Connect with us

Substacks

Don’t Blame Legalized Weed for Society’s Woes Katherine Mangu-Ward

Published

on

(Illustration by The Free Press)

It’s been a little over a decade since cannabis was first legalized recreationally in the United States—in Colorado and Washington state in 2012, and as of today in 24 states and the District of Columbia—and Americans have never been more pro-weed. In a Gallup poll from last November, a record high (no pun intended) of 70 percent of U.S. adults came out in support of the federal legalization of marijuana, up from 50 percent in 2013 and a miniscule twelve percent in 1969, when Gallup first asked the question. More Americans support legal weed than people under the age of 45 believe in democracy.

But is legal cannabis really such a no-brainer? A recent study found that marijuana use—whether through smoking, edibles, or vapes—is associated with a higher risk of heart attack and stroke. In December a California woman was convicted for involuntary manslaughter after fatally stabbing her boyfriend over a hundred times because of (according to her lawyers) “cannabis-induced psychosis.” 

As more states consider the issue—Florida, Indiana, and Wisconsin could introduce cannabis legislation in 2024—has decriminalization really worked? Or should it be reconsidered with, well, more sober eyes? Today in The Free Press, we present the strongest cases for and against cannabis legalization. Read the argument in favor of legalization from Reason editor-in-chief Katherine Mangu-Ward below. Then read former United States attorney general William Barrand Hudson Institute president John P. Walters make the opposing case.  

As with some cannabis edibles, the benefits of marijuana legalization can be irritatingly slow to kick in. You might wonder if it’s working at all. Maybe you even get momentarily paranoid about whether this whole thing was a good idea. To have a clearheaded debate about legalization, it’s important to understand what has changed since state-level legalization began in earnest—and what hasn’t. 

First, let’s talk about what hasn’t changed much: during the long decades of the drug war, marijuana remained cheap and widely available. This is still true. At no point did the war on weed come anywhere close to reducing supply or demand, despite billions in government spending

Consumption patterns have been surprisingly stable. Sure, the number of adults who now tell pollsters they smoke pot occasionally is up—no surprise that some people are more willing to admit to behavior after it’s become legal in their state. Meanwhile, the long-standing Monitoring the Future survey found that marijuana use among teens has been roughly steady since the late 1990s—with the exception of a precipitous drop during the pandemic, which has interestingly been sustained through 2023. 

Cannabis remains a relatively safe recreational substance; compared to alcohol, it is far less carcinogenic, less addictive, less likely to cause withdrawal, and less likely to encourage violent or risky behavior. It is essentially impossible to overdose on marijuana. 

Violence associated with the marijuana trade continues, largely because cannabis remains a Schedule I substance under federal law, a classification it shares with heroin and LSD. Bringing pot across the border is still illegal. Federal banking restrictions remain in place on otherwise licit businesses, requiring them to rely heavily on cash and therefore making them more appealing targets for thieves. Supply chains are still studded with black market actors, including gangs. 

Here’s what has changed: a majority of every U.S. demographic now supports legalization, including self-described conservatives and people over 55 years old. While this trend predates legalization, it’s notable that the tipping point came after many Americans witnessed the effects of legalization firsthand. It’s hard to reconcile these figures with the prohibitionists’ dystopian portrait of a nation of newly zombified citizens.

Arrest numbers for cannabis-related crimes have fallen. Since the early 1990s, there have been more than 20 million arrests for marijuana—hundreds of thousands of arrests a year, the vast majority for simple possession. Taxpayers shelled out hundreds of billions of dollars for police activity, courts, prisons, border security, interdiction abroad, and dozens of other expensive, misbegotten policy priorities that predictably emerge downstream from prohibition. It’s true that most stops and arrests related to cannabis consumption don’t result in prison time. But they nonetheless impose a massive burden on police and the courts (and thus on civil liberties) as well as distracting law enforcement from other priorities. The benefits of legalization will continue to accumulate as these figures fall.

