“America does not have a marijuana crisis. It has a knowledge deficit, a training deficit and a regulatory deficit layered on top of decades of stigma.”
By Jill Simonian and Codi Peterson, Pharmacists’ Cannabis Coalition of California
The New York Times editorial board recently warned that America now faces a “marijuana problem,” suggesting that legalization has produced a public health crisis. That framing is misleading, and in contrast to that very same board’s previous recommendation.
The piece’s headline collapses a complicated medical and regulatory landscape into an all-too-familiar story about excess and loss of control—and in doing so risks reversing years of evidence-based progress in drug policy, clinical practice, social equity and patient education.
Contrary to the impression created by the Times editorial, federal cannabis policy has not meaningfully loosened. Cannabis remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, where it has been for over 50 years.
In 2024, federal health agencies formally acknowledged that cannabis has accepted medical use and recommended reclassification to Schedule III. That process stalled before completion and now sits with the Department of Justice, where no action has occurred. Research remains tightly restricted, prescribing remains impossible and clinical integration remains highly fragmented.
Describing this regulatory environment as permissive is simply inaccurate, regardless of state-by-state regulations.
Much of the argument about rising harm rests on claims that cannabis use has skyrocketed, based on comparisons between surveys conducted in 2000 and those conducted in 2023. These comparisons ignore a basic methodological reality.
In 2000, cannabis was illegal in nearly every jurisdiction and carried substantial legal and social risk. Under those conditions, underreporting was inevitable. Today, cannabis is legal in most states and social stigma has declined. People disclose use more honestly. Increased reporting reflects increased transparency, not necessarily increased consumption. Any serious analysis of population data must account for this social acceptance drift.
Cannabis is not without risk, and no responsible clinician should pretend otherwise.
It can cause sedation, impaired coordination, anxiety and cognitive effects. In some individuals, particularly with heavy or prolonged use, it can precipitate acute psychosis. Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome is real and increasingly recognized in emergency departments. Cannabis can also interact with other medications through shared metabolic pathways and additive sedative effects.
These risks underscore the need for proper screening, counseling and monitoring within the healthcare system. They do not justify framing cannabis as uniquely dangerous. Many routinely prescribed medications carry comparable or greater risks, including opioids, benzodiazepines and certain antidepressants. Unlike opioids, cannabis does not cause respiratory depression and cannot produce a fatal overdose—a distinction that matters in clinical risk assessment. Moreover, multiple studies and clinical observations suggest that some patients reduce or discontinue opioid use after initiating medical cannabis therapy.
Proposals to cap THC potency are similarly disconnected from real-world behavior. Clinical and behavioral research indicates that most users self-titrate, adjusting dose based on strength, tolerance and desired effect. Higher-potency products typically lead to smaller consumption volumes rather than greater intoxication. Imposing arbitrary percentage limits substitutes symbolic regulation for evidence-based policy and ignores basic pharmacological principles.
Calls for increased federal involvement are more reasonable but still incomplete.
Addressing false or exaggerated medical claims is necessary, and misleading marketing harms patients. The deeper problem, however, is that cannabis remains largely segregated from mainstream healthcare. Most clinicians receive little formal education on cannabinoid pharmacology. Medication reconciliation rarely includes detailed cannabis use. Drug interaction databases remain incomplete. Clinical guidelines remain fragmented.
As a result, many patients rely on dispensary staff for guidance. These individuals may be knowledgeable and well-intentioned, but they are not trained healthcare professionals, do not have access to full medical records and cannot adequately assess comorbidities or polypharmacy. That responsibility belongs in clinics and pharmacies, which have been reluctant to engage in good faith efforts due to federal illegality.
The Times editorial also largely ignores the documented medical benefits of cannabis.
Federal agencies already recognize accepted medical use for nausea, appetite loss and chronic pain. Clinical trials and decades of international experience support applications in palliative care, neurology, inflammatory conditions and symptom management in chronic illness. These findings are not speculative. They are part of the global medical literature.
What remains underdeveloped is systematic education. Cannabis is rarely taught in medical or pharmacy curricula. Continuing education is inconsistent. Professional guidelines lag behind practice. In this vacuum, patients turn to internet forums, marketing materials and informal advice. That is not how modern medicine manages complex therapies.
America does not have a marijuana crisis. It has a knowledge deficit, a training deficit and a regulatory deficit layered on top of decades of stigma. We have normalized widespread use without building the clinical and institutional structures needed to manage it responsibly, and then express surprise when problems emerge. This is not a failure of legalization. It is a failure of integration.
We already know how to regulate powerful and potentially risky substances. We do it every day with anticoagulants, biologics, chemotherapeutics and opioids through education, monitoring, surveillance and professional accountability. Cannabis has been excluded from this system for political reasons, not scientific ones. Raising taxes, banning products and recycling alarmist narratives will not correct that. Building a coherent medical and regulatory framework will.
If policymakers are serious about public health, they should stop treating cannabis as a moral or cultural problem and start treating it as what it is: a widely used therapeutic and psychoactive agent that deserves the same rigor, oversight and honesty as every other drug in modern medicine.
Fear is easy. Evidence is harder. Only one produces durable policy.
Dr. Jill Simonian is an affiliate faculty professor at University of California San Diego and University of California Irvine Schools of Pharmacy, teaching Cannabis Pharmacology & Therapeutics. She is president of the Pharmacists’ Cannabis Coalition of California (PCCC), a non-profit organization committed to bringing evidence-based cannabis education to healthcare professionals. Dr. Codi Peterson is a pediatric emergency pharmacist, educator and cannabis science expert. He is chief science officer at The Cannigma, a founding member of PCCC and a board member of Americans for Safe Access.
Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
