In Allegheny County Pennsylvania, the murder trial of Safon Gump ( I swear that’s his real name) ended in a mistrial last week because a juror smoked or vaped marijuana in the jury room during a lunch break and the judge was unable to determine who.
Here I must interject my obligatory “I told you so!” note regarding my long-time insistence that legalizing pot after indoctrinating the public with the false message that it was harmless would prove to be a cultural and societal disaster undermining health, children’s socialization, the family, the economy, the workplace and more. All is unfolding as I foresaw, and it wasn’t all that difficult a prediction to reach either.
The selection of 12 jurors and two alternates had been completed and the jury empaneled as the prosecution called its first two witnesses. The judge adjourned the trial for lunch, but when court staff arrived at the jury room to release the jurors, the smell of marijuana was unmistakable. Smoking and vaping are not allowed in the Allegheny County Courthouse, and worse, all of the jurors had answered the question on their questionnaires about whether they were taking any medications that could impact your ability to sit on the jury had checked “no.”
The judge called each juror into his chambers and asked if he or she had been toking. He even summoned an additional criminal defense attorney to sit in to ensure that the jurors’ Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination would be protected. That was unnecessary, because it had been agreed that no charges would be filed against the pot-puffing juror: everybody just wanted to ensure the integrity of the trial. The defense attorney, however, sounds like a woke, drug-loving jerk. “You have all of these privacy issues you have to worry about,” he told reporters.“The last thing we want to do is embarrass someone.”
Ethics Alarms 
Am I to believe that the defendant’s counsel was ok with pot smoking juror sitting on the case? How is that not professional malpractice and ineffective assistance of counsel?
jvb
Wouldn’t a juror who snuck a dose of pot while in the jury room be a likely candidate for a not guilty vote? The prosecution might want him stricken, but I think defense counsel would love to have a stoner on the jury. “Dude! We’re going to put a fellow dude in jail for twenty to life? No way, man.”
I am in complete agreement with your views on legalizing marijuana and am appalled that it has been so mainstreamed.
I am also wondering about other, legal prescription medications, or combinations thereof. Many have side effects that alter or impair cognition. And the effects differ from person to person or day to day. How are these determinations made? We are a Big Pharma society. How does a judge empanel a jury that isn’t affected by one drug or another?
I, perhaps predictably, disagree.
There’s a couple of different things happening here… Three that I think can be materially separated.
First, I think we should bat away the low-hanging fruit: We’re going to agree that the juror shouldn’t have lied. Regardless of anything else that came before that point, that specifically was very obviously wrong. Any juror lying about anything in any case is immediate grounds for removal, if not contempt, and I don’t see why this should have been special.
Second, the thing that we’ll mostly agree on: That jurors shouldn’t be taking mind-altering substances while empaneled. But I think there’s a broader conversation past the obvious, because some people are prescribed THC as mood-regulating medication, and while it might seem different from Adderall, Ritalin, or Vyvanse because it can be inhaled as opposed to taken in capsule form, the base science is actually kind of similar, and as more and more people are prescribed these medications (Google tells me something like 10% of American adults, collectively), we might be approaching an accessibility problem.
Third is what I think you’re way out over your skis on: The idea that this is an example of why America shouldn’t have legalized weed. No, I’m sorry, but this is a variation on the recurring theme: You’re treating pot uniquely, because you don’t like it. Pretending that this problem is unique to pot or particularly bad in the case of pot does not have the benefit of being true. People are regularly ejected from juries for being drunk, and that’s the tip of the iceberg.
The obvious response to that, the one I suspect you’d give is that you’re just as against alcohol, but alcohol is culturally ensconced, but while we can’t dig that out, there’s no reason to add additional problem substances to the problem.
My response to that is that the inability of some people to self-regulate should not infringe the rights of people who by and large, can. Imagine if we attributed your logic to guns, or cars, or speech? I imagine you’d say that there’s a reason why two of those are enumerated rights: They’re important. Guns and cars and speech have great utility, while intoxicants don’t… I’m not sure that’s entirely true… But that’s not really the point, is it? We don’t attribute that to almost anything else: Why not ban massive, sugary drinks? More people die from heart disease than almost all other causes combined. Why not ban chocolate bars under the same idea? Why not ban fireworks? Why should you be allowed to eat red meat? Why shouldn’t you be forced to drive an EV?
