The editorial board’s recent op-ed is a poorly researched smear job.
Recently, the editorial board of The New York Times published an opinion piece walking back its endorsement of nationwide cannabis legalization. The article, entitled “It’s Time for America to Admit it has a Marijuana Problem,” is a sloppy piece of journalism that uses deceptive framing and fraught language to fearmonger around some legitimate issues that have come in the wake of widespread legalization.
The Times article attempts to provide journalistic cover for those who favor a regressive approach to the plant and even directly suggests policy proposals for lawmakers. It’s telling that they must resort to cheap tricks and half-truths to make their point.
It’s a straight-up distortion, and it is sadly indicative of a broader cultural backlash that those who oppose cannabis legalization have tried to bring about for years.
The op-ed comes on the heels of the most significant challenges to ending the prohibition of cannabis since states first began to legalize recreational use. Some states, like Maine and Massachusetts, are considering repealing their previous legalization efforts.
For the first time in nearly a decade, we’re seeing polling that shows the number of Americans who support legalization going down. To be clear, the vast majority of Americans are in favor of legalization, and these state initiatives are almost certainly doomed. However, it is undeniable that total acceptance of cannabis is no longer a foregone conclusion.
The Times article attempts to provide journalistic cover for those who favor a regressive approach to the plant and even directly suggests policy proposals for lawmakers. It’s telling that they must resort to cheap tricks and half-truths to make their point.
It isn’t quite reefer madness (yet), but the cannabis industry and the NYT’s readership deserve better.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
The central argument of The New York Times, a word game developer with a somewhat noteworthy editorial division, can be summarized like this: While cannabis use in moderate amounts is largely harmless, weed is too strong, Americans are consuming too much, it’s making us all sick, and it’s making it hard for us to work. Therefore, policymakers and cultural figures should do what they can to slow the rise of cannabis.
The Times has a few good points, of course. Anyone in the industry will tell you that THC inflation is a very, very real thing, and the possible increased risk of mental health impacts when consuming THC in excess is worthy of further study.
However, the Times uses dishonest framing around the issues in order to make the problem seem significantly worse than it is.
Level setting on THC inflation
Take, for example, this quote from the article: “Today’s cannabis is far more potent than the pot that preceded legalization. In 1995, the marijuana seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration was around 4 percent THC, the primary psychoactive compound in pot. Today, you can buy marijuana products with THC levels of 90 percent or more.”
The Times does a bit of rhetorical trickery here, using “products” as a wiggle word to compare flower to concentrates, an apples-to-oranges comparison that makes it seem to uninitiated readers that cannabis has become over 20 times more potent than it was in the past.
The Times does a bit of rhetorical trickery, using “products” as a wiggle word to compare flower to concentrates.
The truth is much less alarming. Flower and concentrates are simply not the same thing, are not consumed in the same amounts, and the NYT’s correlation of the two shows either a remarkable ignorance of the industry they are attempting to discuss or intentional dishonesty on the part of the editorial board.
The weed we have today is an order of magnitude stronger than the stuff that was popular in the 90s. However, even in the pre-legalization days, cannabis flower with 4% THC would have been weaker than the cannabis the standard consumer would have been partaking in, and the highest-potency flower legally available today has a difficult time breaking out of the low 30% range.
With these facts taken together, we can assume a roughly three to six times increase in potency in that 30-year timespan. That’s still a lot, and the industry needs to take a serious look at how to rein in this growth. However, it’s a far cry from the Times’ fantastical numbers that are primarily intended to mislead, not to educate.
The real science behind medical cannabis
The cherry picking doesn’t stop there. The Times also attempts to fly this claim under the radar: “Decades of studies on the drug have proved disappointing to its boosters, finding little medical benefit.” Pack it in, folks, the Times says we’re disappointed!
This claim will be news for the dozens of cannabis researchers who have found that cannabinoids can show marked improvement in helping with sleep, pain relief, and nausea. It will also come as a surprise to the legions of people who already swear by the power of the plant to give them significant relief.
