List of Judges Who Smoke Weed

Supreme Court picks have been derailed by cannabis admissions – Douglas H. Ginsburg withdrew his name from consideration in November 1987 after past marijuana use became public, including use while he was a Harvard Law School professor, becoming emblematic of the eras strict political stigma around drug use A sitting Supreme Court justice has acknowledged past use – Clarence Thomas past experimentation was confirmed in a White House statement during his 1991 confirmation process Judicial discipline for cannabis use is uncommon in reported cases – Michigan District Judge Thomas Gilbert received a six-month suspension for smoking at a rock concert while actively serving on the bench Federal judges are challenging prohibition through rulings – Judge Jack Weinstein chose to terminate supervised release rather than imprison someone for cannabis use, calling mandatory incarceration an endless cycle The DEAs own judge recommended rescheduling in 1988 – Chief Judge Francis L. Young called marijuana one of the safest therapeutic agents known to man decades before state-level reform State judges are enabling legalization through the courts – Nebraska District Judge Susan Strong sided with medical cannabis ballot sponsors in 2024, helping measures approved by about two-thirds or more of voters For those tracking how the legal system shapes cannabis access, Herbs cannabis news hub provides ongoing coverage of judicial decisions affecting consumers nationwide.

The American judiciary holds enormous power over drug policy. Judges interpret laws, sentence offenders, and—through their rulings—can either reinforce or erode federal prohibition. Yet judges rarely discuss personal matters publicly, especially anything involving controlled substances. That silence makes the exceptions remarkable. When a Supreme Court pick withdraws after admitting to smoking joints as a law professor, or when a sitting district judge gets caught at a concert, the collision between private behavior and public authority creates headlines. More quietly, judges who have never admitted personal use are reshaping cannabis policy through their courtroom decisions—terminating prison sentences, upholding ballot measures, and writing opinions that question whether federal law makes sense anymore. This list examines seven judges whose personal admissions or professional actions reveal how those who interpret the law actually relate to cannabis. Some paid steep career prices. Others are still reshaping policy from the bench.

Douglas H. Ginsburgs story represents the peak of Americas Just Say No era—a moment when admitting to past cannabis use could destroy a career overnight. Position: Supreme Court Pick (Federal Appeals Court Judge) Admission date: November 6, 1987 Circumstances: Admitted smoking marijuana on a few occasions as a college student in the 1960s and as a Harvard Law professor in the 1970s Conflicting reports: Some friends claimed they saw him smoking in the early 1980s, though he denied ever bringing marijuana himself Result: Withdrew his name from consideration within days of the reports becoming public Ginsburg became one of the most prominent modern examples of a Supreme Court pick collapsing after revelations about past drug use. His case established a precedent: for decades afterward, any nominee with past cannabis use had to wonder whether honesty would end their career. Why it matters: Ginsburgs withdrawal shaped how an entire generation of legal professionals approached cannabis—not just avoiding it, but understanding that any admission could surface years later with career-ending consequences. The moral panic his case generated has only recently begun to fade as state legalization changes public attitudes. Today, consumers can explore legal cannabis strains in dozens of states, a shift that would have been unimaginable in 1987.

Clarence Thomas presents a striking contradiction: a Supreme Court Justice whose past cannabis experimentation was confirmed during his 1991 confirmation, and who now writes opinions suggesting federal marijuana laws may be constitutionally problematic. Position: Supreme Court Justice (since 1991) Admission timing: During his 1991 confirmation process Official statement: The White House said Thomas took several puffs in college and possibly once in law school Policy evolution: In 2021, wrote that the federal governments half-in, half-out approach to state-legal cannabis strains basic principles of federalism Current stance: Questioned whether federal marijuana laws may no longer be necessary or proper and criticized the incoherence of current policy Why it matters: Thomas survived his admission in 1991, unlike Ginsburg four years earlier. His continued presence on the bench—combined with his recent opinions questioning federal prohibition—suggests how dramatically attitudes have shifted. A sitting Justice who once experimented with cannabis is now publicly undermining the legal basis for keeping it illegal.

While Supreme Court figures admitted to historical use, Michigan District Judge Thomas Gilbert became one of the uncommon documented cases of a sitting judge disciplined for current recreational consumption. Position: District Judge (Michigan – State) Incident date: October 2002 Circumstances: Spotted smoking a joint at a rock concert in Detroit Personal admission: During the misconduct investigation, admitted using marijuana about twice a year Discipline: Suspended six months without pay by the Michigan Supreme Court Restrictions: Upon returning, received a restricted case load that excluded drunk driving and marijuana possession cases The specificity of Gilberts restriction reveals the direct professional conflict: a judge who uses cannabis twice a year cannot fairly sentence defendants for the same behavior. His case became a reference point for judicial ethics discussions nationwide. Why it matters: Gilberts case shows that while historical use might be forgiven, contemporary use creates immediate conflicts of interest. For judges in states with legal cannabis dispensaries, this tension remains unresolved—can a judge legally consume in their private life while sentencing others for related offenses?

