California’s Marijuana Misstep: The Enduring Damage to Youth Under 25. By Dr Michael Francis PhD.

The ability for 18-year-olds to legally purchase marijuana with a medical card has garnered much attention, but the broader issue lies in the detrimental impact of marijuana on the brains of young adults under 25. This paper examines the significant and often irreversible damage marijuana can cause to the developing brains of young adults, the alarming trend of using marijuana as a supplemental tool for psychological treatment, the normalization of marijuana in households, and the broader implications of California’s influence as a global model.

The Vulnerability of the Brain Under 25

Extensive research has shown that the human brain continues to develop until approximately age 25. During this critical period, the brain undergoes crucial changes, particularly in areas related to decision-making, impulse control, and emotional regulation. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for these higher-order functions, is one of the last regions to mature, making it particularly susceptible to the effects of psychoactive substances like marijuana.

• Impact on Cognitive Development: Marijuana use during this crucial developmental period can disrupt the natural maturation process of the brain. Studies have shown that regular marijuana use before the age of 25 can lead to cognitive impairments such as reduced memory capacity, attention deficits, and decreased learning ability. These effects can be long-lasting, if not permanent, due to the brain’s plasticity during this period.

Marijuana’s impact on brain development is not just limited to cognitive functions but also extends to emotional and psychological health. Research has linked early marijuana use to an increased risk of developing psychiatric disorders, including anxiety, depression, and even schizophrenia. The earlier the onset of marijuana use, the greater the risk of these long-term mental health issues.

Marijuana as a Supplemental Tool to Psychological Treatment

In recent years, I have observed a concerning trend among youth to use marijuana as a supplemental tool for psychological treatment. Influenced by the drug’s legal status and widespread acceptance in California, many young people perceive marijuana as a natural remedy for anxiety, depression, and other mental health challenges. This perception is further reinforced by the ease with which marijuana can be obtained, particularly through medical channels at age 18, and recreationally at age 21.

However, using marijuana as a self-medicated supplement to psychological treatment is fraught with risks. While some individuals may experience temporary relief from symptoms, the long-term consequences can be severe. Marijuana use has been linked to worsening mental health conditions, including increased anxiety, depression, and the onset of psychosis, especially in individuals predisposed to these disorders. For those under 25, whose brains are still developing, the negative effects of marijuana can be particularly pronounced.

• Case Examples: Clinical observations and anecdotal evidence have shown that some youth who struggle with anxiety or depression turn to marijuana as a coping mechanism. For instance, a high school student experiencing social anxiety might begin using marijuana to ease discomfort in social situations. While this may provide short-term relief, over time, it can lead to dependency on the drug and exacerbate the anxiety when not using it.

As I’ve stated before, “marijuana and alcohol are easier to obtain than psychological treatment,” which is a stark reality contributing to the over-reliance on these substances as coping mechanisms.

Normalization of Marijuana in the Household

Another alarming trend is the normalization of marijuana use within households, particularly when parents use marijuana openly. For many youth, observing their parents or guardians using marijuana regularly can lead to the perception that it is a harmless or even beneficial substance. This normalization blurs the lines between responsible use and abuse, especially in households where education about the risks of marijuana is lacking.

• The Perpetuation of a Cycle: In households where marijuana use is normalized, children are more likely to adopt similar behaviors as they grow older. This creates a cycle where marijuana use becomes a routine part of life, often without consideration of its potential harms. In uneducated households, where there may be limited access to accurate information about the risks of marijuana, children are not provided with the tools they need to make informed decisions. Instead, they grow up in environments that may inadvertently encourage substance use, further entrenching the cycle of harm.

Research has shown that parental use of marijuana, whether past or present, can significantly influence their children’s attitudes toward substance use and their likelihood of using marijuana themselves. A study by the University of Washington’s Social Development Research Group found that children of parents who used marijuana during their adolescence were more than twice as likely to use marijuana as those whose parents did not use the drug during this period.

The False Security of Legal Access

California’s decision to allow legal access to marijuana for those over 21, and even for those as young as 18 with a medical card, sends a dangerous message that marijuana use is safe for young adults. This perception is not only misleading but also harmful. The ease of access provided by California’s laws does not consider the unique risks posed to individuals under 25, whose brains are still in a crucial phase of development.

• Consequences of Early Use: The normalization of marijuana use among young adults under 25, facilitated by its legal status, has led to an increase in regular use among this age group. The consequences are far-reaching, with studies indicating higher rates of addiction, mental health disorders, and impaired academic and professional outcomes among those who begin using marijuana before their brains have fully matured.

Approximately 1 in 6 individuals who begin using marijuana before age 18 develop a marijuana use disorder, a rate significantly higher than those who begin using as adults. The long-term effects of early marijuana use are not limited to addiction; they also include lower academic achievement, poorer mental health, and increased likelihood of engaging in criminal or risky behaviors.

A Call for Policy Reform

Given the overwhelming evidence of the damage marijuana can cause to individuals under 25, it is imperative that California’s marijuana policies be re-evaluated. Current regulations fail to protect young adults from the substance’s most harmful effects. More stringent age restrictions, coupled with robust public health campaigns aimed at educating young people about the risks, are necessary to mitigate the long-term damage being done.

