I’ve always been somewhat ambivalent about marijuana legalization. It’s not that I don’t abhor the impact of criminalization, but that there are perils to having altered states of consciousness. That goes for alcohol as well. Get high if you want, but do it responsibly. The problem is that getting high and being responsible do not easily go hand in hand.
The New York Times has an editorial addressing the experience of recreational pot legalization that begins by recognizing that predictions that it wouldn’t result in widespread use didn’t bear out.
It is now clear that many of these predictions were wrong. Legalization has led to much more use. Surveys suggest that about 18 million people in the United States have used marijuana almost daily (or about five times a week) in recent years. That was up from around 6 million in 2012 and less than 1 million in 1992. More Americans now use marijuana daily than alcohol.
More significantly, weed wasn’t as harmless as proponents contended.
This wider use has caused a rise in addiction and other problems. Each year, nearly 2.8 million people in the United States suffer from cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, which causes severe vomiting and stomach pain. More people have also ended up in hospitals with marijuana-linked paranoia and chronic psychotic disorders. Bystanders have also been hurt, including by people driving under the influence of pot.
Part of the problem was due to the lack of medical studies on the effect of pot due to the federal government putting it on Schedule I, thus making research impossible. It may not be Reefer Madness, but it also wasn’t as harmless as many believed.
The Times argues that the answer isn’t to recriminalize it, but to regulate it. Three regulations are proposed.
The first step in a strategy to reduce marijuana abuse should be a federal tax on pot. States should also raise taxes on pot; today, state taxes can be as low as a few additional cents on a joint. Taxes should be high enough to deter excessive use, on the scale of dollars per joint, not cents. (Federal alcohol taxes, which have failed to keep pace with inflation since the 1990s, should rise, too.)
The Times argues that adding high sin tax to weed will make it too expensive for many to use to excess. While this makes theoretical sense, it’s unlikely to work out that way. On the one hand, heavy users may spend their last dime on pot, leaving them and perhaps their families destitute in the process. On the other hand, this will invigorate the illegal street sale of marijuana where no high tax gets collected.
Given that many of the old time street dealers were frozen out of the legal pot trade by onerous regulations on sellers and the control of Big Weed, they would no doubt welcome the government pushing buyers back to their street corners.
A second step should be restrictions on the most harmful forms of marijuana, which would also be similar to regulations for alcohol and tobacco. Today’s cannabis is far more potent than the pot that preceded legalization. In 1995, the marijuana seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration was around 4 percent THC, the primary psychoactive compound in pot. Today, you can buy marijuana products with THC levels of 90 percent or more. As the cliché goes, this is not your parents’ weed.
For users who have come to appreciate the high levels of THC, regulating pot content seems like another idea that works better in the abstract than in reality. Much like hard core alcoholics will buy high alco content rotgut rather than lite beer, labelling pot won’t make users choose the less potent stuff. Then again, if they’re not getting the same high from lower THC weed, then they will just buy and smoke more to get the high. As another cliché (actually, a WWI song lyric) goes, “How ya gonna keep ’em down on the farm after they’ve seen Paree?”
Third, the federal government should take action on medical marijuana. Decades of studies on the drug have proved disappointing to its boosters, finding little medical benefit. Yet many dispensaries claim, without evidence, that marijuana treats a host of medical conditions. The government should crack down on these outlandish claims.
Big Weed has an interest in promoting, or at least not dissuading, a vast array of medicinal uses for pot, as it brings in new users who otherwise might not be inclined to partake. People want to believe in holistic cures for what ails them, and popular belief in the sanctity of medical science isn’t particularly strong these days, making people susceptible to claims for which there is no support. Then again, much of this is passed around by word of mouth, and there is nothing the government can do about that.
For some of us, the reality that there are downsides to the legalization of recreational marijuana comes as little surprise. And it is still far better than the alternative of criminalization and the impact it had on the lives of so many people. The Times is right that it’s not without problems that call for solutions, but the regulations called for by the editorial seem to be more aspirational than effective in curbing the worst problems caused by legalization.
Much like legalization itself, what works well in theory often fails to turn out as well in reality. While answers may be needed, the answers found in this editorial give rise to problems of their own and seem unlikely to provide any serious fix. Further, the Times calls for federal regulation so that we don’t get a patchwork of state laws, but does the Times really think regulating weed in the hands of the current administration is going to turn out better than what we have now?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Minor typographical/editorial comment, no need to publish. “People want to believe in homeopathic cures…” Homeopathy is a an alternative form of medicine that espouses that you can cure something by massively diluting an active agent that causes the symptom you are trying to cure. It’s quack science. I think holistic or naturalistic cures is more appropriate here.
[Ed. Note: I appreciate your correcting my word choice and will change it accordingly.]
SHG.
You are a lawyer and I suspect are a conservative I also suspect that a non-conservative lawyer with opposite views would keep them to himself for fear of reputation damage.
