Proponents touted the massive benefits and no real costs. But is this really the case?
In 2012, the states of Colorado and Washington first legalized the commercial production and sale of cannabis for non-medical use, and 22 other states followed suit. The move was seen in many quarters as a timely and positive decision — an organic, and sometimes medicinal, intoxicant with no significant downsides.
Proponents promised safe and clearly labeled products, reduced opioid addiction, lower incarceration rates, increased tax revenues, and a socially responsible industry that put people before profits. However, all of these promises have proven to be either exaggerated or misguided.
Legalization has led to a significant increase in cannabis use and changed cannabis use patterns. In the 1990s and early 2000s, most users smoked marijuana sporadically, usually on weekends with friends. Some used it more regularly: in 2000, about 2.5 million Americans reported daily or near-daily use.
By 2022, that number had increased sevenfold, to 17.7 million, and surpassed the number who drink alcohol with equal frequency (14.7 million). Now, by mid-2025, more than 40% of Americans who use cannabis do so on a daily or near-daily basis, and they may be the ones who consume about 80% of all products sold in the U.S.
The potency of the drug has also increased significantly. Whereas before 2000 the average THC (the main psychoactive component) content of seized cannabis did not exceed 5%, today licensed stores sell flowers with more than 20% THC. Vapes, shots and other forms of delivery that have emerged due to commercialization have become even more potent.
The frequent use of more concentrated products has led to a dramatically increased average amount of THC consumed. In the 1980s and '90s, when the average THC level was about 4%, a person who consumed one 0.4-gram joint once a weekend would get about 32 milligrams of THC per week. Today, daily users use about 1.6 grams of the highly active flower or its analogs, yielding more than 2,000 milligrams of THC per week — about 70 times that amount.
These numbers come as a shock, but this is the effect that comes with increasing frequency, concentration, and volume of use. For some, the high potency of the drug itself becomes an incentive to use more often, providing a stronger sense of the effect.
Medical science cannot yet provide definitive conclusions about the long-term effects of daily consumption of 300 milligrams or more of THC, as this consumption regimen is relatively new. Most studies are limited to short-term effects of smaller doses — usually in the 20-50 milligram range — or observational studies of users of low-concentration marijuana, which has now all but disappeared.
Nevertheless, there are a number of concerns associated with regular use of highly active products. First, there is little doubt that intoxicating cannabis can impair cognitive functions: concentration, memory, and learning ability.
In the era of occasional use, this was not a big problem, but daily use means working and studying under the influence of the drug. Perception and motor control are also impaired; and with the increasing availability of potent legal marijuana, car accidents and emergency room visits are on the rise.
In the long term, while some are able to maintain functionality with continued use, many users are at risk of experiencing obstacles in career, schooling and family responsibilities.
There is also growing evidence that regular use of potent products increases the risk of developing serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.
It is important to note that these risks and harms do not even remotely compare to the scale of the «cannabis crisis», similar to the opioid or methamphetamine crisis, characterized by mass deaths and broken families. Many people who use cannabis successfully control their use, and the availability and cheapness of cannabis allow them to do so without much stigma.
On average, the rate of use among adolescents increased by only 3% between 2012 and 2025. However, for adults, the figure has risen by 155%, especially among those over the age of 35 (a 300% increase), which cannot be considered an exclusively positive development. Many predictions and assumptions about the consequences of legalization have proven to be naïve.
The surge in cannabis use would not necessarily have been a success in terms of public health and crime reduction if it had not been accompanied by an increase in the use of more dangerous drugs. Predictions of declines in alcohol associated with violent offenses have not materialized — declines in some groups have been offset by increases in others.
Based on weak scientific evidence, many proponents promised that legalization would reduce opioid use. But as new data emerged, it turned out that legalization was more likely to increase opioid-related deaths. This makes sense: while the risks of the «gateway drug» have been exaggerated in the past, the commercialization of cannabis has increased its use, and addiction to it increases the likelihood of use and dependence on other drugs.
Promises of reduced crime and correctional costs have also proven illusory. In 2018, the Center for American Progress noted that marijuana enforcement is often discriminatory — the very reason why blacks and Latinos make up two-thirds of drug prisoners. But even before legalization, very few people were behind bars just for marijuana possession. Most were behind bars for more serious robbery and burglary offenses, and only about 2% of prisoners were convicted solely of marijuana-related drug offenses, and most of those were dealers or their employees.
Allowing the commercial supply of cannabis, as opposed to simply decriminalizing possession, has led to new unintended consequences that could well have been predicted, as businesses are usually governed by the laws of economics.