Today’s pot is, indeed, stronger than it was in the 1970s. Fearmongering about stronger pot has been a staple of the discourse for decades and is an artifact of criminalization, not legalization. When every transaction is risky you might as well get the biggest bang you can for your buck. These are trends that predate state-level legalization. Recriminalization won’t reverse them. Full legalization might.

Another change has been a dramatic uptick in data collection and academic work on the effects of marijuana. The result is an avalanche of studies from which one can cherry-pick terrifying stats—but also robust debates about methodology. The claim that teens who regularly use marijuana experience an eight-point decrease in IQ, for example, has been countered by other high-quality studies that better control for confounding variables and find no IQ effect. Similarly, there is now a vigorous debate about how to separate correlation from causation when it comes to the relationship between marijuana use and mental illness. 

In February, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a draft report noting that “unlike the research consensus that establishes a clear correlation between [blood alcohol content] and crash risk, drug concentration in blood does not correlate to driving impairment.” In other words, we don’t yet have enough information to make sound laws. A return to prohibition will make obtaining funding and data for continued study more difficult. 

Drug warriors have been making the same arguments for longer than I have been alive; it’s no surprise that their baseline position hasn’t changed despite decades of drug-war failure and the sea change in public acceptance of marijuana. 

When I was an undergrad, I attended a lecture by John P. Walters, who was then the Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George W. Bush, where he offered the same predictions of social decline and disaster he still makes today. Around the same time, Walters was holding press conferences blaming marijuana for a teenager’s suicide (even though there was no evidence the teen had consumed marijuana in the immediate lead-up to his death). In the intervening years, the nation has not succumbed to reefer madness but instead realized that prohibitionists failed to demonstrate the efficacy of their approach. 

The notion that the U.S. should return to—or even redouble—the war on weed is precipitous at best. To complain that legalization hasn’t somehow magically eliminated all of the pathologies of the decades-long, deeply entrenched war on drugs isn’t the killer argument that prohibitionists seem to think it is. There are real harms associated with marijuana abuse in the very small percentage of users who fail to use it responsibly. But we have decades of evidence that prohibition failed to reduce those harms in a meaningful way. What’s more, the end of state-level prohibition has clear positive effects on the lives of casual users who no longer need to fear the loss of their freedoms, livelihood, or education.

To eliminate many of the remaining pathologies, what’s needed is more legalization, not a return to the failures of the past. It’s already paying off, and—as with edibles and so many other things in life—will continue to do so when pursued with the right attitude and a little patience.

For the opposing view, read former attorney general William Barr and Hudson Institute president John Walters’ essay: “Weed Is Dangerous. Legalizing It Was a Mistake.” 

Katherine Mangu-Ward is editor in chief of Reason magazine and co-host of The Reason Roundtable podcast.

Become a Free Press subscriber today:

Subscribe now

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Substacks

Things Worth Remembering: ‘A Game Most Like Life’ Charles Lane

Published

on

By

It feels like only yesterday I called up my friend Douglas Murray with a strange idea: What if you wrote a column for us about poetry?

We had no idea if anyone would be interested in it. I still wasn’t sure many people would be interested in The Free Press itself. But I knew I didn’t want this institution we were building to focus solely on what was wrong with the world. As I wrote at the time: “If ours is an era of building and rebuilding, what things are worth saving?”

In the two years since this column began, the world has changed so much. We have a new president. One war has started—and perhaps is now ending. Another still rages.

The Free Press has covered it all. And so has Douglas himself, reporting from Israel and Ukraine, and speaking across the globe. Meantime, he has written nearly 100 editions of Things Worth Remembering—an unbelievable feat. Somehow he also found time to write a forthcoming book about the future of the West.

Given how much is on his plate, for the time being Douglas is stepping back from this incredible column he’s helped to build. He’ll continue to be a beloved contributor to, and friend of, The Free Press. And fear not: Things Worth Remembering will carry on every Sunday.

