Washington Times Labels 21 Million Americans Cannabis Addicts Without Asking About Addiction

Washington Times claims that the United States is facing a cannabis-driven public health crisis. Its evidence is that 21.4 million Americans now use cannabis daily or almost daily. But use is not the same as addiction, statistical associations do not automatically prove causation, and a regulated cannabis market is not more dangerous simply because it has become visible. Behind the alarmist headline are genuine risks that deserve serious attention, but also a political narrative from which important facts have been removed.

In an editorial published on August 12, Washington Times describes rising cannabis use among Americans as a growing public health crisis. The newspaper notes that the number of people reporting daily or near-daily use increased by approximately 21 percent, from 17.7 million in 2022 to around 21.4 million in 2025.

That is a relevant change worthy of analysis. But the newspaper immediately takes a step the statistics do not support: users are linguistically transformed into addicts, while the increase itself becomes evidence that legalization has created a national health crisis.

That is not fact-checking. It is political advocacy using a statistical table as a stage prop.

Daily use is not a medical diagnosis

The most fundamental objection concerns the editorial’s headline and premise. The federal National Survey on Drug Use and Health measures how frequently people report using different substances. It does not establish that every daily or near-daily cannabis user is addicted.

Cannabis use disorder is a clinical diagnosis based on several criteria. These can include loss of control, unsuccessful attempts to reduce use, tolerance, withdrawal and continued consumption despite problems at work, in relationships or in everyday life.

A person can therefore use cannabis regularly without meeting the diagnostic criteria for addiction. In the same way, not everyone who drinks a glass of wine with dinner is alcohol-dependent, and not every patient who takes morphine, sleeping medication or antidepressants every day is automatically an addict.

This does not mean that frequent cannabis use is without risk. The likelihood of developing cannabis use disorder increases with early initiation, heavy consumption and the use of products containing high concentrations of THC. But that risk must be described as a risk, not used to retroactively diagnose 21.4 million people through a newspaper headline.

The comparison with alcohol and cigarettes is misleading

Washington Times emphasizes that more Americans now use cannabis daily or almost daily than smoke cigarettes or consume alcohol with the same frequency.

That is statistically interesting, but it tells us very little about the overall burden of harm.

Alcohol remains by far the most commonly used intoxicating substance in the United States when measured by use during the previous month. Approximately 129 million Americans drink alcohol every month. The fact that fewer people drink on at least 20 of every 30 days does not mean that alcohol has become a smaller social or public health problem than cannabis.

Approximately 178,000 people are estimated to die every year in the United States as a consequence of excessive alcohol consumption. Cigarette smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke cause more than 480,000 deaths annually.

There is no comparable American death toll from fatal cannabis overdoses. Cannabis can contribute to accidents, mental health problems, dependence and other medical complications, but its risk profile is not the same as that of alcohol, tobacco or fentanyl.

A substance being used more frequently does not automatically mean that it causes greater harm. If it did, coffee would have to be placed at the top of Washington Times’ list of national addiction crises.

A measure of consumption is not a measure of catastrophe

The increase from 17.7 million to 21.4 million daily or near-daily users must also be placed in context.

During the same period, more states opened regulated cannabis markets, and more people became able to answer federal surveys without the same fear of social, legal or employment-related consequences. Part of the change may therefore reflect a genuine increase in consumption, part may reflect people replacing alcohol or prescription medication, and part may represent previously hidden use becoming easier to report.

The survey shows how people responded. On its own, it cannot determine why use has changed, which products were consumed, the doses involved or how many users experienced medical or social problems.

Washington Times nevertheless treats increased use, legalization, addiction and a public health crisis as though they were four names for the same phenomenon.

They are not.

The risks to young people are real but require honesty

The editorial highlights research showing that young people who use cannabis face a higher risk of depression and other mental health problems later in life. This is a risk that should neither be minimized nor dismissed.

Early, frequent and intensive cannabis use is associated with a greater risk of cannabis use disorder. It is also associated with depression, suicidal behavior and psychotic disorders, particularly when use begins at a young age and involves frequent consumption, high concentrations of THC or an existing individual vulnerability.

But here too, Washington Times erases the distinction between an association and proven causation.

Young people who use cannabis often differ from those who do not in several other respects. These can include pre-existing mental health problems, trauma, family circumstances, social vulnerability, alcohol consumption and the use of other drugs. Researchers attempt to adjust for these differences, but observational studies can rarely eliminate them completely.

The frequently cited meta-analysis examining cannabis and depression found a moderately elevated risk. It did not establish that cannabis will cause depression in between 37 and 70 percent of young users. Those percentages describe relative differences between groups, not the probability that an individual teenager will develop depression.

There are nevertheless strong reasons to protect minors, restrict advertising, reduce access and provide honest information about the risks of early and intensive use. Those are precisely the things a regulated market can do and an illegal market consistently ignores.

Youth cannabis use has not exploded nationwide

If legalization had truly triggered the development suggested by Washington Times, national cannabis consumption among adolescents should have soared.

The combined statistics do not support that picture.