The Times own reporting on the issue doesn’t even fully cover their ass here. The article hiding behind that hyperlink argues that results are mixed in trials regarding pain relief and anxiety, with some subjects showing legitimate and significant improvement. The article consistently cites medical researchers who argue for the necessity of continued study of the medical properties of the plant. It’s a long way from settled science, even if the NYT doesn’t want to admit it.
Saying that cannabis advocates are disappointed in the medical applications of the plant, when there are still so many positive signs, and so much science left to do, is like calling the game at the end of the first quarter.
Are these studies that show the medical benefits of cannabis somewhat weak? Sure. It was, and is, still incredibly difficult to perform good-quality science on cannabis because of its scheduling status.
Due to the recent acceleration of the rescheduling process, that situation will hopefully change, but saying that cannabis advocates are disappointed in the medical applications of the plant, when there are still so many positive signs, and so much science left to do, is like calling the game at the end of the first quarter.
The spectre of Big Weed
Like any good story, the NYT article even has a villain to point the finger at. “Big Weed” (lol) is the malevolent force in the shadows, a cabal of sinister industrialists who are, get this: marketing their products, reaching new customers, and making money. This is a phenomenon known as “economic growth” that the Times has often been in favor of.
The article even has a villain to point the finger at. “Big Weed” (lol) is the malevolent force in the shadows, a cabal of sinister industrialists who are, get this: marketing their products, reaching new customers, and making money.
When it comes to Big Weed, however, the Times has to imply that traditional cannabis companies were among those in the delta-8 space marketing products in ways that the FDC deemed too close to those targeted at minors.
The Times’ article completely and unfairly conflates the hemp and cannabis industries, and that is perhaps the greatest bit of rhetorical sleight of hand that the board engages in. The recreational hemp industry, which sells products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids like delta-8, delta-9, and THCA directly to the consumer, is subject to a much lower tax and regulatory burden than operators in the traditional cannabis industry.
The good actors on both sides have been consistent in calling for the same sort of regulations to apply to both cannabis and hemp products, but it is simply undeniable that the hemp industry has been able to get away with more due to its complicated legal situation. It’s unclear if the NYT knows that the hemp industry and the cannabis industry are legally distinct entities or not, but either way, they ought to know better.
A map to nowhere
So, what is to be done, in the NYT’s estimation? The Times, to their credit, falls short of calling for a return to the bad old days of nationwide prohibition; however, their plan of action to slow the rise of cannabis is wrong-headed and largely counterproductive to their stated aims of tempering the worst actors in cannabis and improving public health.
In addition to some wishcasting around the federal government’s ability to crack down on some of the more extravagant claims that some cannabis advocates have made regarding the plant’s medical value, the editorial board recommends increased federal taxes on cannabis generally, claiming that the industry has enjoyed a low tax rate coupled with a low regulatory burden. Additionally, they call for higher taxes on high THC products and formats like concentrates, even going so far as to outright ban any cannabis product over 60% THC.
Their plan of action to slow the rise of cannabis is wrong-headed and largely counterproductive to their stated aims of tempering the worst actors in cannabis and improving public health.
The claim that the cannabis industry is somehow under-taxed or free of regulatory burden is fucking ridiculous. Come on! Cannabis is subject to an absurd amount of taxation from the vast majority of state and local governments at every step from seed to sale. Cannabis companies are subject to paralyzing regulatory startup burdens that strangle many businesses that cannot contend with the manifold regulations.
Additionally, banning any product over 60% THC would make virtually all concentrates and vape carts illegal. This would deprive the industry of one of the only products that still turns a profit despite the regulatory burden, and coupled with an additional federal tax, would amount to nothing short of an industry-wide apocalypse. Virtually every mid-sized grower and dispensary would evaporate under this increased burden.
