The paper that championed weed legalization now acknowledges that predictions about safety were wildly incorrect and consequences are real
The New York Times basically just said: we messed up the editorial board that spent years championing marijuana legalization, publishing a six-part series in 2014 comparing the federal marijuana ban to alcohol prohibition and arguing for full repeal, has now admitted that many of their predictions about legalization were “wrong.” The Gray Lady is now calling for what they delicately describe as “grudging toleration” basically acknowledging that America has a weed problem that got way worse than anyone expected.
Here’s what the Times got wrong about legalization
Back in 2014, supporters predicted that legalization would bring minimal downsides. The Times itself described marijuana addiction and dependence as “relatively minor problems.” Advocates went further, claiming weed was basically a harmless drug that might actually have net health benefits. Some even argued that legalization wouldn’t lead to greater use because, supposedly, legal access wouldn’t significantly change consumption patterns. All of that was catastrophically wrong.
The numbers tell the brutal story. About 18 million Americans now use marijuana almost daily or roughly five times a week. That’s up from around six million in 2012 and less than one million in 1992. Let those numbers sink in: from less than a million daily users in 1992 to 18 million in 2026. More Americans now use marijuana daily than alcohol. That’s not some marginal increase. That’s a complete transformation of drug use patterns in a generation.
The health consequences have been serious and undeniable
Nearly 2.8 million people annually suffer from cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, a condition that causes severe vomiting and stomach pain. Hospital admissions for marijuana-linked paranoia and chronic psychotic disorders have increased significantly. People driving under the influence of weed are hurting bystanders. These aren’t theoretical concerns they’re documented health crises happening right now across America.
The Times’s proposed solution is probably the most honest part of the editorial
Instead of calling for recriminalization or a total rollback, they’re advocating “grudging toleration” basically accepting that weed is legal but acknowledging it came with massive unintended consequences. It’s the policy equivalent of shrugging and saying: well, we’re stuck with this, so let’s try to manage the damage.
But the Times also identified the real problem: “Big Weed.”
The marijuana industry has every financial incentive to mislead the public about what they’re selling. These are profit-driven corporations that benefit from increased consumption and normalization of use. Trump’s reclassification of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III actually helps these companies more than casual smokers, because it makes their businesses more profitable through favorable tax treatment. That’s not “grudging toleration” that’s the government subsidizing an industry’s expansion.
The fundamental admission here is that legalization happened without adequate regulation or honest conversation about consequences
The Times explicitly states: “The unfortunate truth is that the loosening of marijuana policies especially the decision to legalize pot without adequately regulating it has led to worse outcomes than many Americans expected. It is time to acknowledge reality and change course.”
That’s remarkable. One of America’s most influential newspapers is basically saying: we were too optimistic, the evidence is now undeniable, and we need to adjust course. Not by recriminalizing weed, but by being honest about what it actually does and implementing policies that reflect that reality.
The bigger story is about institutional accountability
The Times is admitting that their advocacy played a role in shaping public opinion and policy. They advocated for legalization based on predictions that turned out to be wrong. Now they’re acknowledging that reality and trying to course-correct. In an era where media institutions rarely admit error, this editorial is surprisingly honest. Whether it changes any actual policy remains to be seen.