Over the years, fans of this column have said to me: “If I had to choose one thing worth remembering, it’d be. . . . ” It made me realize most writers have a poem they return to when they feel lost, a song they replay, or a snippet of some great book that materializes again and again. So we are expanding the column to bring in new voices and choices. I think you’ll love what they have to say.

Today, on Super Bowl Sunday, we start with our deputy editor, Charles Lane, who knows exactly what Americans should remember on this important date: a speech given multiple times, in the late ’60s, by the greatest football coach in the world, Vince Lombardi. It touches on a lot of things we care a lot about at The Free Press: courage, hard work, and excellence. I hope you like it as much as I do—don’t forget to leave your thoughts in the comments.

Happy Super Bowl Sunday, everyone!
—BW

“I sometimes wonder whether those of us who love football fully appreciate its great lessons,” said Vince Lombardi, in what friends and family called “the speech.”

The greatest professional football coach of the twentieth century, Lombardi tried and tested various versions of this talk as an in-demand public speaker during the late ’60s. The text quoted here is from “a representative version” of the speech, which his son Vince Jr. compiled and published in 2001. Lombardi’s words are undeniably magnificent, even to those who might have no interest in tonight’s Super Bowl.

Lombardi acknowledged that his was “a violent game,” suggesting that it would be “imbecilic” to play it otherwise. But this “game like war,” he believed, was also “a game most like life—for it teaches that work, sacrifice, perseverance, competitive drive, selflessness, and respect for authority are the price one pays to achieve worthwhile goals.”

Lombardi’s is not quite the household name it was—time does that to fame. To the extent he is remembered today it is often as the originator of a ruthless coaching doctrine—“Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”—that someone else actually coined.

Still, every year the Super Bowl restores him, at least for a moment, to popular awareness: The winning team tonight will take home the Vince Lombardi Trophy, a brilliant 20.75-inch–high, seven-pound prize made out of pure sterling by Tiffany silversmiths.


Read more

 

Continue Reading

Substacks

February 8, 2025 Heather Cox Richardson

Published

on

By

Yesterday the National Institutes of Health under the Trump administration announced a new policy that will dramatically change the way the United States funds medical research. Now, when a researcher working at a university receives a federal grant for research, that money includes funds to maintain equipment and facilities and to pay support staff that keep labs functioning. That indirect funding is built into university budgets for funding expensive research labs, and last year reached about 26% of the grant money distributed. Going forward, the administration says it will cap the permitted amount of indirect funding at 15%.

NIH is the nation’s primary agency for research in medicine, health, and behavior. NIH grants are fiercely competitive; only about 20% of applications succeed. When a researcher applies for one, their proposal is evaluated first by a panel of their scholarly peers and then, if it passes that level, an advisory council, which might ask for more information before awarding a grant. Once awarded and accepted, an NIH grant carries strict requirements for reporting and auditing, as well as record retention.

In 2023, NIH distributed about $35 billion through about 50,000 grants to over 300,000 researchers at universities, medical schools, and other research institutions. Every dollar of NIH funding generated about $2.46 in economic activity. For every $100 million of funding, research supported by NIH generates 76 patents, which produce 20% more economic value than other U.S. patents and create opportunities for about $600 million in future research and development.

As Christina Jewett and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times explained, the authors of Project 2025 called for the cuts outlined in the new policy, claiming those cuts would “reduce federal taxpayer subsidization of leftist agendas.” Dr. David A. Baltrus of the University of Arizona told Jewett and Stolberg that the new policy is “going to destroy research universities in the short term, and I don’t know after that. They rely on the money. They budget for the money. The universities were making decisions expecting the money to be there.”

Although Baltrus works in agricultural research, focusing on keeping E. coli bacteria out of crops like sprouts and lettuce, cancer research is the top area in which NIH grants are awarded.

Anthropologist Erin Kane figured out what the new NIH policy would mean for states by looking at institutions that received more than $10 million in grants in 2024 and figuring out what percentage of their indirect costs would not be eligible for grant money under the new formula. Six schools in New York won $2.4 billion, including $953 million for indirect costs. The new indirect rate would allow only $220 million for overhead, a loss of $723 million.

