Marijuana is losing favor because it is a truly harmful substance
By: Matt Poling opinion contributor (The Hill)
Another growing societal problem that cannot be honestly blamed on conservatives.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A recent study of dead drivers in an Ohio county found that 42 percent were positive for THC, the intoxicating chemical in marijuana. Pot apologists quickly noted that THC can be detected for up to a month after use. But the national past 30-day marijuana use rate is only 16 percent, and these drivers had average THC levels 5 to 10 times the state legal limit.
Less attention was given to a global study released last week on life expectancy, which showed one notable exception to the broad improvements: Teens and young adults in western countries are dying at higher rates, driven largely by suicides and substance use. And that of course includes alcohol, but marijuana use is actually associated with more alcohol consumption.
Marijuana users are five times more likely to become alcoholics. Up to 40 percent of marijuana users use daily, and up to 30 percent meet criteria for addiction — both far higher percentages than for drinkers. Using alcohol to excuse marijuana use or legalization is simply an exercise in lazy whataboutism.
There is another important difference between the two: Nearly every civilization in history has evolved with people using some form of alcohol. No civilization has ever experimented with the types of industrialized THC products that western countries are now recklessly legalizing, commercializing, and normalizing. We might pause and ask ourselves why zero Asian countries have done the same, and why China is so anxious to promote this weapon of cultural suicide here in the U.S. when it remains completely illegal there.
Speaking of which, THC strongly induces suicidality even in patients who were not depressed to begin with and state legalization has led to sharp increases in youth suicides. Up to 30 percent of schizophrenia cases in young men are attributable to THC and such users are now responsible for uncounted numbers of mass shootings. Like Robin Westman of Minneapolis who wrote "weed (messed) up my head" and "if I could stop vaping I could stop myself from doing this attack" in his manifesto.
Marijuana is also causing the same cancers as tobacco, dramatic increases in heart attacks and strokes and quadrupling diabetes rates in users. Ganja will not make America healthy again, let alone great.
Add to this the well-known adverse effects on educational achievement and motivation and the costs of the cannabis culture to government budgets are staggering. One study in Colorado conservatively estimated nearly 5 dollars in increased spending and lost revenue for every dollar collected in marijuana taxes—even at a 15 percent sales tax rate.
There is no conservative case for marijuana legalization. Even the libertarian case suffers from a serious flaw: Libertarianism only works when people are free to act in their own best interest, and by extension that of their family, community, and country. Chemicals like THC are designed to promote the opposite type of citizen. Libertarians should be the most opposed to the drug culture because it undermines the very premise of their ideology.
The utopian assumption that legalization would lead to a "safe and regulated" product and eliminate the black market has now gone zero for 24 in our marijuana-legal states. Many legal THC products are also more potent than even the now highly potent plant itself. The industry has defied regulation and the black markets are thriving everywhere. Legalizing marijuana to eliminate the black market is like giving your dog ticks to rid it of fleas. You just double the infestation.
The politically driven potential rescheduling of marijuana, initiated by the Biden administration, will only fuel this predatory industry with tax breaks and marketing privileges. Republicans should note that young male voters moved right last November even as Democrats were enticing them with more weed.
Charlie Kirk gave his generation more credit than some Republicans do. Despite the criticism, he stood up to the THC industry's lies targeting them. Republicans will never outbid Democrats in the race to the drug culture bottom. Nor should they, as polls show public sentiment now turning against marijuana.
Kirk knew that minds can be changed but facts cannot. Principled conservatives should do more than eulogize Charlie. They should emulate him by standing up for truth, his generation, and America's future.
Matt Poling is a physician, Medical Director of Citizens for a Safe and Healthy Texas and Faculty Advisor for Texas A&M Young Americans for Freedom.
Be a good human. Grossly derogatory comments, blatantly inflammatory comments, excessive trolling, mean-spirited taunting and insults, scamming, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed in compliance with the site's Terms of Service and the Code of Conduct. The moderators have the final word.
Those who are much, much less pure than Puritans told us that legalizing marijuana was democracy in action, allowed more freedom, would provide tax revenue, and would combat the drug cartels.
So, what do we do now? Use Obamacare to force insurers to cover drug rehabilitation? Tax the rich to pay for liberal duplicity? Party like it's 1999 and not worry about it?
Conservatives did not create this mess. But they'll probably be blamed anyway.
I wish less people drove stoned. Since Oklahoma legalized city street are practically parking lots. At least in NYC people don't drive fast. It was already maddening enough driving in traffic.
