Sort of in defence of David Brooks

By T.N. | LOS ANGELES

I FIND today's collective meltdown over David Brooks's bland column on marijuana slightly baffling. My colleague (along with most of the rest of the internet today) is absolutely right to note that Mr Brooks fails to account for the great harms of prohibition, not least the vast racial disparities in arrest and incarceration rates, and the subsequent difficulties for the victims of that injustice in finding work or public housing. It is shameful that a toot of a pipe can trigger consequences like these, and that is why it is such a relief to see parts of America (and other places) taking steps to wind down the war on drugs.

But let's not pretend that relaxing prohibition is cost-free. Legalising marijuana is an experiment; no jurisdiction in the world has done what Colorado has (and what Washington state soon will do), and many of the consequences are therefore impossible to predict. The effects on overall consumption will depend on pricing, and the market has not yet settled in. But consumption will surely rise, and that may bring public-health consequences. There are studies linking long-term marijuana use to impaired cognition, mental-health problems and dependency, even if the line of causation is not always clear. The effects on teenagers may be more worrying still. (We would have clearer answers to these questions had the federal government not taken such a dunderheaded approach to funding research into drug use.)