How weed won over America

An illustrated scene of various cannabis products surrounded by green smoke

In the last few decades, marijuana’s had a major glow-up.

In 1992, less than 1 million people were using it daily or nearly every day — a low point, according to an analysis of data from the US National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which began surveying Americans in the 1970s. Ten times as many people, meanwhile, reported drinking alcohol daily or almost daily.

In the 1990s, weed was illegal nationally and in every state. But marijuana’s since had a major rebrand: Three decades later, it’s legal for recreational adult use in nearly half of the 50 states. Now, it’s even challenging alcohol for its status as America’s favorite daily intoxicant. 

In 2022, for the first time, more Americans were using marijuana daily, or near daily, than consuming alcohol at the same rate, according to a study by Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. The number of daily or near daily marijuana users has grown from less than 1 million in 1992 to 17.7 million in 2022; in terms of per capita rate, that’s a 15-fold increase. 

Marijuana is having a moment just as Americans reconsider their relationship toward alcohol. As public awareness of the toxic effects of even moderate alcohol consumption grows, many people are turning to THC products as an alternative. The THC industry touts its wares as a more natural alternative to alcohol with myriad health benefits, including decreased nausea, pain, and sleeplessness

The rise in daily smokers (and vapers, and edible enjoyers, if you will) is also driven by the explosion of the industry. Millions of Americans live in cities and counties with retail shops offering a range of products that make the dimebags of yesteryear seem quaint by comparison: vape cartridges, edibles, oils, and waxes, offering more highly concentrated THC doses. The rise of marijuana retail has opened new doors for people who might have once shied away because they didn’t like smoking or were worried about breaking the law.

For many people, the rapid shift toward liberalization of marijuana policy, and the swiftness with which Americans have taken up consumption, has been great. But it’s also caught researchers off guard. Society has moved more quickly than they’ve been able to keep up with. That means millions of daily users are essentially conducting a real-time experiment on their own bodies.


Marijuana isn’t benign for everyone, though. Some of the results of the real-time experiment are already becoming apparent, both to regular users and people working in health care.

“It is very desirable to believe that there is a drug that can make you feel good, that can relax you, and has absolutely no negative outcomes,” says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health. “But in biology, there are no free lunches.” 

Take the emergence of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, a condition marked by intense and prolonged bouts of nausea and vomiting and brought on by regular, long-term marijuana use. While once extremely rare, some doctors are saying they now see patients with symptoms frequently. “It emerged because people were consuming marijuana regularly with high [THC] content,” Volkow says. “And similarly, there is now evidence that consumption in those patterns is associated with higher risk of stroke or cardiovascular disease.”

Maybe the most worrying studies about frequent, heavy marijuana use involve teens and young adults. (While experts say marijuana use appears to be less risky for middle-aged adults, there’s still a lot they don’t know that needs to be researched further. Some note that more research is needed on older adults in particular.) Studies show regular marijuana use among adolescents and teens can predict increased risk of the development of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Others have shown an increased likelihood of depression and suicidal ideation, disrupted dopamine function, and disruptions in the anatomy of the brain

And marijuana, contrary to popular belief, can be habit forming. It can also increase the risk of dependence on other substances. A recent analysis by Columbia University for the New York Times estimated that as many as 18 million people in the US may have some form of cannabis use disorder, or addiction. 

Getting a handle on who might be harming their health is tricky. Even the findings that point to a major rise in daily users leave a lot of questions unanswered, especially around how often they’re smoking, vaping, or ingesting, and how potent the THC is.

Caulkins, the Carnegie Mellon professor who published the research showing that more Americans are using marijuana daily, says there are different categories of daily or near daily users. There are the people who use marijuana similar to the way someone might pop a melatonin before going to bed at night — a small, daily dose to help with sleep or pain. And then there are those who are more like heavy cigarette smokers, consuming marijuana multiple times a day, morning or night, before or after meals, on breaks from work, or out with friends. 

His previous research has found that daily or near daily users are a small portion of overall users, but make up about three-quarters of all marijuana purchases. 

But just how many of the 17.7 million daily or near daily marijuana users are truly heavy users remains a mystery, because the US National Survey on Drug Use and Health doesn’t ask about how many times a day someone is using, or what they’re taking.

“We can have people who are using near daily, but they’re taking a puff off their vape pen right before they go to sleep,” says Ziva Cooper, a researcher and director for the UCLA Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids, “versus somebody who’s using daily or near daily and they’re using five to 10 one-gram pre-rolls every day. You can imagine that the health outcomes are going to be quite different.” 