Actually legalize it. Nationally. Uniformly. Unlike the bullshit we have now. Then regulate it and tax it heavily.
Cheers!
Mine is legally home grown.
Good point to raise.
We need to regulate this the same way we do a bottle of whiskey. Just like we don't stop people from brewing their own beer or distilling their own spirits, we shouldn't stop them growing their own weed. Selling it would be another matter.
I've been thinking of setting up a still in my garage too. I wouldn't mind trying to distill some bourbon. Unfortunately it would take several years to find out how good or bad I'd done. LMAO!
There is a subset of people who become paranoid from extensive marijuana use. It isnt talked about much because it is a minority of the users.
They must be too afraid to talk about it.
Over the years I've met a few people like that. At first I found it hard to believe because I used to smoke a lot of pot and I never once had any negative experiences. But for some people I've discussed itwith their marijuans induced paranoia was very real.
Let's also test the drivers to see if they have consumed alcohol over the last month as well. Just to even up the results. Or change the tests to show if they were under the influence just prior to the accident. Saying that they used it weeks or even days prior is meaningless.
How does that stack up with legalized nicotine?
Or it's an inconvenient comparison for this author.
Otherwise this is an extreme opinion and bringing Charlie Kirk into it (for some unknown reason) just highlights the partisan nature of this opinion article.
Did Charlie Kirk advocate legalizing marijuana? Conservatives are not responsible for the consequences of legalizing marijuana.
The point is that nobody cares what a racist/misogynist cares about except MAGA cult members. Which shows where the author stands.
Obviously nobody cares. Except, maybe, Gen Z. They're the ones who will be on the hook to clean up this mess.
One things for sure, marijuana does bring in money, we are finally getting road improvements and the road I'm on may actually get paved with all the incoming taxes for the sales to the townships.
One downside, since it is harvest time, just about any direction the wind comes from it stinks from marijuana.
There was a DEA raid on one illegal grow in this area and, of all things, it was operated and staffed by Chinese nationals.
They must be confused! Don't they know Americans smoke pot. Do Cociane, Ecstasy, LSD even.
Chinese aren't suppose to do any of that-- they are supposed to smoke Opium!
They were growing way too much to be used for themselves, there is still a black market as is stated in the article. One just has to wonder, since all the legit grows have to follow all laws and regulations as to the quality of the product, the black market doesn't and that is where you get lacing of the product with other drugs to get more people addicted. Some mixes could even be lethal.
And check this out:
Why not just go through the legal channels and get the proper authority to do this, instead they smuggled it in.
Can we instead outlaw articles like this one that engage in chaotic attempts to correlate random things for the sake of some agenda? Seriously, this thing is so nonsensical.
True. And this would be an important confounding variable in any analysis, but this writer decides to disregard it for really no reason other than his agenda.
Holy shit this is stupid. What even is a past 30 day use rate? Why is it relevant? How does a national measurement say anything about Ohio? Is the state THC limit scientifically derived and proven relevant to driving ability? Or is it arbitrary? NONE of this diarrhea of “facts” is supported or logically informative.
Huh? What study? Is there a link? What do you mean by “global?” Are we transitioning from talking about driving to life expectancy? Why? And this study apparently showed “broad improvements?” To what? Do these improvements outweigh the “notable exception?”
The whole article is like this.
Nerm, I beg you. Please don’t seed schizophrenic garbage like this. I would bet real money that the author was high when he wrote this.
Detected THC has no effect? THC persisting in body is nothing to worry about because it's just a confounding variable that doesn't support legalization.
So, much for science.
Do you want the Gish gallop? There is a growing body of research that shows cannabis use has a detrimental effect on overall health and longevity.
How about just a few:
The article is not schizophrenic or garbage. The old talking points used to advocate for legalization of marijuana are rapidly becoming obsolete. That's called scientific progress.
This is just another long-term societal problem that conservatives did not cause. If anything, this article is "we told ya' so".
Your reply is as nonsensical as the article. Neither you nor the author of this article seem to have a point beyond “THC is bad.”
Good description of the article, though.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "na, na, na, na, na" won't avoid the new science that is emerging. Real science is replacing the pseudo-science of cannabis advocacy.
The links I provided are from reputable sources and, I think, they're all from 2025. You aren't going to claim The Lancet is a far-right political rag, are you?
Effect on what? Liver function? Free throw proficiency? Taco consumption? Nose hair growth?
What effects does it have? How are they measured? How large was the sample? What happened with the control group?
