ℹ️ Skipped - page is already crawled
| Filter | Status | Condition | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| HTTP status | PASS | download_http_code = 200 | HTTP 200 |
| Age cutoff | PASS | download_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH | 0.1 months ago |
| History drop | PASS | isNull(history_drop_reason) | No drop reason |
| Spam/ban | PASS | fh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0 | ml_spam_score=0 |
| Canonical | PASS | meta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsed | Not set |
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| URL | https://otherwords.org/what-critics-still-get-wrong-about-marijuana-legalization/ |
| Last Crawled | 2026-04-15 02:58:39 (3 days ago) |
| First Indexed | 2026-02-25 23:35:02 (1 month ago) |
| HTTP Status Code | 200 |
| Meta Title | What Critics Still Get Wrong About Marijuana Legalization - OtherWords |
| Meta Description | Cannabis re-legalization is a work in progress. But it’s here to stay — and by and large, we’re mostly getting it right. |
| Meta Canonical | null |
| Boilerpipe Text | By most measures, cannabis legalization is a resounding success for the 24 states (plus D.C.) that have implemented it. That’s why no state has ever repealed its legalization laws, and
public support
for the policy remains near all-time highs.
Nonetheless, the policy still has its critics. Among them are the editors at the
New York Times
who, in a recent editorial,
opined
that states have rushed to legalize the substance “without adequately regulating it.”
In truth, however, state marijuana markets are
highly
regulated — and many of the options they proposed are either redundant or would inadvertently strengthen the illicit marketplace.
For instance, the
Times
claims that cannabis products aren’t sufficiently taxed. But this is far from the truth. In fact, most states
impose taxes
on cannabis products that far surpass those on
alcohol
. In some states, consumers face a tax burden of nearly 40 percent on cannabis products — that is,
if
they choose to pay it.
In many cases, excessive taxes steer consumers toward the
unregulated
market. Higher taxes on legal cannabis will only amplify this trend, undermining the primary goal of legalization: to provide adults with safe, affordable, and legal access to lab-tested products.
The
Times
editors also allege that “Big Weed” is pushing products designed to appeal to children by mimicking trademarked brands. This is wrong — the products highlighted by the
Times
are exclusive to the
unregulated
market.
Typically, these products are “hemp-derived” intoxicants sold at gas stations and smoke shops in jurisdictions where cannabis remains illegal. (In legal jurisdiction, there’s
little demand
for these products.) They’re
not
available at state-licensed dispensaries, since most state-regulated markets
explicitly prohibit
products that resemble existing brands or target underage people.
The
Times
also warns that the legal industry is promoting uniquely potent products. But high-potency varieties of cannabis, like hashish, have always been available. And when consumers encounter higher strength cannabis,
they typically consume less of it
— just like alcohol consumers will generally drink less liquor than beer.
Further, most state-legal markets already impose limits on potency or on the total amount of THC permissible per single serving. This trend speaks to one of the primary
advantages
of legalization. It gives governments the ability to oversee the market, establish regulations and best practices, and sanction those who don’t play by the rules.
Finally, the
Times
cautions that a growing number of Americans acknowledge consuming cannabis products post-legalization. This is true.
However, the
Times
neglects to highlight that this growth is
exclusively
among
adult consumers
. In fact, marijuana use by young people has
fallen dramatically
during the past decade — overlapping with the adoption of state-level legalization — and is now at
historic lows
.
Curiously, the
Times
fixates on the fact that among some consumers, cannabis use is surpassing the use of alcohol. This is neither surprising nor troublesome. As more Americans have become aware of the
significant health consequences
associated with alcohol, its
consumption has fallen dramatically
.
Moreover, many
scientific experts
— and even the
Times
editors — acknowledge that marijuana “is safer than alcohol,” and many consumers
have switched
for this very reason. That doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.
There’s one thing the
Times
editors get right: they wisely acknowledge that America shouldn’t return to the failed policy of “heavy-handed criminal prohibition.”
Prohibition is an unmitigated disaster that results annually in
hundreds of thousands
of needless criminal arrests and disrupted lives. In fact, it’s the failure of prohibition that ushered the modern push for cannabis legalization and regulation in the first place.
Today, some
two-thirds
of the public support legalizing marijuana. That’s because most Americans prefer regulation to criminal prohibition.
