To the Editor:
Re “The U.S. Has a Marijuana Problem” (editorial, Feb. 10):
I was cheered to see The Times strike a more cautious note on the legalization of marijuana. The editorial board correctly states that the end of prohibition has brought myriad social problems, including addiction, medical issues and harms to children.
Still, I can offer only two cheers for these admissions. As I have argued in The Times and elsewhere, the harms of marijuana legalization are intrinsic to the combination of addiction and the profit motive. Alcohol and tobacco — which each cause more deaths per year than all illegal drugs combined — are not examples to be emulated.
Moreover, regulation is not the balm the editorial board suggests. Taxes on addictive products increase prices while doing little to reduce consumption, because demand for them is — to use a term from economics — highly inelastic. A potency cap, similarly, encourages users to smoke more to get the same effective dose.
The harms of outright prohibition are real. But banning the sale of marijuana without criminalizing its possession — as advocates are pushing to do in Massachusetts — is the most effective way to decouple addiction from the profit motive. If we don’t do that, then the problems will keep getting bigger.
Charles Fain Lehman Rockville, Md. The writer is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
To the Editor:
While wisely resisting calls to recriminalize cannabis, the editorial board nonetheless fails to make appropriate distinctions between regulated and unregulated marijuana markets.
For example, those products that The Times suggests target children are almost never licensed by states. In fact, most if not all regulated state markets explicitly prohibit the production and marketing of products that either mimic existing brands or that could be perceived as especially appealing to young people.
Further, most markets legalized by states impose limits on the potency of available products. Legalization provides governments with the ability to oversee markets, establish regulations and best practices for those who participate in it, and to sanction those who don’t play by the rules.
The board is correct that most Americans don’t want a cannabis free-for-all. But they are also no longer supportive of policies that perpetuate the prosecution and stigmatization of adults who choose to consume cannabis responsibly.
Paul Armentano Washington The writer is the deputy director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
To the Editor:
I am one of the millions of Americans who use cannabis daily, and I would not describe my use as an addiction. I can go without pot for days or weeks at a time — as I soon will, when I travel to France, where cannabis is illegal — without physical or mental consequences.
For me, marijuana is an effective relaxant and a mild inebriant. As I cannot imbibe alcohol without digestive issues, I’m glad I have a legal alternative.
As for the cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, I’ve never known anyone to have experienced it, but surely it’s a signal for that person to avoid weed, just as my body has warned me not to drink alcohol. We’re all different.
Catherine Hiller Mamaroneck, N.Y. The writer is the author of “Just Say Yes: A Marijuana Memoir.”
To the Editor:
We agree with the editorial board that marijuana policy must strike a balance between prohibition and unchecked commercialization. Stronger, well-enforced regulations are necessary to mitigate the harm we are seeing from legalization, particularly among young people, who are especially vulnerable to marijuana’s health effects and to targeted industry marketing that normalizes use.
Higher taxes and restricting high-potency products and misleading health claims are critical. But we need to go further, by adopting research-based safeguards to ensure that products, packaging and advertising minimize youth appeal.
While alcohol and tobacco regulations serve as examples, marijuana control should be based on the stricter tobacco framework. Alcohol control relies heavily on voluntary industry standards and has been less effective than tobacco control at curbing underage use.
States that have legalized marijuana can do much more to protect minors within their regulations. Our research shows that public opinion is not an obstacle to these protections; majorities of voters, even the staunchest legalization supporters, favor stronger regulations to protect children and teens.
Lawmakers should act on this consensus and implement sensible provisions to protect public health without returning to the harms associated with prohibition.
Robyn Oster Linda Richter New York The writers are, respectively, the director of policy and the senior vice president for prevention research and policy at the national nonprofit Partnership to End Addiction.
To the Editor:
America has more problems with alcoholism and untreated mental illness than it does with marijuana. I have smoked recreational weed off and on since the 1960s. It did not interfere with my health or job performance.
Now, in my seventh decade, I occasionally have a medical cannabis edible to treat chronic pain. Otherwise I would have to use opioids, which I know can create dependency and carries a greater overall risk than the occasional gummy.
On the other hand, I was addicted to nicotine for more than 50 years. Cigarettes are readily and legally available worldwide, and the harmful effects are much greater.
Martha Payne Fairhope, Ala.
A ‘Shocking and Sad’ Attack on Climate Science
To the Editor:
Re “Trump, in Pivotal Move, Thwarts Federal Power to Curb Climate Change” (front page, Feb. 13):
The announcement that the Trump administration has erased the endangerment finding — a 2009 scientific conclusion that established greenhouse gas emissions as a danger — is incredibly shocking and sad.
Americans have been somewhat protected from several environmental pollutants since President Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. But many of these valuable protections have come to a screeching halt.
The troubling issue with greenhouse gases is their invisibility. Everyone can see garbage and litter, but these noxious gases are quite undetectable by most of us.
But scientists can detect them, measure them and determine their influence on our space. Nearly all of the world’s well-educated climate scientists have stated that this influence is extremely harmful.
So when the president says that “this is about as big as it gets,” he is correct. It is huge for all Americans and everyone across the globe. For many people this decision will turn deadly.
Sally Courtright Fairfax, Va.
To the Editor:
It is beyond irony that the new mission of the Environmental Protection Agency to reverse all policies designed to protect the environment is chillingly reminiscent of the role of Guy Montag, the fireman in Ray Bradbury’s dystopian novel “Fahrenheit 451”: burning books banned by the administration.
David Sadkin Bradenton, Fla.
The post The Best Ways to Regulate Marijuana appeared first on New York Times.