There is nothing scientific in this article whatsoever.
Research has shown that long term cannabis and THC use have deleterious effects on cognition, cardiovascular health, embryo development, and overall addictive behavior. Marijuana is not a healthier substitute for alcohol or tobacco. And combining marijuana use with alcohol and tobacco use increases health risks. Marijuana use increases risks for various cancers, chronic respiratory disease, heart attacks, and chronic cognitive impairment. I provided links in @5.1.
It is not an article about science. It is an article about advocacy for legalizing cannabis and THC. As the article plainly states, there is no conservative case for marijuana legalization.
Legalized marijuana is another emerging societal problem that cannot be blamed on conservatives.
I’m ignoring your links. They are irrelevant to my critique of the seeded article.
And my critique of the seeded article still stands unchallenged. Commercial marijuana is a growing societal problem that cannot be blamed on conservatives.
First, I don’t see you critiquing it. Second, I see no “growing societal problem.” Third, why do you keep trying to bait people into attacking conservatives? I’m not interested in playing that game.
Ignoring the links provided in the seeded article only proves laziness.
And the point of the article is to show that willy-nilly legalization wasn't something endorsed by conservatives. The author of the article chose to avoid bashing liberals by pointing out that conservatives are not to blame.
So does long term vodka consumption. So does long term sedentariness. Are we outlawing those?
None of your links mention respiratory disease. Or cancer. Or heart attacks. They also talk about " heavy lifetime cannabis users" while referring to 22 year olds.
The statistics in most of these articles are suspicious at best. For example, your Lancet citation says:
This is a correlation attempting to imply causation. It's like saying "people who play professional basketball were shown to wear larger shoes", implying that playing basketball made their feet grow. It ignores all the obvious external factors.
Then don't say nonsense like "so much for science".
Individual liberty and free commerce, for a start.
Legalization is the solution to the problems, of which there are many. It solves the problems of government overreach, vast sums of money wasted on enforcement, tyranny of religious fundamentalists, mass incarceration, and lost tax revenue.
This is the prohibition of our time, and I'm no more sympathetic to the current Women's Temperance Movement than I would have been a century ago.
No, laziness is when you just use hyperlinks and don’t actually incorporate facts into your argument. I shouldn’t have to do the author’s research for him. It’s not my job to fish relevant facts out of a third party’s paper and make the author’s argument by clarifying how those facts support his thesis. This article is a dreadful attempt at persuasive writing.
I don’t know how you can reach that conclusion when zero legislation - willy nilly or otherwise - is cited in the article.
I can only guess at what you mean by “bashing,” but the author does directly blame the Biden administration. However, I think it is inaccurate - or at least incomplete - to claim that the effort to reschedule marijuana was initiated by that administration. The rescheduling of marijuana has been a widely popular, and bipartisan cause for several years. It remains so.
Who cares? Was someone trying to blame conservatives for something related to THC? This preoccupation with white knighting for conservatives seems to be a concern only you have.
A valid point.
Alright, only the essentials. The points out the conservatives have not endorsed legalization of marijuana. Therefore, conservatives cannot be held responsible for the consequences of legalizing marijuana.
Conservatives have been lambasted for blocking legalization of marijuana.
Rightly so. They're squares and living in the 1950's and still calling it the Devil's Lettuce
Don't forget that vodka (and alcohol for consumption) had been prohibited by the 18th amendment. The public reaction to prohibition was to consume more illicit alcohol. However, that did not provide a health benefit for the country.
It's the same types of correlations used to severely restrict tobacco. Scientific information had not been available before legalization of marijuana because it has been an illicit substance that wasn't widely consumed. Now that marijuana is a commercial product that is more widely consumed, the detrimental effects will become more known just as happened with tobacco.
The commercial marijuana industry will eventually become more centralized in the hands of a few large corporations. At that point, litigation based on recognized harms will become more attractive for states as a source of revenue.
That is an argument that relies upon money as justification. If legalization is the go-to solution for societal problems then why not open the borders and legalize all entry into the country. Let's eliminate the cost of the TSA. Let's do away with board certification for doctors, lawyers, and engineers.
If we legalize all vices and crime then we won't need to spend any money on law enforcement or prisons. We can defund the police by legalizing all vices and crime.
Correct. Conservatives need to be replaced with Darwin awards.
Absolutely. 100%. I have, for years, blamed closed minded, sometimes racist, social conservatives for blocking access to marijuana.Their irrational obsession with blocking/banning it has caused or perpetuated a lot of pain and suffering for a lot of people.