Large producers, run by professionals with MBAs, have adopted industrial farming methods that have proven to be extremely efficient and far superior to the artisanal production predicted by many proponents of legalization. Prior to legal commerce, most high-quality cannabis was grown in small indoor facilities; according to a 2006 Dutch study covering 77 illegal plantations, the average size of such farms was less than 200 square feet.
Today, medium-scale commercial cultivation covers 10,000 to 20,000 square feet, and industry publications report growers like Copperstate Farms operating nearly 2 million square feet of greenhouses, as well as even larger operations.
Commercial production led to lower prices, which in turn reduced the expected revenue from cannabis taxes, widely promoted by legalization advocates.
Falling prices have reduced the profitability of the industry, forcing manufacturers to expand markets and attract new consumers. The result has been a proliferation of edible and other products that are more accessible to non-smokers. The industry is increasingly targeting women, a group that has historically used cannabis less than men, similar to cigarettes and alcohol. Between 2012 and 2025, frequency of use in men increased by 137% and in women by 300%.
Many commercial cannabis providers have proven difficult to regulate. Compliance measures were initially inadequate, which was a mistake. Today, misleading labels are not uncommon in the industry, and some producers use unapproved pesticides or violate labor laws.
The 2018 Farm Bill created additional loopholes for unscrupulous marketers. It was intended to legalize the use of the cannabis plant for non-intoxicating purposes — such as fiber, clothing, seeds, oils, and food products.
However, these loopholes allow unscrupulous actors to sell intoxicating products outside most states' regulatory systems. The law defines «hemp» as any product containing less than 0.3 percent delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). But edible products, which by weight can contain a lot of THC, still remain below that threshold and can be appealing to young people, while often lacking mandatory labeling or testing for synthetic, potentially dangerous, byproducts or pesticides.
The appearance of convenience stores often opening on nearly every block, pot smells on public transportation, all have not gone unnoticed by the American public. The November elections expressed disappointment with the results of marijuana legalization: in some states, such as Nebraska, which approved medical marijuana, residents of North and South Dakota voted against recreational legalization. Florida residents made a similar decision — despite the industry's heavy investment in the campaign and support for politicians including Donald Trump.
This slowdown, or even temporary setback, in the movement toward broader and ultimately national legalization represents an important and healthy process. The move from total prohibition to undivided acceptance by the commercial industry has created many flaws and excesses that proponents did not initially anticipate or conceal. For states considering legalization or revising existing rules, it would be wise to explore a more balanced approach — what drug policy expert Mark Kleiman called a «reluctant tolerance» for legal use and supply.
In practice, this might look like this: eliminating loopholes in the Farm Bill that have contributed to a Wild West-like situation, and implementing a number of specific measures:
1. Limiting the power of large producers
The cannabis supply chain includes cultivation, processing, packaging and retail. Regulation is needed for growers (e.g. on authorized pesticides) and retailers (controlling sales to minors), but the most problematic are the large producers who control concentrated products, brands, marketing and advertising. Two approaches can be taken to address this.
First, large for-profit corporations should not be allowed to participate in manufacturing. Such businesses are effective at creating new products and promoting consumption, which is justified for products like cornflakes or canola, but not for addictive drugs. Cannabis is an addictive drug that quickly increases health and societal risks. Instead, legalization could limit cannabis production to non-profit organizations or entities that benefit society, similar to how hospitals and universities operate. They could produce and supply products to meet existing demand without contributing to growth.
Second, in regions where commercial extraction is permitted, large producers should be prohibited from owning, operating or controlling farms and retail outlets. Similar restrictions were part of the plans following the repeal of Prohibition and reduce the influence of large corporations, including their lobbying structures, and prevent mergers with tobacco and alcohol companies.
2. Reduction in the production of potent products
The goal of legalization was to replace the illegal market with a legal and regulated supply. However, more potent products appeared on the market. Some proponents believe that prohibition of potent forms — the «iron law of prohibition» — leads to more potent drugs because they are easier to hide. But with cannabis, the opposite has happened: legalization has spread more potent forms.
A case in point is the history of inexpensive, highly effective drugs causing new problems, such as the fentanyl epidemic that has claimed more lives than heroin. Historically, such dangers are exemplified by the prohibition of harder liquor or flavored cigarettes, which have remained out of the illegal market because of the availability of alternatives.