States across the country will experience significant losses. Eight Florida schools received about $673 million, $231 million for indirect costs. The new indirect rate would limit that funding to $66 million, a loss of $165 million. Six schools in Ohio received a total of about $700 million; they would lose $194 million. Four schools in Missouri received a total of about $830 million; they would lose $212 million.

Lawmakers from Republican-dominated states are now acknowledging what those of us who study the federal budget have pointed out for decades: the same Republican-dominated states that complain bitterly about the government’s tax policies are also the same states that take most federal tax money. Dana Nickel of Politico reported yesterday that Republican leaders in the states claim to be enthusiastic about the cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency but are mobilizing to make sure those cuts won’t hurt their own state programs that depend on federal money. Oklahoma governor Kevin Stitt told Nickel that governors can provide advice about what cuts will be most effective. “Instead of just across the board cutting, we thought, man, they need some help from the governors to say, ‘We can be more efficient in this area or this area, or if you allow block grants in this area, you can reduce our expenditures by 10 percent.’ And so that’s our goal.”

Yesterday, Tim Carpenter of the Kansas Reflector reported that Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) is concerned about the Trump administration’s freeze on food distributions through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID buys about $2 billion in U.S. agricultural products a year, and farmers are already struggling with rising costs, low prices, and concern with tariffs.

Their spokespeople urge the continuation of USAID: the senior director of government affairs at the American Farm Bureau Federation said that “USAID plays a critical role in reducing hunger around the world while sourcing markets for the surplus foods America’s farmers and ranchers grow.” Moran added: “Food stability is essential to political stability, and our food aid programs help feed the hungry, bolster our national security and provide an important market for our farmers, especially when commodity prices are low.”

Meanwhile, federal employees are telling the stories of the work they’ve done for the country. Yesterday, a public letter whose author claimed to be an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation whose job is at risk in Trump’s purge of the agency wrote an amalgamation of the FBI agents being purged: “I am the coach of your child’s soccer team,” the letter read. “I sit next to you on occasion in religious devotion. I am a member of the PTA. With friends, you celebrated my birthday. I collected your mail and took out your trash while you were away from home. I played a round of golf with you. I am a veteran. I am the average neighbor in your community.”

But there is another side to that person, the author wrote. “I orchestrated a clandestine operation to secure the release of an allied soldier held captive by the Taliban. I prevented an ISIS terrorist from boarding a commercial aircraft. I spent 3 months listening to phone intercepts in real time to gather evidence needed to dismantle a violent drug gang. I recruited a source to provide critical intelligence on Russian military activities in Africa. I rescued a citizen being tortured to near death by members of an Outlaw Motorcycle Gang. I interceded and stopped a juvenile planning to conduct a school shooting. I spent multiple years monitoring the activities of deep cover foreign intelligence officers, leading to their arrest and deportation. I endured extensive hardship to infiltrate a global child trafficking organization. I have been shot in the line of duty.”

“[W]hen I am gone,” they wrote, “who will do the quiet work that is behind the facade of your average neighbor?”

Less publicly, Joseph Grzymkowski expressed on Facebook his pride in 38 years of service “with utmost dedication, integrity, and passion. I was not waste, fraud, and abuse,” he wrote. “Nor was I the “Deep State…. We are the faces of your Government: ordinary and diverse Americans, your friends and neighbors, working behind the scenes in the interest of the people we serve. We are not the enemy.”

Wth his statement, Grzymkowski posted a magazine clipping from 1996, when he was a Marine Analyst working in the Marine Navigation Department for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), located in Bethesda, Maryland—now known as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) in Springfield, Virginia. That office provides maritime intelligence for navigation, international obligations, and joint military operations.