It’s not sufficient to merely gesture vaguely at something and say that it’s not good for society. That’s not how freedom works. It’s good to be free.
As usual, this retort on this subject descends into “It’s not the worst thing,” “Everybody does it,” and “It’s my right!” territory.
You know better. 1) “You don’t like it” is a cheap shot. I recognized the danger of adding one more dangerous drug to the two we’re already stuck with. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, the harms are inevitable and unavoidable, and they were absolutely avoidable with an application of responsible social norms and common sense. There is literally nothing to like. 2) The libertarian approach to drug use is societal suicide. If pot, then why not crack? If crack, why not heroine? It is well established that the government can regulate dangerous substances and should. 3) Guns are protected by the Second Amendment. End of debate. There is no absolute right to drive, but a court would use a balancing test if there was an effort to ban cars. Of course, it would favor the auto: it’s utility far, far outweighs its health risks. Pot has minimal social value compared to its toll on the workplace, productivity, learning and health. The data coming in now proves what garbage the “it’s a harmless drug” propaganda was, which I thought was self-evident 60 years ago….and it was. I didn’t let peer pressure and celebrity jerks bland me to the obvious, that’s all. It wasn’t a difficult conclusion to reach.
I steelmanned the arguments I thought you’d make (which you even went on to restate, so I think I did ok), you probably shouldn’t strawman mine.
What I said was that “the inability of some people to self-regulate should not infringe the rights of people who by and large, can”, and I’ll stand by that 365 days a year. If you want to make the argument that pot is so uniquely bad that people cannot be trusted to self-regulate the same way they are trusted to do with dozens and dozens of substances that if taken in excess are self-destructive, then it’s your job to justify that.
And I’m not going to let you vaguely wave and say there’s “data coming in” to do that: What, specifically, are you talking about? Because I actually think that you’re straight up objectively wrong about this, and have internalized some fictions around pot. For instance… Consumption didn’t really change after legalization. There’s been a marginal reporting uptick, but we’re not sure if that’s actually new users, or if people are just more open about their use, and if there are new users, we’re not sure if that’s a function of legalization or the continuation of previous trends. So when we talk about damage… You have to be honest and compare it to something that would have actually happened. We’re not comparing current reality to a pot-free Utopia… What’s the increase in damage if there was no increase in use? And whatever you decide to call damage, how does that stack up against all the benefits?
Lastly, if I can stand back and point out that there are things that are more destructive and with less utility that are uncontrolled, and that you’re never spoken up about it, but somehow you’ve managed to talk about this topic dozens of times over the year, I do think that’s a problem for your argument and that it says something about your predications.
“the inability of some people to self-regulate should not infringe the rights of people who by and large, can” is an irresponsible, elitist fantasy. But it is the basis on which wealthy, stable, relatively mature people inflicted a scourge that harms teens, addictive personalities, poor people, “at risk populations” and the most vulnerable in society because Yuppies, rich celebrities and Ivy League assholes wanted their occasional high. I just fundamentally object to your premise. Selfish individuals who can handle a substance are willing to harm society for their “freedom.” That’s not ethics. That’s the opposite of ethics.
I presume you have the same attitude toward casino gambling, online gambling and State lotteries. And that’s equally wrong, for the same reasons. When being able to get my occasional recreational fun results in ruined lives, businesses and families, I’ll do without, thanks. There are so many things I can enjoy that won’t destroy lives.
You must be in a different universe. I’m not picking this recent Times piece because I like the Times, but because it is one of about 50 similar pieces that have come out this year. Another is from the WSJ, but it is behind a paywall. Behold:
Thirteen years ago, no state allowed marijuana for recreational purposes. Today, most Americans live in a state that allows them to buy and smoke a joint. President Trump continued the trend toward legalization in December by loosening federal restrictions.
This editorial board has long supported marijuana legalization. In 2014, we published a six-part series that compared the federal marijuana ban to alcohol prohibition and argued for repeal. Much of what we wrote then holds up — but not all of it does.
At the time, supporters of legalization predicted that it would bring few downsides. In our editorials, we described marijuana addiction and dependence as “relatively minor problems.” Many advocates went further and claimed that marijuana was a harmless drug that might even bring net health benefits. They also said that legalization might not lead to greater use.