In Canada, for example, ointments, hash oil and other potent products have already been banned, which has led to a decline in cannabis use. In the US, the need to ban artificial cannabinoids and products with high THC concentrations is also becoming apparent. For the remaining legal products, it is appropriate to impose higher taxes on more potent forms to help reduce health risks.
3. Support for small producers and small businesses
The main problem is not with small artisanal producers or retailers, but with the dominance of large companies (Big Marijuana). Unifying regulations for everyone creates hardship for craft producers and small businesses, allowing large corporations to dominate the market unimpeded.
Many states, similar to the Homegrown Food Act, allow small producers, such as baking, canning, or honey production, to operate with fewer regulatory requirements. A similar approach could be applied to the cannabis industry: small producers could be allowed to sell only flower while restricting them from selling concentrates or dangerous products.
4. Protecting public safety and public health
To reduce harm from legal addictive products, effective public health regulation and strict control of illegal activities are necessary. However, these measures are currently under-implemented: law enforcement agencies often fail to combat illegal production and sales because their actions are associated with fears of mass arrests or anti-police sentiment.
This slowdown, or even temporary setback, in the movement toward broader and ultimately national legalization represents an important and healthy process. The move from total prohibition to undivided acceptance by the commercial industry has created many flaws and excesses that proponents did not initially anticipate or conceal. For states considering legalization or revising existing rules, it would be wise to explore a more balanced approach — what drug policy expert Mark Kleiman called a «reluctant tolerance» for legal use and supply.
In practice, this might look like this: eliminating loopholes in the Farm Bill that have contributed to a Wild West-like situation, and implementing a number of specific measures:
1. Limiting the power of large producers
The cannabis supply chain includes cultivation, processing, packaging and retail. Regulation is needed for growers (e.g. on authorized pesticides) and retailers (controlling sales to minors), but the most problematic are the large producers who control concentrated products, brands, marketing and advertising. Two approaches can be taken to address this.
First, large for-profit corporations should not be allowed to participate in manufacturing. Such businesses are effective at creating new products and promoting consumption, which is justified for products like cornflakes or canola, but not for addictive drugs. Cannabis is an addictive drug that quickly increases health and societal risks. Instead, legalization could limit cannabis production to non-profit organizations or entities that benefit society, similar to how hospitals and universities operate. They could produce and supply products to meet existing demand without contributing to growth.
Second, in regions where commercial extraction is permitted, large producers should be prohibited from owning, operating or controlling farms and retail outlets. Similar restrictions were part of the plans following the repeal of Prohibition and reduce the influence of large corporations, including their lobbying structures, and prevent mergers with tobacco and alcohol companies.
2. Reduction in the production of potent products
The goal of legalization was to replace the illegal market with a legal and regulated supply. However, more potent products appeared on the market. Some proponents believe that prohibition of potent forms — the «iron law of prohibition» — leads to more potent drugs because they are easier to hide. But with cannabis, the opposite has happened: legalization has spread more potent forms.
A case in point is the history of inexpensive, highly effective drugs causing new problems, such as the fentanyl epidemic that has claimed more lives than heroin. Historically, such dangers are exemplified by the prohibition of harder liquor or flavored cigarettes, which have remained out of the illegal market because of the availability of alternatives.
In Canada, for example, ointments, hash oil and other potent products have already been banned, which has led to a decline in cannabis use. In the US, the need to ban artificial cannabinoids and products with high THC concentrations is also becoming apparent. For the remaining legal products, it is appropriate to impose higher taxes on more potent forms to help reduce health risks.
3. Support for small producers and small businesses
The main problem is not with small artisanal producers or retailers, but with the dominance of large companies (Big Marijuana). Unifying regulations for everyone creates hardship for craft producers and small businesses, allowing large corporations to dominate the market unimpeded.
Many states, similar to the Homegrown Food Act, allow small producers, such as baking, canning, or honey production, to operate with fewer regulatory requirements. A similar approach could be applied to the cannabis industry: small producers could be allowed to sell only flower while restricting them from selling concentrates or dangerous products.
4. Protecting public safety and public health
To reduce harm from legal addictive products, effective public health regulation and strict control of illegal activities are necessary. However, these measures are currently under-implemented: law enforcement agencies often fail to combat illegal production and sales because their actions are associated with fears of mass arrests or anti-police sentiment.
Implementing these reforms will balance the interests of business and society, reduce costs and improve regulatory efficiency. There is a need to recognize the challenges within the industry and among its supporters and to heed the lessons of recent mistakes. Legalization must evolve with reasonable restrictions and safeguards to avoid repeating past abuses and ensure the long-term sustainability of the system.