should we legalize weed

Rethinking Marijuana Legalization: A Response to the National Review

Cannabis legalization has swept across America in waves, creating a patchwork of policies that vary dramatically from state to state. Some jurisdictions embrace full recreational use, others permit medical applications only, while some maintain total prohibition. This inconsistent legal landscape makes it nearly impossible to accurately measure the success or failure of legalization efforts. Without uniform policies and implementations, any cost-benefit analysis becomes murky at best.

In this fragmented environment, opinions about cannabis legalization remain sharply divided. Some celebrate newfound freedoms and opportunities, while others lament perceived social costs and unintended consequences. The National Review recently published an opinion piece questioning whether we should reconsider marijuana legalization altogether, citing several issues they believe undermine the case for legal cannabis.

Today, I'm going to examine these claims with a critical eye. While I agree that we absolutely should "rethink" marijuana legalization, my conclusion differs dramatically from the National Review's perspective. Rather than retreating from legalization, I believe we need to push forward with more comprehensive reforms that address the legitimate concerns while delivering on the promised benefits.

The current half-measures and regulatory inconsistencies have created a situation where neither prohibitionists nor advocates are satisfied with the outcomes. Only through thoughtful, evidence-based policy adjustments can we realize the full potential of legalization while minimizing downsides. So yes, let's rethink marijuana legalization – but let's make sure we're using all the available data and considering the root causes of any implementation problems.

The Main Issues in the National Review Article

The National Review piece relies heavily on arguments from Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Steven Malanga, who suggests legalization has failed to deliver on its promises. The article highlights several key complaints:

The pervasive smell of marijuana in public spaces
Failure to eliminate black markets
Disappointing tax revenue that sometimes requires taxpayer subsidies
Increased usage rates contrary to predictions
Health concerns, particularly regarding psychosis
Perceived connections between cannabis and "social breakdown"

Let's tackle these points one by one:

The Smell: While cannabis odor can be noticeable, this concern fundamentally misunderstands the concept of liberty in a diverse society. If someone is consuming cannabis in their private residence or in designated areas, their personal choices shouldn't be criminalized simply because others find the smell unpleasant. Just as we accommodate cigarette smokers in designated areas and don't ban cooking pungent foods, cannabis consumption can be managed through reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The development of cannabis social clubs, similar to cigar lounges, would further localize any odor concerns.

Black Markets:

The persistence of illicit markets isn't a failure of legalization itself but rather of its incomplete implementation. Black markets thrive precisely because cannabis remains federally illegal, creating banking restrictions, interstate commerce prohibitions, and excessive regulatory burdens that drive up costs for legal operators. States with more reasonable tax structures and fewer arbitrary licensing caps have seen significantly less illicit market activity.

Tax Revenue:

Despite claims to the contrary, legal cannabis has generated billions in tax revenue. Colorado alone has collected over $1.6 billion in marijuana taxes since 2014, funding education, public health, and infrastructure projects. Washington state has generated over $3 billion. While projections may have been overoptimistic in some jurisdictions, this hardly constitutes a failure – it simply indicates a need for more realistic forecasting and better-designed tax structures.

Health Risks:

Cannabis, like any substance, carries certain risks. However, comparative risk assessments consistently show it's less harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. Dr. David Nutt's famous study published in The Lancet ranked alcohol as far more harmful to users and society than cannabis. To focus on potential cannabis risks while ignoring the well-documented devastation of legal substances reveals a problematic double standard.

Usage Patterns:

Youth cannabis use has actually declined or remained stable in many states following legalization, contradicting prohibitionist predictions. Meanwhile, increased use among adults reflects exactly what legalization was designed to accomplish – providing adults with safe, legal access to a substance many find beneficial for relaxation, creativity, or medical symptoms. The decline in youth consumption likely stems partly from reduced novelty and rebellion appeal once cannabis becomes a regulated product rather than a forbidden fruit.

How to Legalize for Maximum Benefit

To fully realize the promises of cannabis legalization, we need a more comprehensive approach that addresses the legitimate concerns while removing the artificial constraints that have hampered success.

First and foremost, federal legalization is essential. The current federal prohibition creates unnecessary complications for banking, research, interstate commerce, and taxation. It forces businesses to operate on a cash basis, creating security risks and inefficiencies. It prevents the development of national brands and economies of scale that could drive down consumer costs. And it maintains the Schedule I classification that hampers medical research and perpetuates stigma.

Second, home cultivation rights must be protected. Allowing adults to grow limited amounts of cannabis for personal use provides a safety valve against monopolistic market structures and excessive pricing. It empowers consumers, reduces black market incentives, and recognizes that cannabis is, fundamentally, a plant that people have grown for thousands of years. States that have embraced home grow rights like Michigan and Colorado have seen thriving legal markets alongside personal cultivation.

Third, we need sensible regulatory structures that protect public health without imposing unnecessary burdens. This includes reasonable testing requirements, clear labeling standards, and age restrictions. However, excessive regulations that serve only to limit market participation or drive up costs without clear public health benefits should be eliminated. The current system in many states has created oligopolistic markets where licenses cost millions, shutting out small businesses and social equity applicants.

Fourth, tax policies need recalibration. Excessive taxation, especially when layered across cultivation, processing, and retail levels, drives up consumer prices and fuels black markets. A simple, moderate tax based on potency or sale price would generate revenue while allowing legal markets to compete with illicit operations.

Finally, we need honest education about both the benefits and risks of cannabis. Fear-mongering and exaggeration undermine credibility, while dismissing legitimate concerns is equally problematic. The vast majority of consumers—likely over 95%—will never experience serious adverse effects. However, those with predispositions to certain mental health conditions, particularly adolescents whose brains are still developing, face higher risks that should be clearly communicated.

The Sticky Bottom Line

When we take a clear-eyed look at cannabis legalization's mixed results, the solution becomes evident: we don't need less legalization—we need more complete, thoughtful implementation. The problems cited by critics largely stem not from legalization itself, but from the compromised, piecemeal approaches that have characterized policy reform thus far.

Federal legalization with home cultivation rights would strike a devastating blow to illegal markets by allowing interstate commerce, normalizing banking relationships, and recognizing the fundamental right of adults to grow a plant for personal use. The black market doesn't thrive because legalization failed; it thrives because our current approach is incomplete and inconsistent.

Overtaxing and overregulating legitimate cannabis businesses while maintaining federal prohibition creates the worst of all worlds—high consumer prices, limited access, and continued incentives for illicit operators. We can't expect the black market to disappear when we've designed systems that actively advantage it.

The National Review article gets one thing right—we should indeed rethink marijuana legalization. But instead of retreat, we need to advance toward more coherent, evidence-based policies that truly put "We the People" at the center. Give Americans the freedom to grow their own cannabis, purchase from a diverse marketplace of businesses both small and large, and make personal health decisions without government interference.

Do that, and watch the promises of legalization—reduced black markets, significant tax revenue, controlled access for adults, and diminished criminal influence—finally come to fruition. It's time to complete the journey we've started, not turn back halfway.