The editorial board of The New York Times revealed a newfound stance on marijuana use: it’s gone overboard.

The shift is grounded in sobering data on escalating usage. Recent surveys show that roughly 18 million Americans now use marijuana almost daily (about five times a week) — a sharp rise from around six million in 2012 and fewer than one million in 1992. As the board noted, “More Americans now use marijuana daily than alcohol.” If these frequent users formed their own state, it would rank as the fifth-largest in the country, surpassing Pennsylvania.

This surge correlates with troubling health trends. Yale Medicine reported that about 30% of current cannabis users meet the criteria for addiction or cannabis use disorder. Research also links heavy use to elevated risks, including estimates that roughly 30% of schizophrenia cases in young men may be associated with cannabis use disorder. Frequent users are more prone to not showing up at work, as well as facing more challenges in maintaining employment or family responsibilities.

The editorial highlights acute harms from widespread, high-potency use. Each year, nearly 2.8 million people in the United States suffer from cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) — a debilitating condition causing severe, uncontrollable vomiting and abdominal pain that often requires emergency care. Hospitalizations have risen for marijuana-related paranoia, acute psychotic episodes, and chronic psychotic disorders. Public safety is also at stake: more bystanders are being harmed in accidents involving drivers under the influence of cannabis.

While the board still supports legalization — with much of its 2014 six-part series comparing federal prohibition to alcohol’s failed ban — it candidly admitted that many early predictions were overly optimistic. Back then, the board and advocates downplayed addiction as a “relatively minor problem” compared to alcohol or tobacco, dismissed significant dependence risks, and suggested marijuana might even offer net health benefits with little increase in overall use. “It is now clear that many of these predictions were wrong,” the editorial stated.

The core critique targeted implementation: the “legalize and regulate” mantra was only half-followed. States rushed to legalize recreational marijuana but largely neglected stringent oversight of potency, marketing, and access — mirroring tactics the tobacco industry once used to hook users. The result? “[T]he loosening of marijuana policies — especially the decision to legalize pot without adequately regulating it — has led to worse outcomes than many Americans expected. It is time to acknowledge reality.”

The board stopped short of calling for prohibition or reversal. Instead, it urged this pragmatic course correction: Americans must “be willing to examine the real-world impact of any major policy change and consider additional changes in response to new facts” — meaning heavier taxation, stricter limits on THC potency, better enforcement against impaired driving, and curbs on advertising — especially to protect youth and other vulnerable populations.

The board’s editorial, titled “It’s Time for America to Admit That It Has a Marijuana Problem,” comes just as the federal government advances a significant shift in how it classifies the drug. In December 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the attorney general to speed up the process of reclassifying marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. In effect, this would place it alongside drugs like Tylenol with codeine or ketamine, which have recognized medical applications and lower dependence risks.

Trump had justified the move as a response to pleas from patients, including those with chronic pain, cancer, seizures, neurological issues, veterans, and older Americans. He emphasized that rescheduling would enable expanded research into marijuana’s potential medicinal benefits — research Trump claimed is currently restricted. The decision, however, had marked a significant reversal from Trump’s earlier anti-drug stance and sparked intense controversy.

For example, 22 GOP senators and several House members urged him against it, citing risks of increased addiction, mental health issues (such as depression, psychosis, schizophrenia, and suicide), crime, impaired driving, workplace problems, and youth use (concerns the NYT editorial board also addressed).

Critics, including experts like Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, argued that marijuana lacks approved medical uses, has grown far more potent and addictive over decades, and could intensify societal harms while contradicting anti-drug trafficking efforts. Perkins put it bluntly: “The administration’s drug policy is incoherent.” As of early 2026, the rescheduling process remains ongoing and not yet finalized, with continuing debate and delays.

Considering these debates, as well as the increasingly negative societal impacts all tied to marijuana, the Times’ acknowledgment carries weight. The board even stated, “If America’s pot problem is becoming so evident that even the legacy media is pumping the brakes, how bad is it?” So, perhaps when a legacy outlet that championed reform now calls for the brakes, it signals an end to the “Green Rush” honeymoon.

In the end, the evidence is damning. For the board, the question isn’t whether marijuana should be legal — it’s whether America can summon the political will to regulate it responsibly before the harms compound further. As for those even more concerned than the editors at The New York Times, a full prohibition — or at least much tighter rules around medicinal use — would be a welcome development.