Has legalization’s rollout been perfect? Of course not. Are there trade-offs that must be considered? Certainly. Should governments continue to adjust regulations as we learn more? Yes, indeed.
Cannabis re-legalization is a work in progress. But it’s here to stay — and by and large, it’s a process we’re getting right. |
| Markdown | [](https://otherwords.org/)
- [About](https://otherwords.org/about/)
- [Archive](https://otherwords.org/blog)
- [Syndicate](https://otherwords.org/syndicate/)
- [Submit](https://otherwords.org/about/for-writers/)
- [Donate](https://secure.everyaction.com/pvv4oAaXiUG6LOwOs8VRuw2)
- [Subscribe](https://otherwords.org/syndicate/)
Select Page
A sign outside a Lomita, California dispensary notes their products are only for customers aged 21 and up. (Shutterstock)
# What Critics Still Get Wrong About Marijuana Legalization
Cannabis re-legalization is a work in progress. But it’s here to stay — and by and large, we’re mostly getting it right.
By [Paul Armentano](https://otherwords.org/authors/paul-armentano/) \| February 25, 2026
By most measures, cannabis legalization is a resounding success for the 24 states (plus D.C.) that have implemented it. That’s why no state has ever repealed its legalization laws, and [public support](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-sheet/topic-legalizing-marijuana/) for the policy remains near all-time highs.
Nonetheless, the policy still has its critics. Among them are the editors at the *New York Times* who, in a recent editorial, [opined](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/09/opinion/regulate-legalized-marijuana.html?unlocked_article_code=1.K1A.1mU1.VP8m_WXYHFp6&smid=url-share) that states have rushed to legalize the substance “without adequately regulating it.”
In truth, however, state marijuana markets are *highly* regulated — and many of the options they proposed are either redundant or would inadvertently strengthen the illicit marketplace.
For instance, the *Times* claims that cannabis products aren’t sufficiently taxed. But this is far from the truth. In fact, most states [impose taxes](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/recreational-marijuana-taxes/) on cannabis products that far surpass those on [alcohol](https://www.canorml.org/stophighertaxes/). In some states, consumers face a tax burden of nearly 40 percent on cannabis products — that is, *if* they choose to pay it.
In many cases, excessive taxes steer consumers toward the *unregulated* market. Higher taxes on legal cannabis will only amplify this trend, undermining the primary goal of legalization: to provide adults with safe, affordable, and legal access to lab-tested products.
The *Times* editors also allege that “Big Weed” is pushing products designed to appeal to children by mimicking trademarked brands. This is wrong — the products highlighted by the *Times* are exclusive to the *unregulated* market.
Typically, these products are “hemp-derived” intoxicants sold at gas stations and smoke shops in jurisdictions where cannabis remains illegal. (In legal jurisdiction, there’s [little demand](https://norml.org/blog/2025/09/04/analysis-consumers-are-twice-as-likely-to-use-unregulated-delta-8-thc-products-in-jurisdictions-without-adult-use-cannabis-markets/) for these products.) They’re *not* available at state-licensed dispensaries, since most state-regulated markets [explicitly prohibit](https://www.networkforphl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Packaging-Regulation.pdf) products that resemble existing brands or target underage people.
The *Times* also warns that the legal industry is promoting uniquely potent products. But high-potency varieties of cannabis, like hashish, have always been available. And when consumers encounter higher strength cannabis, [they typically consume less of it](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-93198-5.epdf) — just like alcohol consumers will generally drink less liquor than beer.
Further, most state-legal markets already impose limits on potency or on the total amount of THC permissible per single serving. This trend speaks to one of the primary *advantages* of legalization. It gives governments the ability to oversee the market, establish regulations and best practices, and sanction those who don’t play by the rules.
Finally, the *Times* cautions that a growing number of Americans acknowledge consuming cannabis products post-legalization. This is true.
However, the *Times* neglects to highlight that this growth is *exclusively* among [adult consumers](https://norml.org/blog/2025/10/24/older-adults-increasingly-identify-as-cannabis-consumers/). In fact, marijuana use by young people has [*fallen dramatically*](https://norml.org/blog/2026/02/17/federal-survey-data-cannabis-use-by-young-people-continues-decades-long-decline/) during the past decade — overlapping with the adoption of state-level legalization — and is now at [historic lows](https://norml.org/blog/2025/12/23/federally-funded-survey-marijuana-use-by-teens-continues-historic-decline/).