Elena Kagans 2017 comments during oral arguments offered a rare, unscripted moment of a sitting Supreme Court Justice acknowledging the normalization of cannabis in American social life. Position: Supreme Court Justice (since 2010) Statement date: January 2017 Context: During oral arguments, asked can I say that long, long ago, marijuana was maybe present at those parties? referring to gatherings she attended Important caveat: Indicated being present around cannabis rather than confirming personal consumption Significance: Demonstrated comfort discussing cannabis in a professional legal setting Why it matters: Kagans comment, while stopping short of admitting personal use, reflects how normalized cannabis was among educated professionals of her generation. Her willingness to reference it casually from the bench—even hypothetically—suggests the stigma has weakened considerably among legal elites.

Judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York used his judicial discretion to directly challenge federal sentencing practices for cannabis violations, choosing rehabilitation over incarceration. Position: Federal District Judge (Eastern District of New York) Key ruling: United States v. Trotter (2018) Decision: Chose to terminate supervised release in a case involving marijuana use, recognizing the supervised release context Reasoning: Recognized the binary choice courts face between incarceration and termination Conclusion: Sending the defendant to prison would probably end up in the almost endless cycle of supervised release and prison Weinsteins ruling prioritized justice and public health over strict sentencing guidelines, directly challenging the logic of imprisoning people for cannabis use. Why it matters: Federal judges have limited discretion under mandatory minimums, but Weinstein found a way to exercise compassion within the system. His reasoning—that cycling people through prison for cannabis serves no rehabilitative purpose—represents the judicial frustration with federal prohibition that has grown over decades. For those interested in understanding how cannabis laws vary by jurisdiction, Herbs comprehensive cannabis guides provide state-by-state breakdowns of current regulations, helping consumers navigate the complex legal landscape.

In one of the most remarkable episodes in cannabis legal history, the DEAs own administrative law judge formally recommended reclassifying marijuana based on medical evidence—only to be overruled by his superiors. Position: DEA Administrative Law Judge Key action: 1988 report to DEA leadership Recommendation: Called marijuana one of the safest therapeutic agents known to man and recommended rescheduling (Schedule I → Schedule II) Result: His recommendation was rejected by DEA leadership Historical significance: Highest-level internal legal challenge to cannabis scheduling for decades Youngs report represented an extraordinary moment: a judge within the very agency responsible for enforcing prohibition concluded—based on evidence presented in formal hearings—that the classification was medically unjustifiable. Why it matters: Youngs 1988 recommendation preceded state medical marijuana programs by nearly a decade. His evidence-based conclusion was ignored by political leadership, but his report has been cited repeatedly by legalization advocates as proof that even government officials recognized prohibitions scientific weaknesses.

Nebraska District Judge Susan Strongs November 2024 ruling represents the most recent example of a state judge actively enabling cannabis legalization through judicial action. Position: Lancaster County District Judge (Nebraska – State) Key ruling: November 2024 Decision: Sided with sponsors of Nebraskas medical cannabis ballot measures in a legal challenge Action: Upheld the validity of voter signatures against attempts to invalidate the petition Context: Her ruling was necessary for two medical cannabis measures approved by about two-thirds or more of voters (with the measures passing by different margins) to take effect Why it matters: Strongs ruling shows how state judges serve as gatekeepers for cannabis reform. Without her decision upholding signature validity, Nebraska voters overwhelming support for medical cannabis could have been nullified through procedural challenges.

The trajectory from Douglas Ginsburgs 1987 withdrawal to Clarence Thomass 2021 opinion reveals how dramatically judicial attitudes toward cannabis have shifted. In 1987, admitting to past use ended a Supreme Court picks career within days. By 2021, a sitting Justice who had acknowledged past experimentation was publicly questioning whether federal prohibition made constitutional sense. This shift parallels broader changes in American society. State-level legalization, beginning with Californias medical program in 1996 and accelerating through recreational markets in the 2010s, has made cannabis use increasingly unremarkable among professionals—including those who interpret and enforce the law.

For judges in states with legal cannabis, a fundamental tension persists. Can a judge legally purchase cannabis at a local dispensary on Saturday and then sentence a defendant for cannabis offenses on Monday? Thomas Gilberts 2003 case established that contemporary use creates conflicts of interest, but no clear ethical framework has emerged for judges in legal states. Some judicial conduct commissions have begun to address this question as more jurisdictions legalize. Some argue that legal off-duty consumption should be treated like alcohol—permissible for judges as for any adult. Others maintain that federal illegality creates inherent conflicts regardless of state law.

Clarence Thomass 2021 opinion highlighted what he called the governments half-in, half-out approach: cannabis remains federally illegal while the government has largely declined to enforce prohibition in states with legal programs. This creates profound difficulties for judges at every level. Federal judges like Jack Weinstein must work within mandatory sentencing while state judges like Susan Strong interpret ballot measures the federal government officially opposes. The incoherence affects not just sentencing but questions of judicial conduct, employment law, and constitutional rights. For cannabis consumers trying to understand these legal complexities, exploring different strains and their legal status in various jurisdictions remains essential to staying compliant. Herbs strain database offers detailed information on effects, genetics, and legal availability by region.