The “New York Times” is Wrong About Cannabis Legalization

Since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, cannabis dispensaries have multiplied nationwide, turning the once-distinct smell of weed into an everyday reality. But despite state policies, the American populace continues to question legalization. Some claim that the principles of liberalism and freedom—so fundamental to America’s identity—should apply to marijuana access and use. Others are concerned about the use of psychoactive substances and their potential harmful effects.

In a recent article, the “New York Times” Editorial Board has taken a new, increasingly skeptical stance on marijuana legalization, marking a shift away from their longstanding position of full support as outlined in a 2014 article. As more U.S. states lift their bans on cannabis, the Editorial Board cites three primary concerns: exponential increase in “excessive use,” surges in cannabis-induced hospitalizations, and detrimental effects on families and innocent bystanders. 

These concerns are valid, pointing to a current market for marijuana that is less than ideal. However, backtracking on the progressive legislation that has led us to this point would be chaotic, given the overwhelmingly positive impact of legalization on the economy. 

This issue isn’t as black-and-white as pro- or anti-prohibition; the “NYT” isn’t arguing for a federal ban on marijuana—instead, they support a federally imposed tax on marijuana. There are two faulty components to this proposal. State governments are more closely connected to their communities than the federal government. Policy can be tailored to meet constituent needs through state legislation. Furthermore, these states can then spend tax revenue on projects that are needed most—scaling this process on a federal level isn’t pragmatic because different states have distinct needs.

As Americans, we are constantly questioning the extent to which the federal government can infringe upon our individual rights. Of course, there are many important instances where prohibitions or excessive regulations are exercised to protect common interests. But marijuana is different. It is not a drug that incites violence, and compared to cigarettes or alcohol, it is far less addictive.

The “NYT” Editorial Board is especially concerned with a demographic of weed smokers known as “heavy users,” described as people who use cannabis daily. Of course, chronic pot consumption isn’t likely to lead to productive lifestyles. But there is a clear anti-marijuana bias trickling through when compared with other, more harmful drugs.

Let’s take cigarettes, for example. Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States. If the “NYT” cared this much about health, it would propose a universal ban on cigarettes. But they don’t, because cigarette smoking is culturally ingrained; though extremely harmful, cigarette consumption is widely accepted as an unchangeable, monolithic reality of American life. Odds are, someone on the “NYT” Editorial Board—and even more likely their grandparents—were smoking cigarettes at some point in their lives. The cultural attitude of acceptance towards tobacco products is a product of their longstanding accessibility to the public.

Beyond the fiscal impact of legalization, public health is another important factor. Concerns about increased rates of psychosis are especially relevant to children and teenagers whose brains are in the process of developing. Studies on health and public safety indicate that marijuana legalization has caused no measurable increase in adolescent use. However, the risk of developing a psychotic disorder from cannabis is substantially higher for adolescents than for adults. Psychosis should be taken seriously, but the main point of concern is with underage users, not adults who can exercise free will more rationally and make choices according to their own risk tolerance. 

The “NYT” article also fails to properly attribute legalization with economic gains. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City found that, in states with legalized marijuana, the average income per capita grew by an average of 3%. Polls show that economic issues are consistently a top priority for voters—legalization is creating new markets and providing communities with upward mobility. The massive amounts of revenue that state governments rake in from taxes, fees, and license revenue can fund social programs that benefit communities across the country—a net gain for society despite potential health harms. 

In California, the 15% marijuana excise tax revenue is allocated towards public K-12 education and early literacy programs. This is a major upside to legal cannabis; states can tax sales as they please and redirect the extra tax revenue to programs that are most needed. Other states like Illinois and Missouri use these tax dollars to fund drug prevention and substance abuse programs. Legalization allows states to install stronger safeguards against the rampant use of more dangerous, addictive substances compared to drugs like marijuana.

With all this being said, the “NYT” is right to advocate for some degree of government paternalism. 

Adults who use cannabis daily are five times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder than non-users. If people are overusing, then that’s a problem—tax and regulatory policy needs to strike a balance between a thriving free market and a mentally healthy population.

Regardless, by providing people with the option to use cannabis legally, they may feel less inclined to use illegal, more dangerous drugs that pose even greater risks of psychosis than marijuana.

The “NYT” acts as though malicious, large corporations are behind the increased usage of marijuana, along with the negative side effects that follow. “As the industry has grown, it has increased lobbying of state and federal lawmakers,” the “Times” writes, noting the increased “power of Big Weed” as a catalyst for overconsumption.

But in reality, 98% of cannabis companies are small businesses. For-profit cannabis companies aren’t anything like Big Tech or other industries consisting of trillion-dollar multinational corporations that enjoy unchecked lobbying power. If the cannabis market were heavily concentrated, then taxing these companies would make more sense. But, in an economy where small businesses struggle to compete with massive conglomerates and income inequality is on the rise, we should be cherishing the overwhelming success of small businesses following legalization.

Marijuana legalization comes with its ups and downs. Some people love sparking up a joint after a long day of work, whereas others can’t stand the skunky smell. College students have often been depicted as stoners in pop culture. Now, they are using marijuana in record numbers, and this percentage is only growing. Around half of the students at Harvard College are old enough to legally use recreational cannabis under Massachusetts law—it’s unlikely that legalization has had a negligible impact on weed’s growing popularity among the undergraduate demographic.

Legalization efforts have brought about positive change, reducing racial and socioeconomic injustices, creating economic gain, and enabling state governments to provide citizens with transformative services and welfare programs. While no policy is without imperfections, the early evidence suggests that regulation is more effective and equitable than prohibition. The debate was never whether or not to regulate psychoactive substances (we must), but how to refine and expand legalization in ways that maximize public health, economic opportunity, and social justice.

Erik Stauffer ’29 (estauffer@college.harvard.edu) is comping the “Independent.”