Studies examining the effects of legalization on youth consumption have produced mixed results. Some have found small increases, others no clear changes and still others decreases. More recent American research notes that youth cannabis use has declined nationally even as a growing number of states have legalized cannabis for adults.

That does not mean legalization has no consequences or that every state has succeeded equally well. It means that the claim that legalization inevitably produces a dramatic increase in adolescent use cannot be treated as an established fact.

A regulated market must be evaluated and improved. But an illegal market does not ask for identification, disclose THC potency or recall products contaminated with pesticides, mold or synthetic cannabinoids.

High THC potency is an argument for regulation

Washington Times is correct that some of today’s most concentrated cannabis products can contain considerably more THC than the marijuana commonly available several decades ago.

High-potency products are associated with greater risks of acute adverse reactions, problematic consumption and mental health complications. Concentrates and potent edible products can also be difficult for inexperienced consumers to dose correctly.

But that is not an argument for handing the entire market back to criminal producers.

It is an argument for clear potency labels, standardized doses, child-resistant packaging, advertising restrictions, age limits, product testing and specific regulations for extremely potent concentrates.

Prohibition has never imposed a maximum THC limit. On the contrary, illegal markets have rewarded concentrated products because greater potency is easier and more profitable to transport.

Policy must therefore distinguish between moderate-potency cannabis, medical cannabinoid products, potent extracts and unregulated intoxicating products. Calling everything “marijuana” and attributing the same risks to every product is about as informative as discussing light beer, whisky and hand sanitizer as though they were the same alcohol product.

Cannabis and traffic safety are more complicated than a positive test

Cannabis can impair reaction time, attention and coordination. Nobody should drive while impaired.

But the presence of THC in the blood does not automatically prove current driving impairment. THC and its metabolites can remain detectable after the acute intoxicating effects have ended, particularly among people who use cannabis frequently.

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has itself emphasized that a positive cannabis test does not necessarily mean that a driver was impaired at the time of testing. Agency research indicates a modestly elevated crash risk following recent consumption, but that relationship is also influenced by age, sex, alcohol consumption and other risk factors.

This makes drug-impaired driving a genuine road safety issue, but it does not make every THC-positive driver evidence of a cannabis-caused collision.

Serious traffic policy must measure actual functional impairment and combine biological testing with driving behavior, clinical observations and other circumstances. Otherwise, the statistics risk measuring previous consumption rather than impairment behind the wheel.

The medical evidence cannot simply be edited out

Washington Times creates the impression that cannabis is primarily an intoxicating product whose risks have been concealed by legalization advocates. That perspective removes millions of patients from the picture.

Cannabis and cannabinoids have not been proven effective for every medical condition mentioned in advertisements or online. Marketing based on unsupported medical promises should be criticized and regulated.

But that does not mean medical benefits do not exist.

The US National Academies has concluded that there is conclusive or substantial evidence supporting cannabis or cannabinoids for conditions including chronic pain in adults, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and patient-reported spasticity symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis. Cannabinoid-based medicines have also been approved for specific medical conditions.

It is entirely possible to demand better clinical trials, clearer dosing and safer products without pretending that all medical cannabis use is a public relations invention.

Genuine public health policy requires proportion

Washington Times is correct about one thing: cannabis is not risk-free.

Children should not use cannabis. Pregnant women should abstain. People with a personal or family vulnerability to psychosis should exercise particular caution. Heavy consumption and very potent products can produce serious problems. Anyone who develops cannabis use disorder should be offered treatment without shame and without fear of punishment.

But being entirely risk-free is not the standard society applies to alcohol, tobacco, medication, driving or other legal activities. The relevant question is which policy reduces harm most effectively.

Prohibition does not make demand disappear. It transfers production and sales to a market without age verification, ingredient labels, laboratory testing, consumer protection or accountable retailers. It also creates harms of its own through arrests, criminalization, legal consequences and the financing of organized crime.

Regulation is not a claim that cannabis is harmless. Regulation is an acknowledgement that people use cannabis and that society must therefore manage reality instead of moralizing about it.

Washington Times discovers the crisis it ordered

The editorial’s central method is simple: count every frequent user as an addict, present relative risk increases as though they were individual predictions, confuse statistical associations with causation and compare the number of daily users without comparing mortality or the substances’ total burden of harm.

The result is a predetermined political narrative.

The United States needs better cannabis regulation. It needs product safety, research, consumer information, youth protection, effective impaired-driving laws and treatment for people who experience problems. It also needs stricter controls on aggressive marketing and high-THC products.

None of this requires 21.4 million people to be collectively diagnosed as cannabis addicts by an editorial board.

Public health begins with describing risks accurately. When facts are inflated until they fit a political headline, journalism has abandoned public education and returned to the most reliable method of the prohibition era: first manufacture panic and then offer more of the same policies that never solved the problem.

Sources and further reading

Ann-Sofie Hansson

Dela denna artikel

Washington Times Labels 21 Million Americans Cannabis Addicts Without Asking About Addiction

Oregelbundna hjärtslag minskade efter inhalation av cannabis

Stor studie finner ingen ökad risk för ångest eller depression hos barn efter cannabisexponering under graviditeten