It’s not just that researchers are often unsure of how much people are taking. The consumers are also often not sure what they’re putting in their bodies. That’s partly because what’s being sold in stores is way stronger than the weed that millennials and previous generations grew up with. Over the last 25 years, government data shows, the percentage of THC in marijuana seized by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has more than tripled, from 5 percent to 16 percent. And a lot of the products for sale in dispensaries can be even more potent — with vendors selling concentrated products, some claiming 90 or close to 100 percent THC. Some teens who’ve used those products have struggled with vomiting and substance abuse

Cooper says it’s not uncommon for her to end up on the phone with her patients as they read the label aloud to her and she searches the internet to try to find out what exactly they’re taking. 

“As researchers,” Cooper says, “we are trying to catch up with what’s actually happening in the world of cannabis. And we are woefully behind.”


Though humans have been using cannabis for at least 10,000 years — it was widely used for medical purposes in the United States in the late 19th century — the demonization of marijuana under the Nixon administration in the 1970s pushed the plant into the shadows. 

Nixon, according to secretly reported tapes, knew at the time that marijuana was “not particularly dangerous.” But his “war on drugs,” carried on by the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton forced consumers and their providers to stop or risk arrest.

The drug’s public image was less threatening — smoking pot was played for laughs in movies and TV shows — but the reality of its criminalization was much darker. Hundreds of thousands of people were arrested and incarcerated each year for selling and dispensing marijuana, with the harms falling disproportionately on Black people. 

Public awareness of the harms caused by criminalizing marijuana grew, and so too did a movement to raise awareness about the medicinal benefits of its use, especially for chemotherapy and cancer parents, who found marijuana use helpful for combatting nausea. Meanwhile, advocates focused on reducing mass incarceration and addressing racial disparities in the judicial system pushed states to begin decriminalizing marijuana and revising the sentences for people serving time for it. After getting the states to approve marijuana for medicinal purposes, organizations began pushing for it to be legal for all adults. 

Today, marijuana is legal for medical use in 38 states and for recreational use for adults in roughly half of the states, plus the District of Columbia.

But marijuana is still illegal on the national level, where it is classified as a Schedule I drug — meaning the government doesn’t recognize it for medical use. That’s made getting the safety approvals and government funding necessary to study the drug difficult. Researchers say it’s made it harder to study potential risks of long-term marijuana use. But it’s made it harder to study the potential benefits, too. Earlier this year, the Biden administration proposed changing marijuana to a Schedule III, which will put it in a lower-risk category with drugs like ketamine.

In 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, hoping to reduce some of the federal barriers that have stymied research in the past. The legislation required the DEA to register and approve more researchers, and more manufacturers who can provide them with marijuana or cannabidiol (CBD). In addition to creating more opportunities and resources for researchers, the bill asked the DEA to assess whether there is enough marijuana to meet researchers’ experimental needs, and allowed doctors to discuss the benefits and harms of marijuana with their patients.

The federal government’s approach to marijuana has also meant that each state is doing its own regulation of its markets, without a concrete set of federal safety guidelines. The piecemeal nature of legalization, absence of national regulation, and lack of public awareness has contributed to the uncertainty around marijuana use and its long-term consequences. 

The market is also changing rapidly. The 2018 farm bill, for example, legalized hemp, which inadvertently popularized delta-8 THC. Delta-8 THC, which is similar to delta-9 THC, is less potent in its natural form, but producers have been able to extract and synthesize the delta-8 THC in hemp, converting it into more potent concentrates. Manufacturers are now selling products the FDA says have serious health risks.

But that isn’t the only thing that the government can and should be doing. 

In September, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report outlining what state and federal governments could do to establish better public policy around marijuana and minimize potential negative public health consequences over the next five years. 

The report outlined specific actions, such as closing the loophole in the 2018 farm bill that legalized delta-8 THC and clarifying that all forms of THC are subject to regulation under the Controlled Substances Act. More broadly, the report calls for states that have legalized, public health officials, and government agencies like the CDC to come together and establish more unified guidelines for marijuana, working to develop a set of regulations around the production and sale. Marijuana, the report argues, should be regulated the same way as alcohol and tobacco.

The report also recommends that the federal government support more research into marijuana use, along with a public health campaign to educate people about individual risks for different populations, including teens and older people. 