On January 6, 1996, a historic blizzard dumped snowfalls of 19 to 31 inches on the East Coast. Stranded alone in the station when his relief couldn’t get through the snow to work, Grzymkowsky stayed at the radio. “I realized there were mariners who needed navigation safety messages delivered, and I wasn’t about to jeopardize the safety of life or cargo at sea simply because we were experiencing a blizzard,” he told a journalist. “One doesn’t leave a watch on a ship until properly relieved, and I felt my responsibility at the watch desk as keenly as I would have felt my responsibility for the navigation on the bridge of a ship.”

For 33 hours, he stayed at his desk and sent out navigation safety messages. “I had a job to do and I did it,” he recalled. “There were ships at sea relying on me, and I wasn’t going to let them down. It’s nothing that any other member of this department wouldn’t do.”

Notes:

https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43341/45

https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/report/20

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget

https://www.unitedformedicalresearch.org/nih-in-your-state/alabama

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/impact-nih-research/serving-society/direct-economic-contributions

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/us/politics/medical-research-funding-cuts-university-budgets.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/06/trump-usaid-money-american-farms/

https://kansasreflector.com/2025/02/07/kansas-moran-davids-sound-alarm-on-delay-of-usaid-food-aid-to-starving-people-worldwide/

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/07/republican-state-doge-budget-013596

https://southfloridareporter.com/a-trump-policy-change-will-restrict-billions-in-funding-for-medical-research-programs-at-universities/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12HuhGA67_QPIibLa6nB32BtepQR3zQE_DvDTDGrZ5dU/edit

Grzymkowski article is from a 5th Anniversary Special Edition (1996–2001) of NIMA’s Edge magazine, an authorized, internal information publication published for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency personnel and its customers.

https://msi.nga.mil/

https://msi.nga.mil/whats-new

Bluesky:

dianamonkey.bsky.social/post/3lhocfav66s2p

X:

By_CJewett/status/1888208159866544526

Share

 

Continue Reading

Substacks

The Pot of Gold at America’s Western Edge A.M. Hickman

Published

on

By

The boughs of the pomegranate bush clattered in the morning wind, branches drooping with heavy, frost-bruised fruits. The bush lilted her morning greeting to the rows of olive and grapefruit and palm, nodding to the yerba santa and the blue oaks. My own eyes seemed to be covered in a golden gauze as I rose to survey the variegated domain of fertile hills sprawling out before me. Everything was yellow with the spicy nicotine and ocher diamonds of the impossible California skies.

For those who have never been to California before, picture this: a heady sabbatical in Tuscany with Dr. Seuss. Everything in this westernmost state seems to ebb and flow in brief fits and starts through manicured vineyards, blossoming pastures, ranch roads, and hazardous gravel switchbacks slung high above dusty, half-filled reservoirs. It is America’s shimmering Eden, her promised land, the trophy of our young Republic that stands proudly as proof that every ounce of westerly motion was worth it.

To the pioneers, it was the end of the road. It was as far as a wagoneer could travel, cresting high over the infamous Donner Pass, if they had not yet succumbed to madness or scrofula, nor to hunger, smallpox, or cannibalism. Catching sight of the Pacific Ocean, the good earth bowed for the pioneers and did her curtsy. God Himself was the conductor of this symphony of holy life and sun-kissed valleys and endless deep-green ridgelines—and at the end of His great rhapsody, a frontiersman would build his fence lines and furrows and aqueducts.

In some sense, California is the mother of the very particular, feverishly intense, and unstoppable optimism that makes the United States what it is. All Americans are Californians at heart. We are, at our best, a fanatically optimistic sort of people—who might push for a half-year’s time across rough country just to see if the rumors of gold might be half true.

And in the case of California, the rumors were true: There was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. From the earliest “salad days” of these western farmers to the oil booms, the mining frenzies, the rise of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and later, the heady madness of Silicon Valley’s technological revolution. The incredible winnings of California’s early settlers course through the blood of Americans the whole country over, whether they have each seen California for themselves or not.

It all began the first moment that the pioneers caught sight of the poppies along the Sacramento River.


Read more

 

Continue Reading

Shadow Banned

Copyright © 2023 mesh news project // awake, not woke // news, not narrative // deep inside the filter bubble