Modernizing Military Standards: Cannabis Policy at a Crossroads

For years, the U.S. military has faced a mounting recruitment crisis, with all branches reporting difficulties meeting enlistment targets. At the same time, national attitudes toward cannabis have shifted dramatically. Dozens of states now permit medical or adult-use cannabis, and federal reform discussions continue to intensify. This growing disconnect—between modern cannabis laws and outdated federal prohibition—has sparked a critical policy question: Could revising cannabis rules help ease troop shortages without compromising readiness?

Recruitment leaders have never been shy about acknowledging the problem. The Army reported significant shortfalls in recent fiscal years, citing increased competition in the civilian labor market, academic eligibility challenges, and stricter health and fitness standards. However, one less-discussed barrier is cannabis use. Under federal law, cannabis remains a Schedule I substance, and the Department of Defense (DoD) enforces a zero-tolerance policy for active service members. Even past cannabis use can complicate or delay enlistment depending on recency, frequency, and the branch’s needs.

This policy now collides with a generational shift. Young adults—the core military-age population—live in a country where cannabis is not only normalized but legally accessible in most states. According to federal survey data, past-year cannabis use among 18- to 25-year-olds continues to rise. For many otherwise qualified recruits, cannabis experimentation is no longer a rare red flag; it is a common part of modern adulthood. As a result, strict cannabis prohibitions can disqualify large pools of applicants the military needs.

Recognizing this challenge, the services have already begun quietly adapting. The Army and Air Force, for example, now allow certain applicants who test positive for THC on their initial drug screening to retest after a waiting period rather than face immediate disqualification. This subtle shift does not endorse cannabis use but acknowledges that rigid policies may not reflect today’s reality.

Still, deeper reform remains controversial. Supporters of modernization argue that cannabis should be treated similarly to alcohol—prohibited during service but not a barrier to enlistment unless abuse or dependency is documented. They note that elite forces already manage far more complex behavioral and health factors among recruits and that the military routinely invests in rehabilitation, counseling, and training for other issues. Updating cannabis standards, they say, could significantly widen the recruitment pool without lowering the quality of troops.

Opponents, however, caution that federal prohibition cannot be ignored. They point to concerns regarding cognitive effects, the need for absolute readiness in high-stakes environments, and the logistical complications of enforcing differing standards across states and federal jurisdictions. Without congressional reform, any major cannabis-related policy changes could expose the Department of Defense to legal and regulatory conflicts.

At the national level, lawmakers continue to debate the future of cannabis scheduling, medical research access, and federal enforcement for legal states. Should reform eventually pass, the DoD may be compelled to revisit long-standing rules. Even modest adjustments—such as standardized guidance on past use—could reduce administrative burdens and expand the eligible recruitment pool.

What remains clear is that the recruitment crisis is unlikely to resolve without significant policy innovation. As public attitudes evolve and military needs intensify, cannabis reform may transition from a fringe suggestion to a pragmatic solution. Whether the federal government is ready to consider that possibility will determine how the armed forces adapt in the decade ahead.