It’s a tall order, but even that doesn’t capture everything researchers want to know. Caulkins, for one, has other questions. 

“Cannabis intoxication impairs short-term memory formation. When cannabis was only being used as a social drug on weekends, who cares if it reduced effective performance on intellectual tasks?” he says. “Now, roughly half of cannabis is consumed by people who use often enough that they spend perhaps 50 percent of their waking hours under the influence of the drug. A lot of those hours of cannabis intoxication are while people are on the job or in school. How does that impact your functioning, how much you’re learning in college? We underinvest in thinking about the consequences of so many billions of hours of work and school time being, in some form, under the influence.”

It’s a question that might be hard to answer empirically right now. But it matters — maybe most of all for the millions of people taking part in America’s real-time marijuana experiment. “Maybe it’s not a problem,” Caulkins says. “But possibly, it’s affecting people’s abilities to meet their life goals in some subtle ways.”

Related articles

This terrifying Trump plot to steal elections is already underway



Recently, Steve Bannon told an audience:

“And I will tell you right now, as God is my witness, if we lose the midterms … some in this room are going to prison — myself included.”

Now, it looks like Donald Trump and the people around him are seriously considering declaring an emergency to let them seize control of this November’s elections, according to reporting in the Washington Post:

“Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.”

Trump and the lickspittles and criminals he’s surrounded himself with are in a panic. If Democrats take the House and/or Senate in this November’s elections, they’ll have the power of subpoena so the regime’s crimes and corruption will be laid out for everybody to see. Some could even go to prison, including Trump himself.

He’s been basically screaming, “Do something!!!” at Republicans for the past year. It started publicly with his demanding that Texas and then other red states further gerrymander their elections to reduce the number of Democrats in the House.

In red states they’re purging voters in Blue cities from the rolls like there’s no tomorrow, and the GOP is trying to recruit “election observers” to challenge signatures on mail-in ballots on an industrial level. As reporter Greg Palast pointed out, this is how Trump took the White House in 2024; if it hadn’t been for over 4 million (mostly Black) fully qualified US citizens being purged or having their ballots rejected after technical challenges, Kamala Harris would be our president today.

But given how badly Trump’s doing in the polls today, even all these efforts don’t look like they’ll be enough to keep the House and Senate in Republican hands.

So now Trump toadies like Jerome Corsi (the creator of the Birther movement and the Swift Boat slurs, who’s been a guest on my program multiple times) have an idea: just imitate what Putin, Orbán, Hitler, and other dictators have done to hang onto power when they get unpopular: declare an emergency and use it to rig the election.

Yesterday, the Post detailed how MAGA-aligned activists are now openly discussing manufacturing or exaggerating a national emergency to justify Trump’s agents in the federal government to interfere in this November’s elections.

These aren’t fringe anonymous trolls on some obscure message board; they’re people operating in proximity to the president of the United States. Corsi arguably destroyed John Kerry’s chances in 2004 and lit the Birther fuse that catapulted Trump into political fame.

And they’re floating the idea that if normal democratic processes don’t produce the “right” outcome, they could help create a fake crisis to seize control of the election nationally.

If you’ve studied history — and you know I have — that’s the moment when the hair on the back of your neck should stand up.

Because this isn’t new, creative, or even uniquely American: it’s straight out of the authoritarian playbook.

In 1933, Germany’s parliament building, the Reichstag, went up in flames at the hands of a mentally ill Dutch communist who was probably maneuvered into the act by the Nazis. Adolf Hitler declared it “proof” of an existential communist threat. Civil liberties were suspended overnight. Gone in the blink of an eye were freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble as Hitler’s goons began to round up his political opponents and throw them into his new concentration camp at Dachau.

Elections were technically still held, but under conditions so distorted they no longer qualified as free or fair in any meaningful sense, and the so-called “temporary” emergency became Hitler’s legal bridge to a permanent dictatorship.

Similarly, in Turkey in 2016, elements of the military tried to pull off a coup against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan while he was out of town. Erdoğan declared a national state of emergency and then kept it in place permanently. Tens of thousands of protesters were arrested. Judges and teachers were purged from their jobs, and media outlets were closed down for being “fake news.”

While emergency rule was in effect, Turkey held an election that transformed its parliamentary democracy into a hyper-presidential system tailored to give virtually all federal power to Erdoğan himself. It was the end of democracy in Turkey.

