The New York Times Editorial board frames their reconsideration of legalizing marijuana as an intelligent reassessment. But it reads less like a discovery than a justification—an attempt to explain why a policy the board once championed did not unfold as cleanly as promised, with the responsibility shifted away from regulators and toward the public.
Start with the obvious. Cannabis did not suddenly become dangerous because marijuana legalization failed. Legalization failed because it was done first in the United States and then regulation followed. As access increases without coherent regulations, use will increase. It isn’t a controversial issue; it’s a predictable outcome. This happened after Prohibition with alcohol, tobacco and gambling in the 20th century. Treating increased use as proof of inherent harm is not analysis—it is hindsight. The question that is ignored here is: what systems were in place to control the increase in use and where did they fail?
In the editorial “It’s Time for America To Admit It Has A Marijuana problem,” there is a fundamental contradiction that exposes the issue. While telling readers that occasional use of cannabis is nothing to worry about, they are also warned that it can lead many users into a worse situation as their usage increases. Both statements may be true. Both statements are true. Excessive alcohol use ruins lives. The same goes for gambling, debts, sugar, and prescription drugs. Freedom for adults never relied on the guarantee of a positive outcome. Informed consent, age restrictions, and guardrails have been essential. Individuals are expected to be responsible for their own decisions.
But cannabis is being evaluated by the same standard that no other substance legal is required to meet, namely harmlessness.
The proposed solutions are no exception. The alcohol policy does not have any parallels to the calls for cannabis taxation based on THC or potency limits. Whiskey doesn’t have to be taxed based on its proof. Some people are too drunk to drink beer. Society accepts—correctly—that adults are allowed to make choices that involve risk. The use of heavy-handed taxation and cap does not significantly reduce harm. Instead, they resurrect illicit markets, cause pricing to be distorted, and punish the responsible user for the bad behavior of an elite. History has shown that a policy of overcorrection tends to have unintended effects rather than eliminating demand.
Also, the editorial heavily emphasizes “Big Weed.” Cannabis companies do make money. All legal industries are for profit. The tobacco and alcohol industries spent decades influencing regulation to their advantage before the costs were fully realized by the public. Selective outrage is when cannabis companies are singled out for following poorly-designed rules while alcohol has a long history of monopolizing the regulatory system. Incentives are what drive markets. If the incentives are misaligned, policymakers—not consumers—should be the focus of reform.
Competition is another important factor that has been overlooked. The younger generation of Americans consumes less alcohol than previous generations. Beer volumes are declining. The growth of spirits has decreased. Cannabis is an excellent substitute. Substitution always causes friction to the incumbent industries. It would be naïve to pretend this context does not shape today’s panic. Alcohol—a product responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year—continues to enjoy cultural and regulatory deference that cannabis does not. It is important to examine this double standard, in particular when the shifts of consumer tastes are presented as a decline in public health rather than a market change.
This is not to negate real risks. Cannabinoid-induced hyperemesis, psychosis and impaired driving pose serious risks. But they are overwhelmingly associated with heavy, chronic use—not the occasional joint the editorial itself compares to a glass of wine. These are issues for better education, clearer labeling, medical awareness, consistent enforcement and stronger data collection—not cultural backpedaling or revisionist regret.
This editorial is avoiding the real issue, which is that of autonomy. The editorial does not address the deeper issue of autonomy. Cannabis is not considered dangerous because of its unique nature, but rather because institutions still feel uncomfortable with it because they misjudged the drug a decade earlier.
When cannabis replaces cocktails and calories, “my body, my choices” still remains.
If Americans are worse off anywhere, it is because policymakers legalized marijuana halfway—eager for revenue, hesitant to govern seriously, and slow to confront entrenched interests. Legalization is not to blame for this failure. It avoids accountability, and it clouds the work that lies ahead.
Cannabis’ legalization did not make it dangerous. Cannabis became more visible. And visibility is forcing a long-overdue reckoning—not with cannabis, but with the cost of unfinished governance.
Not regretting is the solution. The solution is not regret.