Curiously, the *Times* fixates on the fact that among some consumers, cannabis use is surpassing the use of alcohol. This is neither surprising nor troublesome. As more Americans have become aware of the [significant health consequences](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-73333-8) associated with alcohol, its [consumption has fallen dramatically](https://news.gallup.com/poll/693362/drinking-rate-new-low-alcohol-concerns-surge.aspx).
Moreover, many [scientific experts](https://norml.org/news/2026/01/29/analysis-aggregate-harms-associated-with-use-of-alcohol-tobacco-far-outweigh-cannabis-related-risks/) — and even the *Times* editors — acknowledge that marijuana “is safer than alcohol,” and many consumers [have switched](https://norml.org/blog/2024/11/12/marijuana-consumers-frequently-report-substituting-cannabis-for-alcohol-other-substances/) for this very reason. That doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.
There’s one thing the *Times* editors get right: they wisely acknowledge that America shouldn’t return to the failed policy of “heavy-handed criminal prohibition.”
Prohibition is an unmitigated disaster that results annually in [hundreds of thousands](https://norml.org/blog/2025/10/15/fbi-marijuana-possession-arrests-comprised-over-20-of-all-drug-related-arrests-in-2024/) of needless criminal arrests and disrupted lives. In fact, it’s the failure of prohibition that ushered the modern push for cannabis legalization and regulation in the first place.
Today, some [two-thirds](https://news.gallup.com/poll/697445/americans-positive-progress-drugs.aspx) of the public support legalizing marijuana. That’s because most Americans prefer regulation to criminal prohibition.
Has legalization’s rollout been perfect? Of course not. Are there trade-offs that must be considered? Certainly. Should governments continue to adjust regulations as we learn more? Yes, indeed.
Cannabis re-legalization is a work in progress. But it’s here to stay — and by and large, it’s a process we’re getting right.
[](https://otherwords.org/what-critics-still-get-wrong-about-marijuana-legalization/ "Printer Friendly, PDF & Email")
[](https://otherwords.org/authors/paul-armentano/)[Paul Armentano](https://otherwords.org/authors/paul-armentano/)
*Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director of* [*NORML*](http://www.norml.org/)*, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.*
**[*Paul’s full-res headshot is available here*](https://149357246.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/paul-armentano-1-e1661964414907.jpg)*.***
**OtherWords commentaries are free to re-publish in print and online — all it takes is a simple attribution to OtherWords.org. To get a roundup of our work each Wednesday, sign up for our free weekly newsletter [here](https://otherwords.org/syndicate/).**
**(Note: Images credited to Getty or Shutterstock are not covered by our Creative Commons license. Please license these separately if you wish to use them.)**
[](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative 3.0 License](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/).
A project of the:
[About](https://otherwords.org/about/)
[Archive](https://otherwords.org/blog/)
[Syndicate](https://otherwords.org/syndicate/)
[Submit](https://otherwords.org/about/for-writers/)
[Donate](https://secure.everyaction.com/pvv4oAaXiUG6LOwOs8VRuw2)
[Subscribe](https://otherwords.org/syndicate/)
[otherwords@ips-dc.org](mailto:otherwords@ips-dc.org)
(202) 234 9382
1301 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600 \| Washington, DC 20036 |
| Readable Markdown | By most measures, cannabis legalization is a resounding success for the 24 states (plus D.C.) that have implemented it. That’s why no state has ever repealed its legalization laws, and [public support](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-sheet/topic-legalizing-marijuana/) for the policy remains near all-time highs.
Nonetheless, the policy still has its critics. Among them are the editors at the *New York Times* who, in a recent editorial, [opined](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/09/opinion/regulate-legalized-marijuana.html?unlocked_article_code=1.K1A.1mU1.VP8m_WXYHFp6&smid=url-share) that states have rushed to legalize the substance “without adequately regulating it.”
In truth, however, state marijuana markets are *highly* regulated — and many of the options they proposed are either redundant or would inadvertently strengthen the illicit marketplace.
For instance, the *Times* claims that cannabis products aren’t sufficiently taxed. But this is far from the truth. In fact, most states [impose taxes](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/recreational-marijuana-taxes/) on cannabis products that far surpass those on [alcohol](https://www.canorml.org/stophighertaxes/). In some states, consumers face a tax burden of nearly 40 percent on cannabis products — that is, *if* they choose to pay it.
