus is what kind of regulation of marijuana makes sense at the federal level.