Vladimir Putin’s rise offers another variation. In 1999, a series of apartment bombings killed hundreds of Russians and the Kremlin blamed Chechen terrorists. The attacks propelled Putin, then a relatively unknown prime minister, into the presidency on a wave of fear and fury.

Putin then declared a state of emergency that expanded his police powers, gave him tighter media control, and let him seize control of the elections process. In the years since then, elections in Russia have become ritual rather than reality. The ballots are printed every few years, and the votes are counted, but the outcome is never in doubt.

Viktor Orbán in Hungary shows yet another model. He declared a “state of crisis” over migration by Syrian refugees in 2015 and kept renewing it long after migration levels collapsed. During the COVID pandemic, he got the parliament to give him the authority to rule by decree on an indefinite basis; it’s still in effect.

As a result, elections still happen (there’s one coming up), but the media landscape was completely taken over by Orbán-friendly billionaires (see: CBS, WaPo, LA Times, Fox “News,” Sinclair, Wall St. Journal, NY Post, and 1,500 rightwing radio stations). Orbán didn’t need to cancel Hungary’s elections; he simply reshaped the legal and political environment in which they happened.

There’s a common thread in all of this. The crisis wannabe dictators inevitably declare — real, exaggerated, or cynically manipulated — become the justification for seizing extraordinary powers. Those powers narrow dissent, intimidate opponents, and functionally rig the elections.

That’s why this shocking new reporting in the Washington Post is so alarming. When political actors like Corsi begin talking openly about declaring an emergency to override or interfere with elections, they’re not blowing smoke: they’re testing a classic dictator’s narrative.

They’re trying to figure out — and will learn from the national reaction to this Post reporting — whether they can persuade the public that normal election processes are too dangerous to trust. After all, in each of the cases I listed above, the machinery of democracy was used to hollow out democracy itself.

And they may not even have to manufacture an emergency: if Trump can sufficiently provoke Iran, they may activate their proxy network around the world and in the United States, and we could be facing a genuine crisis on the order of 9/11. This is one of the few ways to make sense of today’s massive military buildup in the Middle East.

The danger here isn’t just a fabricated catastrophe or a retaliatory strike by Iran, although those are pretty damn severe. It’s the normalization of the idea that if the electorate appears likely to choose “wrongly,” an emergency can justify changing the rules of democracy.

History shows us, over and over again, that when a nation loses its democracy to an aspiring autocrat, the language and strategy used is always the same. “The nation is under threat.” “The moment is an emergency.” “Normal rules must be suspended — just temporarily — to save the country.”

And in every case, “temporary” turned out to be the most dangerous word of all.

We’re now at that moment where influential figures are publicly contemplating that path, and the lesson from history isn’t subtle. The real emergency, in a constitutional republic, begins when leaders like Putin, Orbán, Erdoğan and Trump — and their toadies like Corsi, Bondi, Noem, and Gabbard — decide that elections themselves are the problem.

Multiple observers have noted that this plan is grossly unconstitutional. But so were Trump’s tariffs (which also used IEEPA emergency authority as their rationale), and the Supreme Court let him run with them for almost a year before stopping him.

Similarly, ICE goons kicking in people’s front doors and smashing their car windows to drag them off without a judicial warrant is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, but Trump’s agents continued to do it every day. Something being against the law or the Constitution has never stopped our convicted felon/rapist/insurrectionist president in the past.

This plot will only be stopped if it’s widely reported and an outraged public rises up in opposition. Call (202-224-3121) your elected representatives — Democratic and Republican — and let them know you’re onto this plot and won’t tolerate it. And that if they have any fidelity left to the Constitution and American values, they won’t either.

Headlines for March 4, 2026

U.S. Sinks Iranian Naval Ship in Indian Ocean as...

Trump was itching to strike Iran for months: MS NOW



President Donald Trump's justification for the Iran war, that Iranian missiles posed an imminent threat to America, was contradicted by MS NOW's Jackie Alemany on Thursday morning. During a White House medal ceremony on Monday, Trump claimed Iran "would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America." However, Alemany reported that a White House source revealed Trump had been eager to strike Iran for at least a month and a half, dating back to conversations at Mar-a-Lago. Alemany characterized the war as driven by personal motivation rather than substantive national security concerns, describing it as Trump wanting to settle a score and build his legacy. She noted bipartisan congressional opposition exists but falls short of Senate passage or likely House support. The reporting suggests Trump's missile threat narrative masks a pre-existing desire for military conflict.

Watch the video below.