👎 The NYT’s editorial on cannabis is bad policy journalism

NEW YORK TIMES
NYT editorial on cannabis misses the mark 👎

The New York Times published an editorial on Monday, “It’s Time for America to Admit That It Has a Marijuana Problem.” 

It catalyzed a wave of hand-wringing on social media by everyone from Alex Berenson, to right wing, MAGA influencers, as well as the SPAC King himself, Chamath Palihapitiya, among others. So, unfortunately, we’ve gotta write about it. 

While I’m loath to engage in media criticism when it comes to cannabis reporting — the stigma is still alive and real in mainstream media, and many writers are, um, quantitatively challenged when it comes to interpreting data — I want to weigh in on where editorial makes some good points and where it falls short.

The editorial relies on federal data showing an uptick in cannabis use among adults, and makes the leap that the uptick has caused a “rise in addiction.” First, the authors don’t engage with the very simple idea that more people report use when it’s socially acceptable to do so. That’s journalism 101. So while the uptick in use is likely real, the magnitude of the change is probably much more pronounced on the chart than it is in reality. It also conflates very different use patterns: A college student smoking joints all day every day is in the same category as an elderly grandmother who takes a low-dose gummy before bed every night. 

I don’t want to spend too much time on their claims that millions of Americans are getting sick from pot, or ending up in hospitals, or that roads in legal states are some sort of ongoing multi-car pileup. The fact is, there are negative consequences associated with legalization, but the editorial’s data relies on loose correlations sourced to broad observational studies. The very authors of these studies write that much more research is needed. And other studies show there’s a very real substitution effect from riskier drugs like alcohol and opioids to much safer legal edibles, which, of course means there are many positive benefits associated with legalization, too. 

I should say, I don’t actually disagree with all of the editorial, though I do have a bone to pick with how they cast cannabis use in a mostly negative light. The op-ed focuses its criticism on regulation, rather than legalization itself. It very clearly argues for enhanced regulation and coherent federal tax policy rather than a return to prohibition, despite the fact that prohibition-driven organizations like Smart Approaches to Marijuana or the Manhattan Institute will use the piece to crow that they’re right.

But here’s another point of disagreement. The editorial suggests the federal government should ban high-potency extracts, greater than 60% THC, and it should use high taxes to discourage use. 

Tax policy, however, is an exercise in managing tradeoffs. The editorial does not engage with these tradeoffs. It assumes, based on patterns of tobacco usage in relation to increasing tax, that higher taxes on more potent cannabis products will discourage users. But that’s not exactly true in the same way it is for cannabis. There is no real illicit tobacco market in the same way there’s a decades-old illicit cannabis market. Higher taxes on legal cannabis will simply push consumers back to the illicit market, a dynamic that does not exist in the same way with tobacco. 

The editorial also does not engage with the fact that cannabis is indeed heavily regulated within legal states. And that many of the problems the editorial discusses have not expressed themselves in Canada, which legalized cannabis in 2018.  

But enough on policy and science. Let me get to the heart of my argument: There is a vibe shift afoot. The editorial is about as anti-cannabis as it gets. But it explicitly supports federal legalization and coherent regulation.

So, despite my quibbles with the way the New York Times editorial board handles evidence when it comes to cannabis policy and public health research, we both agree on the same thing — cannabis should be legalized and effectively regulated.

Regulation is by far more effective than outright prohibition as a way to control the social costs of legalization, if you’re of the view that cannabis legalization comes with great social cost. While I don’t agree with the editorial in how those social costs are characterized, I do agree that regulation works.

But the fact of the matter is, cannabis policy is a living, breathing science. The New York Times editorial board drawing these sweeping negative conclusions from nascent research is simply bad policy journalism. 

-JB

“I don’t know if it’s a priority. They seem to have a lot on their plate,” Rep. Dave Joyce, an Ohio Republican and chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, told Marijuana Moment about rescheduling. Joyce says the Epstein files may be keeping the DOJ’s hands full.

The Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission might finally be able to issue licenses unhindered after the state's Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the last legal hurdle the commission faced from applicant Jemmstone Alabama LLC. 

Organigram reported $20 million in net income on $97.3 million in revenue for the first quarter. The company saw almost a 50% jump in revenue from $66.8 million in the first quarter of 2025, when the company also took a $27.5 million loss. $OGI ( ▼ 5.76% )

The global medical cannabis market generated $6.82 billion in 2020 and is on track to generate $53.88 billion by 2030 according to a new report from Allied Market Research.

Medical Cannabis at Inflection Point: Policy, Science, What Comes Next (Opinion) | Cannabis Business Times

Marijuana Policy Between the New York Times Nanny State and Chaos | Cato Institute

High taxes, domestic saturation pushing Canadian cannabis to international markets | StratCann