Species Homo Sapiens has a problem with many drugs including legal ones ethyl alcohol and nicotine but in some cases the legal ones are more destructive. I disapprove of laws against drugs no matter how harmful the drugs seem and that even the worst should be available cheaply to those willing to take the risk of using them but in accurate dosages and along with relevant advice and information. This should include even poisons to those who want to end their misery or perceived misery. In Australia 1st Nations teenagers commit suicide by hanging themselves from trees at 8 times the rate of Australian teenagers overall. I believe they are being sensible in coming to the realization that their miserable conditions are not going to improve because the majority of legitimate Australians hate them and this unacknowledged hate makes effective action to remedy their underclass status impossible as contrary to traditional morality.
In New South Wales Australia since early 2025 terminally ill people are allowed assisted suicide and my mother in law with inoperable colon cancer took this option. Also in 2008 my late wife with metastatic ovarian cancer self euthanized 2 days before she was to receive the backup drug. Also euthanasia should be available to all prisoners whether convicted or on remand if they request it through a lawyer. Before 1990 I was in constant misery from anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and suicide would have been a sensible choice. My OCD caused recurrent anxiety producing thoughts that I had to ritually neutralize by unthinking them backwards, syllable by syllable with exactly the same emphasis in the unthink as in the original thought and if I got it wrong I had to unthink the unthink before trying again, this could rapidly get out of hand in a fractal manner and anyway in 2 minutes the malign thought would reoccur. Also I usually had constant feeling of impending doom and frequent destructive rages when too many minor things went wrong one after another and ……… or after an episode of mood instability, but not bipolar. Those with bipolar have no control but I could avoid the highs if I kept myself moderately depressed. However if I lost control a high would come and I would have a period of intense productivity but inevitably the low would follow I would destroy all output of the high and other things as well. In these rages I would destroy things I valued, books, things that I had written or made. In 1990 a friendly psychiatrist put me on an anti-depressant that actually worked for me against OCD. Were a wise government to decide this drug evil and make it as illegal as opiates I would happily mug old ladies for their pension money to buy clomipramine on the black market. It is a recently discovered fact that most antidepressants completely fail for most prescribed them. However I consider a that some proportion of the community for whom some are found that do work should be on them and that much illegal drug use is an attempt to alleviate misery. In the nineties there was a TV Series “The Wire” on the drug law and police dysfunction in Baltimore. It is available on DVD and I think should be compulsory in legal and police training.
I believe that “The War on Drugs” should be called “The War on Niggers, Hispanics and Poor People”. Every authoritarian political system needs laws that provide discretion to criminalize and wreck the lives of disliked citizens or nominal citizens and since drug use happens among the respectable as well as unpeople. If the target does not cooperate by already using drugs can always be planted.
Why do people use drugs, many reasons. Some take drugs initially because they like the feeling but for opiates chronic use creates physical addiction and others can create psychological addiction. In my view many take drugs to blot out the misery of life and for this alcohol and nicotine are among the worst. A considerable proportion of 1st Nations UN-Australians are chronic alcoholics and if female birth children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). Such children are write offs and in my view should be euthanized as soon as possible and the mother irreversibly sterilized. It may be that all female members of any underclass should be evaluated and have fertility suppressed until they can prove themselves sufficiently responsible to a panel of experts. Other drugs used include gasoline, glue and solvents. These cause brain damage but since brains of little use to members of an underclass that does not matter.
My experience with alcohol and marijuana. I once drove drunk and sped through a red light. Alcohol does not just impede reactions it also impairs judgment, so never again. I also once drove under the influence of MJ, it was scary. If my eyes pointed in one direction for more than an instant I was traveling at FTL speed through a star field. Also weed does not impair judgment so one is constantly criticizing oneself, “That was a bad lane change, I should have let that car pass first”. I have been a passenger in a car with a driver who had used with me and I consider that his driving was competent. Those under its influence are not impaired as those under alcohol are as it doesn’t affect judgment and the driver can compensate for motor control impairment. I like the effects of marijuana but being relatively law abiding, only one pioneering case road rage in 1988 and two instances of attacking police I do not buy it as it is still illegal. However were it legalized I would although my doctor has advised against it as he thinks I may be vulnerable to induced psychosis as some are. No one should use before getting medical advice, but in your country that is un-affordable for many.
For years weed had no effect on me until it told me I had to leave home. I was living with my parents and smoking a joint on the patio. My mother came out “There is something interesting on the TV”. Stubbed joint out, dutifully went in and watched TV, went out again and relit joint. Repeat twice then lost patience, got my pipe, stuffed all remaining weed in pipe and lit it. Mum came out, “That’s interesting tobacco you are smoking” and a smile started at the corners of my mouth and I figured it had reached above my eye brows. Then I could not stop laughing. Decided to move out.
