ShareThis Page
Marijuana myth busted |

Marijuana myth busted

In this file photo taken Jan. 13, 2015, marijuana plants sit under powerful lamps in a growing facility in Arlington, Wash. Washington launched its second-in-the-nation legal marijuana market in mid-July 2014 with just a handful of stores selling high-priced pot to long lines of customers. A year later, the state had about 160 shops open, tax revenues had soared past expectations and sales topped $1.4 million per day. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)

A new governmental report shows minors’ marijuana usage hasn’t risen since Washington state legalized recreational marijuana for adults, bolstering the commonsense case for ending counterproductive marijuana prohibitions.

This new report was required by Washington’s legalization law and produced by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy — “the state Legislature’s think tank,” according to The Seattle Times. Its finding that legalization hasn’t led to increased marijuana usage among Washington’s minors is based on information from a twice-yearly survey of sixth-, eighth-, 10th- and 12th-graders conducted by that state’s Health Department.

Since Washington voters approved legalization in 2012 and sales began in mid-2014, marijuana usage “in all four grade levels was stable or has fallen slightly,” according to the newspaper. Among Washington high school sophomores surveyed last year, 17 percent said they’d used marijuana during the previous month; comparable usage figures were 18 percent in 2006, 20 percent in 2010.

That’s a heartening contrast to prohibition advocates’ gloom-and-doom predictions about legalization’s effects on minors.

Washington and other states that have legalized recreational marijuana are blazing a trail that Pennsylvania and the rest of the states — and ultimately, the federal government — should follow, especially because this report suggests that path is largely free of one of its biggest potential pitfalls.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.