In many cases, excessive taxes steer consumers toward the *unregulated* market. Higher taxes on legal cannabis will only amplify this trend, undermining the primary goal of legalization: to provide adults with safe, affordable, and legal access to lab-tested products.
The *Times* editors also allege that “Big Weed” is pushing products designed to appeal to children by mimicking trademarked brands. This is wrong — the products highlighted by the *Times* are exclusive to the *unregulated* market.
Typically, these products are “hemp-derived” intoxicants sold at gas stations and smoke shops in jurisdictions where cannabis remains illegal. (In legal jurisdiction, there’s [little demand](https://norml.org/blog/2025/09/04/analysis-consumers-are-twice-as-likely-to-use-unregulated-delta-8-thc-products-in-jurisdictions-without-adult-use-cannabis-markets/) for these products.) They’re *not* available at state-licensed dispensaries, since most state-regulated markets [explicitly prohibit](https://www.networkforphl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Packaging-Regulation.pdf) products that resemble existing brands or target underage people.
The *Times* also warns that the legal industry is promoting uniquely potent products. But high-potency varieties of cannabis, like hashish, have always been available. And when consumers encounter higher strength cannabis, [they typically consume less of it](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-93198-5.epdf) — just like alcohol consumers will generally drink less liquor than beer.
Further, most state-legal markets already impose limits on potency or on the total amount of THC permissible per single serving. This trend speaks to one of the primary *advantages* of legalization. It gives governments the ability to oversee the market, establish regulations and best practices, and sanction those who don’t play by the rules.
Finally, the *Times* cautions that a growing number of Americans acknowledge consuming cannabis products post-legalization. This is true.
However, the *Times* neglects to highlight that this growth is *exclusively* among [adult consumers](https://norml.org/blog/2025/10/24/older-adults-increasingly-identify-as-cannabis-consumers/). In fact, marijuana use by young people has [*fallen dramatically*](https://norml.org/blog/2026/02/17/federal-survey-data-cannabis-use-by-young-people-continues-decades-long-decline/) during the past decade — overlapping with the adoption of state-level legalization — and is now at [historic lows](https://norml.org/blog/2025/12/23/federally-funded-survey-marijuana-use-by-teens-continues-historic-decline/).
Curiously, the *Times* fixates on the fact that among some consumers, cannabis use is surpassing the use of alcohol. This is neither surprising nor troublesome. As more Americans have become aware of the [significant health consequences](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-73333-8) associated with alcohol, its [consumption has fallen dramatically](https://news.gallup.com/poll/693362/drinking-rate-new-low-alcohol-concerns-surge.aspx).
Moreover, many [scientific experts](https://norml.org/news/2026/01/29/analysis-aggregate-harms-associated-with-use-of-alcohol-tobacco-far-outweigh-cannabis-related-risks/) — and even the *Times* editors — acknowledge that marijuana “is safer than alcohol,” and many consumers [have switched](https://norml.org/blog/2024/11/12/marijuana-consumers-frequently-report-substituting-cannabis-for-alcohol-other-substances/) for this very reason. That doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.
There’s one thing the *Times* editors get right: they wisely acknowledge that America shouldn’t return to the failed policy of “heavy-handed criminal prohibition.”
Prohibition is an unmitigated disaster that results annually in [hundreds of thousands](https://norml.org/blog/2025/10/15/fbi-marijuana-possession-arrests-comprised-over-20-of-all-drug-related-arrests-in-2024/) of needless criminal arrests and disrupted lives. In fact, it’s the failure of prohibition that ushered the modern push for cannabis legalization and regulation in the first place.
Today, some [two-thirds](https://news.gallup.com/poll/697445/americans-positive-progress-drugs.aspx) of the public support legalizing marijuana. That’s because most Americans prefer regulation to criminal prohibition.
Has legalization’s rollout been perfect? Of course not. Are there trade-offs that must be considered? Certainly. Should governments continue to adjust regulations as we learn more? Yes, indeed.
Cannabis re-legalization is a work in progress. But it’s here to stay — and by and large, it’s a process we’re getting right.
[](https://otherwords.org/what-critics-still-get-wrong-about-marijuana-legalization/ "Printer Friendly, PDF & Email") |
| Shard | 37 (laksa) |
| Root Hash | 736490167610879837 |
| Unparsed URL | org,otherwords!/what-critics-still-get-wrong-about-marijuana-legalization/ s443 |