I would not be interested in blaming them for the consequences of legalizing it. However, now that it is legalized in many places, and rescheduled by the federal government, we are only beginning to see how far behind we are. Medical science could have spent the last several decades studying it and finding out how to best refine and dose it for people in need. Instead, conservatives have baselessly insisted, without evidence, that it offered no medical benefits at all and should not be studied.
Yes. And it was a horrible idea. That's the kind of stupidity that happens when you let religious women have too much influence.
Let's also don't forget that we came to our senses and repealed that.
Tobacco is legal in all 50 states. Tobacco companies are publicly traded.
Tobacco does not impair function the way alcohol or weed do, which is why I suggest regulating weed like alcohol.
It is an argument first and foremost about liberty. As Americans, we should have a fundamental belief in the value of personal liberty, and an almost Pavlovian objection to anyone or anything trying to take it away.
The prohibition of marijuana use is a fundamental violation of the concepts of individual liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. We are allowing a specific set of religious groups to impose their specific ideas about morality on the American people under penalty of law.
The fact that we spend billions upon billions of dollars every year doing that is tertiary.
Repeal of prohibition was also coupled with stricter regulation, licensing requirements, and significantly higher taxes. Sin taxes have been used to reduce consumption. (The Marijuana Tax Act was enacted in 1937.) But sin taxes cannot overcome addiction; only prohibition of uncontrolled use can address the problem of addiction. Medical prescriptions were intended to avoid addictive abuse of these depressants and stimulants.
The effects of marijuana are closer to opiates (such as morphine, codeine, and heroin) than to alcohol. Alcohol is a general depressant while both marijuana and opiates act on specific neural receptors. At one time, opiates were available as over-the-counter drugs, too. Opium, morphine, and heroin were restricted to prescription only use in 1914.
It has been known for quite some time that people who use drugs tend to mix marijuana, alcohol, and prescription pain relievers (usually opioid). Polydrug use is becoming more common and the obvious adverse effects are becoming more prominent.
No, it is an argument about freedom. Liberty requires personal restraint to enjoy institutional restraint.
No, the prohibition of marijuana use is a restriction on individual freedom, not a restriction of liberty. The restriction on individual freedom becomes necessary when individuals choose to avoid restraining themselves. That's why we have a criminal justice system.
One person abusing themselves is their problem. Over half the population abusing themselves is a national problem.
Sometimes you make me want to cheer! Bravo! Or, Brava. I honestly don't know and even that is admirable. When we first interacted it was generally in disagreement. The last few years I almost always agree. What changed? I suspect the whole MAGA Madness thing has been a Uniter.
You noticed that.
And 16 percent of what?
There are clearly no math classes in journalism school.
The sources are linked in the seeded article. Here's the one you are referring to:
Nowhere in that link does anyone say anything about 16% of anything. The article he cites links to another article that still doesn't mention 16%.
This is the problem. This asshole wrote an editorial, presumably so he's exempt from actually having to cite anything correctly or get any of the math right.
He's just making up numbers and acting like they're both important and valid.
Maybe some people use drugs in a futile attempt to overcome "writer's block"? (Or not):
12 Books That Were Written Under AddictionBeing a writer myself, I know how difficult at times it is to come up with ideas or inspirations for writing. Which is the reason why like most other artists, even writers turn to external help sometimes for a little inspiration.
While almost all writers are addicted to smoking or drinking or both, some took the taking inspiration a bit too seriously and delved into the world of narcotics.
These 12 pieces of noted writings were created under the heavy influence of drugs, of one kind or another.
Big Pharma is putting out this kind of propaganda. People are turning to cannabis for their pain instead of their killer opioids and they're losing money.
People against marijuana are squares
You got me thinking, so I whipped out my Google. The author is Matt Poling. He claims to be “Medical Director” for something called Citizens for a Safe and Healthy Texas . It’s some kind of political advocacy group, but I don’t know specifically how they are defined. They, in turn, are part of some larger organization called The FreeStyle Foundatio n, which is itself a 501(c)(3). Why do they need a medical director? I have no idea.
Anyway, their whole focus seems to be banning THC and, I guess, other drugs. The CSHT website is like an internet adaptation of Reefer Madness .
What I can’t figure out is why a normally respectable news outlet like The Hill would publish this unhinged propaganda.
They're getting paid by Big Pharma and the squares from TX and CO that want to ban THC? They have some stupid group in CO that tried getting it banned. I think they were burned at the stake as heretics