After that smoking got me interesting hypnagogic images. I once woke up after smoking and found myself in a apartment in the side of the grand canyon with a horizontal rectangular window with no glass and a two foot wide sill and a magnificent view of the canyon. Normally at that time my mind ran on rails and thinking outside the rails was difficult but with weed I could jump the tracks and think of things that would not have normally occurred to me. Some were quite banal like “It is a good idea to wash the car after driving to the beach because salt causes rust”. I believe that my unconscious contains some thoughts I would want to avoid and so the weed sometimes reveals them. This is not advice you or your readers would get from another lawyer as admitting use of illegal drugs admits bad character however those nonlayers wanting to access their deep minds may consider it. I do not normally speak in tongues but once under the influence I developed some very interesting and interesting sounding words in a foreign language.
[Ed. Note: TL;dr past first sentence, but since you spent so much time writing this, I’m posting it.]
I read it.
Harris, Trump and Biden at their worst made more sense.
Reply to Scott:
Happy Birthday! Thank you for your writing, and for continuing to consider even the first sentence of effluent like this. You deserve better, though I’m obviously not the one to provide it today.
No way I’m trying to parse this without at least two joints first. Too bad if I ever had the luxury of time for two joints, I would not spend the altered mindscape on your insanity. It’s best reserved for what Howl specializes in.
An anecdotal from Ann Arbor ( home of the hash bash) I used to watch Ann Arbor city council meetings before recreational weed was legalized and medical marijuana was in its nascent stages.
There was one particular older man that would rant about how he needed his medicine because he was sick. My thought was I want to be sick like you when I get sick i.e not sick at all.
More seriously there’s no doubt in my mind marijuana is a gateway substance ; many addicts of harder drugs , opiates , cocaine used marijuana first.
I have heard from the most reliable sources that Ann Arbor is a whore. Go Bucks.
Also, cool story, bruh. I heard tell of this one kid the town over who smoked one joint of the devil’s lettuce then killed his parents. Reefer Madness they are calling it.
Looking at this from a purely economic point of view, as you raise the cost, you raise the likelihood of the black market coming in.
And that’s always been the case. After the repeal of alcohol prohibition, there were more arrests where I live in Bergen county, for making illegal alcohol in the first year post repeal, than there were during the prior year under prohibition.
I know different people would legalize drugs for different reasons, but the costs associated with drug arrests have to be near the top of the list of things we should abhor.
Based on calls like these for Pigouvian taxes, I can’t imagine we will see anything less than a repeat of history.
Increasing taxation (maybe tied to THC content) to reduce consumption is worth a shot. There is evidence that higher alcohol taxes reduce consumption, even among heavy users. See, e.g., “The Effects of Prices on Alcohol Use and its Consequences,”
Xin Xu et al.; “Erosion of State Alcohol Excise Taxes in the United States,” Timothy S Naimi et al. There is also evidence that the erosion of many alcohol taxes due to inflation (because they’re excise taxes per volume, not percentage sales taxes) contributed to the increase in alcohol consumption that occurred in the past twenty years. Sure, if you raise taxes too high, you create a black market, but the experience of cigarettes shows you can raise taxes pretty high without creating a significant black market.
“[Ed. Note: TL;dr past first sentence, but since you spent so much time writing this, I’m posting it.]”
Thanks SHG for not trashing my post, I appreciate it but I really wanted you to read it as it was meant as a direct reply to your post.
The worst problems that species homo sapiens are social problems. They are intractable because humans are addicted to common sense thinking and to believing that any problem has a single simple cause that can be attacked directly. The “drug problem” has a simple cause, bad people who do not take Nancy Regan’s wise advice to “just say no”.
Different people use drugs legal or not for different reason and some people use some drugs for multiple reasons. The common sense response to the drug problem is in my view the result of common nonsense which is in truth identical to common sense.
The nineties TV series “The Wire” was produced by a former Baltimore police rounds journalist and is and provides many excellent illustrations of the defects of drug prohibition and the way it is enforced in underclass aka high crime communities.
Some problems have complex networks of causal element that need to be analysed before choosing where to attack. These causal networks can be decomposed into sub-networks. One will find causes in series A => B => C => D where one may be better target than the others, multiple causal elements in parallel leading to the same effect. In the latter case attacking only one will achieve little and different advocates waste effort squabbling and trying to prevent others attacking anything other than their own favorite parallel element of the set. There are also positive and negative feedback loops enhancing a negative feedback loop may be a good target.
People capable of such analysis are well to the right side of the homo sapiens bell shaped intelligence curve but that is not enough, they also need to have considered the problem and such people are a few voices in the wilderness. Consider some criminologists, former police men, lawyers and social workers.
I have been thinking about the problem for years but am no expert, I understand it enough to know that it is beyond my understanding, I hope I can prompt someone like you SHG or some of your lawyer friends and commentors on Simple Justice to do better.