It's Time for the NYT To Admit It Has an Editorial Problem

A discussion titled, “Marijuana is Everywhere. That’s a Problem” with New York Times editorial writers Emily Bazelon, David Leonhardt and German Lopez, who co-wrote Monday’s NYT editorial calling for greater regulation of cannabis, focuses on theory rather than practicality, except when used for prejudicial purposes. 

The conversation starts with the clarification that, like the famous NYT editorial series of 2014, theirs is pro-legalization, due to the harms of cannabis prohibition—namely huge numbers of arrests, disproportionately for people of color. They pointed out that they say in the editorial that they oppose the current ballot measure in Massachusetts that would re-criminalize cannabis. 

During the discussion, both Leonhardt and Lopez went right away to the fact that things are too loose now because marijuana can be smelled walking down the street. In Lopez’s case he says he was offered a hit on the street in his native Ohio, and Leonhardt talked about the streets of NYC and DC, where he spends time. Leonhardt also seemed distiurbed by the proliferation of cannabis shops in Colorado. 

Lopez expressed concern that legalization has increased use, drawing on his perspective reporting on the opioid crisis. He was also alarmed that we have “culturally embraced" cannabis. “You see Gwyneth Paltrow investing in Big Weed in CA,” was an example he used, picking up on the prohibitionist organization SAM’s drumbeat about Big Weed.  

Other problems like increasing numbers of people in polls saying they have problems with marijuana, and emergency room visits for CHS, were mentioned. Also mentioned, as in the editorial, were names of products that sounded like cookies and were marketed to kids (something that isn’t allowed in CA and elsewhere). 

Much was made of the 2024 NSDUH survey finding that more people smoke cannabis daily than use alcohol, with everyone assuming this meant people get totally stoned all day long. Leonhardt said twice that he “very much likes” alcohol or his martini, and Lopez said he “partakes" himself. But apparently everyone else who uses cannabis does so problematically in their eyes. People who have a problem with pot aren’t productive, and create problems for society, is Lopez's opinion. "We’ve gone way too far it glorifying its use,” he said.

On medical marijuana, while it was acknowledged that some people in pain or with specific ailments might benefit from it, cannabis hasn’t gone through the rigorous studies and government oversight needed to establish it as a true medicine, and we should re-think a system by which cannabis dispensaries sell a product claiming medical use, the speakers said. 

The number one thing to change about cannabis legalization is taxation, Leonhardt said. He pointed to tobacco as having great success with lowering youth use due to high taxes. The beauty of higher taxation, he claimed, is that it doesn’t affect the occasional user but helps curb overuse. Cannabis is taxed at “pennies on the dollar,” Lopez claimed, while alcohol they said is taxed at a higher rate. This is absolutely not true in California, where the excise tax on a glass of wine is one cent, and on a cannabis pre-roll it's over $1.

To the tired old ideas of criminologist Mark Kleiman, who took off from the idea that something like 80% of any product’s sales come from the top 20% of its users, were harkened to. Lopez spoke about Kleiman’s policy of “grudging toleration,” and expressed alarm that some people celebrate the positive effects of cannabis. Corporations have an incentive to market to their heaviest users, he said. “And youth!” chimed in Leonhardt, saying there are products named Trips Ahoy and Double Stuff Stoneos, from "the classic playbook of corporations that care more about profits than the well being of Americans. "

The speakers pooh-pooed the idea that high taxation sends people to the illicit market, citing studies about other substances rather than looking at the very real-world situation brought about by 100 years of marijuana prohibition. It’s “really nihilist” to say that there should be no laws just because people can get around them, Leonhardt said, comparing cannabis laws to taxing the rich. The tiny illicit market in tobacco or alcohol vs. the mature one in cannabis wasn’t considered at all, nor was the potential fallout of the Times’s idea to re-criminalize marijuana products of over 60% potency. 

The only useful idea presented was that perhaps cannabis should be taxed based on its potency, as alcohol is. It was acknowledged that alcohol should be taxed at a higher rate. The problem of people smoking pot in public could be solved by allowing more indoor places where people can consume, but this wasn’t mentioned.  

Kevin Sabet of SAM called the NYT piece "gargantuan." The organization last week banned participants from Students for Sensible Drug Policy from its annual convention. Dark Money is funding SAM, and campaigns to repeal marijuana legalization in at least three states. Meanwhile, outlets like the Daily Caller, The Hill and Politico are taking $100-$500K to produce one-sided media forums for those like SAM who can pay.