It is now clear that many of these predictions were wrong. Legalization has led to much more use. Surveys suggest that about 18 million people in the United States have used marijuana almost daily (or about five times a week) in recent years. That was up from around six million in 2012 and less than one million in 1992. More Americans now use marijuana daily than alcohol.
YOU CAN SEE THE CHART AT THE LINK.
This wider use has caused a rise in addiction and other problems. Each year, nearly 2.8 million people in the United States suffer from cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, which causes severe vomiting and stomach pain. More people have also ended up in hospitals with marijuana-linked paranoia and chronic psychotic disorders. Bystanders have also been hurt, including by people driving under the influence of pot.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
America should not go back to prohibition to fix these problems. The war on marijuana brought its own costs. Every year, authorities arrested hundreds of thousands of Americans for marijuana possession. The people who suffered the legal and financial consequences were disproportionately Black, Latino and poor. A society that allows adults to use alcohol and tobacco cannot sensibly arrest people for marijuana use. We oppose the nascent efforts to re-criminalize the drug, such as a potential ballot initiative in Massachusetts this year that would ban recreational sales and home growing.
Yet there is a lot of space between heavy-handed criminal prohibition and hands-off commercial legalization. Much as the United States previously went too far in banning pot, it has recently gone too far in accepting and even promoting its use. Given the growing harms from marijuana use, American lawmakers should do more to regulate it. The most promising approach is one popularized by Mark Kleiman, a drug policy scholar who died in 2019. He described it as “grudging toleration.” Governments can enact policies that keep the drug legal and try to curb its biggest downsides. Culture and social norms can play an important role, too.
The larger point is that a society should be willing to examine the real-world impact of any major policy change and consider additional changes in response to new facts. In the case of marijuana, the recent evidence offers reason for Americans to become more grudging about accepting its use.
Over the past several decades, supporters of marijuana legalization often called for a strategy of “legalize and regulate.” It is a smart approach. Unfortunately, the country has pursued the first part of it while largely ignoring the second.
We want to emphasize that occasional marijuana use is no more a problem than drinking a glass of wine with dinner or smoking a celebratory cigar. Many Americans find it enjoyable to smoke a joint or eat an edible, with friends or alone. Some people with serious illnesses have found relief with marijuana. Adults should have the freedom to use it.
Still, any product that brings both pleasures and problems requires a balancing act, and marijuana falls into this category. Yes, it is safer than alcohol and tobacco in some ways, but it is not harmless. The biggest concern is excessive use. At least one in 10 people who use marijuana develops an addiction, a similar share as with alcohol. Even some who do not develop an addiction can still use it too much. People who are frequently stoned can struggle to hold a job or take care of their families. “As marijuana legalization has accelerated across the country, doctors are contending with the effects of an explosion in the use of the drug and its intensity,” a New York Times investigation concluded in 2024. “The accumulating harm is broader and more severe than previously reported.”
Jennifer Macaluso, a hairdresser in Illinois, experienced these harms. She turned to marijuana to treat severe migraines, and the drug helped at first. After months of use, though, she started getting sick. Her nausea and vomiting became so bad that she had to stop working. Only after months of seeing doctors did one finally confirm marijuana was the problem. “Why don’t more doctors know about it?” she told The Times. “Why didn’t anyone ever mention it to me?”
Part of the answer is the power of Big Weed. For-profit marijuana companies, made possible by legalization, have a financial incentive to mislead the public about what they are selling. Marijuana and CBD companies have made false claims that their products can treat cancer and Alzheimer’s. Others have sold products, such as “Trips Ahoy” and “Double Stuf Stoneo,” in packages that mimic snacks for children. The companies’ executives know they can increase profits by downplaying the harms of frequent use: More than half of industry sales come from the roughly 20 percent of customers known as heavy users.
The legal pot industry grew to more than $30 billion in U.S. sales in 2024, close to the total annual revenue of Starbucks. As the industry has grown, it has increased lobbying of state and federal lawmakers, and it has won some big victories. Marijuana companies, not casual smokers, are the biggest winners of Mr. Trump’s decision to reclassify the drug from Schedule I to Schedule III. The change will increase the profits of these businesses by causing the tax code to treat them more favorably. This does not qualify as grudging toleration.
