*Ross Duthatt is an opinion columnist.
One of the smoothest ways to win the culture wars is to make your opponent appear hopelessly uncool. This was also the strategy taken by the cannabis legalization movement. Of course, there were moral arguments that the war on drugs was overheated and medical issues about the potential benefits of cannabis, but the dominant narrative was more of a "cool guy" versus a "tight guy" or a "laid-back future" versus "Principal Skinner's (a character from the Simpsons cartoons") past.

Public opinion has become so clear that two-thirds of the respondents are in favor of legalization in a recent survey, so it seems pointless to come and say no. Even moderate dissenters adopt an apologetic and defensive attitude. "I'm not denying you the right to take drugs, but wouldn't it be nice if the smell of cannabis vibrated in your neighborhood...?", "I'm not a drug enforcement squad, but wouldn't it be a bit of a bummer if there were too many unlicensed cannabis dealers in New York?"

Here's what all of this means. For someone as tight-lipped as I am, it takes a long time for conventional wisdom to accept truths that seem so obvious. The truth is as follows. The legalization of cannabis that we've been pushing for is a failed policy, a potential social disaster, and a clear mistake.

One of the best examples of their arguments is that of Charles Payne Lehman of the Manhattan Institute. In this article, Lehman describes his evolution from a young liberal to an older prohibitionist. Of course, this article will not convince a strict liberal, a firm believer in the principle that adults should be able to trade and enjoy almost every type of drug except fentanyl, and that no secondary social outcome can justify violating this right.

Nonetheless, Lehmann details how the secondary effects of cannabis legalization lend strength to the arguments of pessimists and skeptics. First, on the judicial side, there has always been an over-the-top expectation that marijuana legalization would help reduce the U.S. incarceration population by preventing the production of nonviolent offenders.

Even when the number of people incarcerated for cannabis problems was highest, it did not make up a high proportion of the total incarcerated population. Lehman argues that there is no solid evidence that legalization has reduced racist patterns in policing. Police often use cannabis as a basis for searches when they suspect more serious crimes, and if the law changes and can't use cannabis for that purpose, the arrest rate itself doesn't change because they simply find other excuses to replace cannabis.

Therefore, legalization does not necessarily have a significant impact on mass incarceration or racial justice. Nor does it do much to public health. There was hope that legal cannabis could replace opioid painkillers, and there was some initial reason to believe so, but the latest data points to a different conclusion.

According to a new paper published in the Journal of Health Economics, "legal medical cannabis, especially cannabis available through retail stores, is associated with higher opioid analgesic-related mortality." This month, a paper appeared showing a high association between intensive cannabis use and the development of schizophrenia among young men.

Aside from extreme cases like schizophrenia, there's plenty of evidence to show the dangers of cannabis. While not as life-or-death as heroin, marijuana's induced loss of vitality, attention, achievement, and motivation can ruin the lives of millions. Most smokers who smoke occasional marijuana won't experience this, but the number of habitual smokers has skyrocketed since legalization took place.

While the number of occasional marijuana smokers has increased considerably since 2008, the number of people who smoke daily, or almost daily, has risen even more rapidly, with 16 million of the 50 million U.S. marijuana smokers suffering from so-called marijuana use disorder.

Theoretically, we can try to respond technocratively to this regrettable trend. Ideally, legalization should go hand in hand with effective regulatory and tax policies. As Lehman points out, it is theoretically possible to solve the problem of addiction in a legitimate market by raising taxes to encourage users to take advantage of it less.

However, the reality is that this is not the case. The wide and deep illicit market that exists due to the long-standing ban is ready to supply goods at a lower price than the legal market. Therefore, in order to ensure that the legal market is to operate successfully and comply with regulations, it is necessary to intensify the enforcement of the illegal market, but this is not only difficult and costly, but also at odds with the "cool vibe" of the pro-legalization side.


(The rest of the story is from the soup)