If anyone survives this proposed culling, it will be the much-maligned forces of Big Weed. Only they will have the resources to absorb or avoid these new taxes and fees. And if the NYT fears the power of Big Weed now, then just imagine what the industry titans will be like once they gorge themselves on the cheap assets of thousands of failed producers and dispensaries that could not keep up with what the editorial board thinks is best.
Dreams of Californication
The NYT’s recommendations would also amount to an unprecedented boon to the cannabis grey market. Raising the price of cannabis high enough to discourage its use will do nothing of the sort; it will merely push cannabis consumers to seek less pricey options in the cheap, easily accessible, and completely unregulated alternative.
All you need to do to see the future that the NYT wants is to look to California. The Golden State is the center of cannabis culture and should have been the crown jewel of the legal cannabis market, but botched regulatory and taxation efforts have seen the growth of a parallel grey market that claims up to 50% of the state’s cannabis sales.
The NYT’s recommendations would force those who would be happy to buy legal if it were affordable into worse outcomes and riskier, unregulated products.
The NYT would replicate this miserable situation in every legal state, forcing those who would be happy to buy legal if it were affordable into worse outcomes and riskier, unregulated products. This would be a cultural disaster, bringing back the stigma of the draconian days of prohibition that the NYT says they want to avoid, and empowering the worst actors to dilute and mislabel their products in a race to the bottom.
Finally, though the Times is willing to pay rhetorical lip service to the thousands of Americans currently locked up for cannabis related offences, their plan of action would leave those people rotting in jail for the foreseeable future.
We can bicker about marginal tax rates forever, but while the horrific effects of the failed War on Drugs still linger on, it is frankly morally indefensible to set forward any plan that does not first center on releasing those individuals from their unjust imprisonment. Not one step back until that job is done.
How did we get here, and how do we get out?
If The Times’ editorial board feels pressured to use half the techniques in the hack handbook to demonize the cannabis industry, it is worth asking why. The first reason is that the NYT has never seen a moral panic it didn’t like. More importantly, however, is the fact that this sort of sloppy framing is nothing new for the opponents of the cannabis industry.
From the height of refer madness, through the D.A.R.E years, and continuing to today, cannabis has been slandered and denigrated by everyone from preachers and politicians to PR flacks from some of the worst industries around. In many ways, the NYT is merely following in its forerunners’ footsteps of misleading the public about the nature of cannabis. They’re traditionalists, after all, and they love to play the hits.
The NYT has never seen a moral panic it didn’t like. More importantly, however, is the fact that this sort of sloppy framing is nothing new for the opponents of the cannabis industry.
Even if we are to, charitably, overlook the context informing the Times’ distortion, their framing of the cannabis community falls into the same conceptual pitfalls that have led to the outcomes that they’re so worried about. The NYT and so many state governments view the cannabis industry as nothing more than a piggy bank, a convenient source of tax revenue that lawmakers can use to cover budget shortfalls, the only question being how much they can squeeze out of producers and consumers.
Cannabis is more than it gets credit for in the popular imagination. It’s more than THC, it’s more than a get-rich-quick scheme, and it’s a whole hell of a lot more than tax revenue.
Cannabis is more than it gets credit for in the popular imagination. It’s more than THC, it’s more than a get-rich-quick scheme, and it’s a whole hell of a lot more than tax revenue. Cannabis is a plant that humanity has been cultivating for thousands of years, engaging with across history and cultures, and could be an incredible boon for the nation if we treated it right.
Despite everything, cannabis is one of the only industries that is growing in this country at the moment, and instead of viewing the success of cannabis as something to be celebrated and supported, state governments and bed-wetting editorial writers are trying to strangle it while it’s still in the cradle with the backing of extremely thin evidence.
The only path forward is the same as it’s always been: full legalization that is coupled with sensible regulations and robust education efforts in order to build a durable, healthy industry that meets the needs of consumers, workers, owners, and governments alike. Anything less would be a generational loss of potential, an all-time fumble that we may never recover from.
So, folks, if any shady character tries to peer-pressure you into reading further poorly researched garbage from the NYT, remember the magic words: Just say no!