A better approach would acknowledge that many people end up worse off when they start to use marijuana more frequently. The goal should not be elimination. It should be to slow the recent rise, and perhaps partly reverse it, while acknowledging that many people use marijuana safely and responsibly. Alcohol and tobacco offer a useful framework. Both are legal with limitations, including relatively high taxes, open-container laws and regulations on alcohol and nicotine levels. The goal is to balance personal freedom and public health.
Marijuana, however, is less regulated in several crucial ways. The federal government taxes alcohol and tobacco, for example, but not marijuana. And increases in tobacco taxes have been a major reason that its use has declined during the 21st century, with profound health benefits.
The first step in a strategy to reduce marijuana abuse should be a federal tax on pot. States should also raise taxes on pot; today, state taxes can be as low as a few additional cents on a joint. Taxes should be high enough to deter excessive use, on the scale of dollars per joint, not cents. (Federal alcohol taxes, which have failed to keep pace with inflation since the 1990s, should rise, too.)
An advantage of taxes is that they fall much more on heavy users than casual smokers. If a joint cost $10 instead of $5, it would mean a lot of extra money for someone now smoking multiple joints a day and may change that person’s behavior. It would not be a big burden for someone who smokes occasionally.
A second step should be restrictions on the most harmful forms of marijuana, which would also be similar to regulations for alcohol and tobacco. Today’s cannabis is far more potent than the pot that preceded legalization. In 1995, the marijuana seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration was around 4 percent THC, the primary psychoactive compound in pot. Today, you can buy marijuana products with THC levels of 90 percent or more. As the cliché goes, this is not your parents’ weed. It is as if some beer brands were still sold as beer but contained as much alcohol per ounce as whiskey.
Not surprisingly, greater THC potency has contributed to more addiction and illness. The appropriate response is both to make illegal any marijuana product that exceeds a THC level of 60 percent and to impose higher taxes on potent forms of pot, much as liquor is taxed more heavily than beer and wine.
Third, the federal government should take action on medical marijuana. Decades of studies on the drug have proved disappointing to its boosters, finding little medical benefit. Yet many dispensaries claim, without evidence, that marijuana treats a host of medical conditions. The government should crack down on these outlandish claims. It should issue a clear warning to dispensaries that falsely promise cures and then close those that do not comply.
The federal government needs to be part of these solutions. Leaving taxes and regulations to the states threatens to create a race to the bottom in which people can cross state lines to buy their pot. Congress can set a floor, as it has done, however inadequately, with alcohol and tobacco, and states can build on it as they choose.
The unfortunate truth is that the 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 and change course.
I’d add that reports that demonstrate the uptick of usage among adults, the increased hospitalizations for certain marijuana-induced conditions, and host of other data is pretty easy to Google. See the 2021 Colorado report, and this study, also focused on Colorado. The data is mixed, in that there are some positives among the negatives. Adult use has gone up, but maybe peaked in 2019 and is coming back down. Youth usage did not spike. Interestingly enough, the big increase in marijuana-induced hospital visits spiked in Colorado during the medical legalization years of 2010-2013, and did not really increase after that when recreational use was legalized in 2014. (On the other hand, if you looked at the number of establishments in Colorado that were on paper Health Clinics, but were just marijuana dispensaries, that makes sense.)
Another study I quickly looked at, “High-Potency Cannabis Use and Health: A Systematic Review of Observational and Experimental Studies” (look it up at Google scholar; I’m not adding any more links to the comment), did a survey of a number of other studies and largely found detrimental effects from chronic, high-concentration THC ingestion. The point here is that not only has recreational use of marijuana been established, but the growing of marijuana has continued to produce plants with higher and higher concentrations of THC. So people are not drinking 4% beer anymore, but 80 proof liquor, but in the same quantities as the 4% beer.
One issue clouding the debate is that many of the research articles being published are showing decided bias. That makes sorting through the research a major challenge, and makes it easy for people to land on whatever position they want. Thus I would tend to trust reports from people who are willing to state results opposite what we know they want the results to be.
Which is why I quoted the Times Editors. They actually wrote that they had been wrong.
Excellent information.
Lately I find myself analyzing most issues through a political filter. It strikes me that the plan to radicalize education, entertainment and the media has produced generations of undereducated citizens, ill prepared to be self-reliant and productive. Entice them with a legal potent drug to numb their senses and reduce initiative, motivation and ambition and – voila! – you’ve got yourself a population reliant on the government for sustenance. And the radicals are poised to take control.