• Policy Recommendations: California should consider raising the legal age for marijuana consumption to 25, aligning it with the age at which brain development is more complete. Additionally, public health campaigns should focus on educating both youth and parents about the real risks of marijuana use, particularly during adolescence and early adulthood. These campaigns should emphasize the importance of delaying marijuana use until after the brain has fully matured.

California’s Global Responsibility

California’s influence as one of the largest economies in the world extends far beyond its borders. The state’s policies often serve as a model for other states and countries, making it imperative that California addresses the shortcomings in its marijuana legalization framework. By failing to protect its youth adequately, California risks setting a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching consequences not just for its own residents but for the broader national and global community.

As a global leader, California has the responsibility to implement policies that prioritize public health and the well-being of its citizens, particularly the most vulnerable populations. By revising its approach to marijuana legalization, California can set a standard that other states and countries can follow, demonstrating a commitment to the long-term health and safety of its youth.

An Observation on Public Health Priorities

As a clinical psychologist, I find it perplexing that we are quick to declare a public health crisis concerning guns and implement regulations that sometimes challenge constitutional rights, yet we hesitate to address the public health crisis we have created with marijuana. The rapid normalization and acceptance of marijuana use, particularly among youth, represent a problem that can be mitigated more effectively if addressed sooner rather than later.

It seems odd to accept the rapid decline of our youth due to marijuana’s damaging effects while society vigorously condemns mass casualty events. These events, often precipitated by logical disorders—some of which are exacerbated by marijuana use—are rightfully seen as a public health emergency. However, the normalization of marijuana, despite its role in these disorders, is a contradiction that cannot be overlooked. I argue that the focus should be on ensuring that individuals do not feel it is acceptable to take another human life. When someone reaches that point, it is clear they require psychological treatment, and this fact must not be ignored.

I’m no advocating for the NRA, but I observe that in societies worldwide, if guns are removed, individuals intent on committing mass atrocities will find other means. Guns, unlike humans, do not possess brains, emotions, or the capacity for abuse; when misused, it is the person behind the weapon, often struggling with untreated psychological issues, that is the true danger. Our societal failure lies in making it easier for individuals to reach for substances like alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs rather than seeking the help they truly need. This tendency is a cancer that erodes the very fabric of our society, and it must be addressed.

As I’ve stated, “we need to stop blaming the gun before addressing the mental illness behind the gun. This rush to scapegoat firearms is often more about expediency and political gain than finding real solutions to prevent violence.”

The Disconnect Between Lawmakers and Society

It is challenging to create laws that genuinely benefit the broader population when those in positions of power are insulated from the real-world consequences of their decisions. Many politicians, after spending extended periods in office, become detached from the day-to-day realities faced by ordinary citizens. This detachment leads to policies that may not address the true needs of the community, especially when the lawmakers themselves belong to an elite society that is not directly affected by the same struggles that their constituents face.

The Call for Term Limits

This disconnection is one of the reasons why there is a growing call for term limits for politicians. Term limits are seen as a mechanism to keep public officials closer to the communities they represent, preventing them from becoming too comfortable in their positions and losing touch with the needs of the people. It’s not uncommon to hear about politicians who have become so insulated from everyday life that they are unaware of basic tasks like filling up a gas tank or using a grocery store scanner, as was famously noted about George W. Bush after his presidency.

Until political figures start suffering the consequences of their actions—consequences that their constituents face daily—their policies and actions are unlikely to change. However, this is improbable as long as they continue to operate within their own insulated social circles, far removed from the communities that are suffering from their decisions.

The Example of John Walsh

One of the most poignant examples of how personal suffering can lead to relentless advocacy is the story of John Walsh. Walsh, who tragically lost his six-year-old son, Adam, to abduction and murder in 1981, channeled his grief into a lifelong mission to hunt down high-profile criminals, particularly those who harm children. His creation of the television program “America’s Most Wanted” helped capture hundreds of fugitives and brought national attention to issues of child safety and the importance of law enforcement in protecting the most vulnerable. Walsh’s transformation into an unrelenting predator hunter is a testament to the power of personal tragedy in motivating change and action—a motivation that is often lacking in those who create policies without firsthand experience of their consequences.

The Moral Corruption of Political Figures

Many political figures are morally corrupt, and this corruption is perpetuated by their detachment from the realities that the average citizen faces. Their policies often reflect their lack of understanding of the day-to-day struggles of ordinary people. Until they are personally affected by the suffering caused by their actions—something that is unlikely to happen as long as they remain within their insulated social circles—their actions and policies will not change.

The cynical part of me believes that if politicians were to face the same challenges as their constituents, or if they were taxed on ammunition at the same rates as marijuana and alcohol, their critical views on issues like gun control might soften. This is not because of a change in belief but rather because these issues would become part of the system that “greases the wheels.”

The Importance of Admitting Mistakes

In the field of psychology, we understand the importance of admitting mistakes. Making mistakes is an inherent part of humanity, and acknowledging these errors is crucial for growth and learning. However, in politics, there is often a resistance to admitting mistakes, driven by the fear of damaging one’s reputation. This resistance perpetuates the false notion that mistakes are abnormal, leading people to hide their errors rather than learn from them.

In the psychological community, we emphasize the value of transparency and the importance of showing our mistakes. By doing so, we not only learn and grow, but we also allow the surrounding community to see that we are human. This transparency fosters trust and helps others understand that making mistakes is a natural part of life. Unfortunately, in the political arena, the fear of admitting mistakes often leads to a lack of accountability, which only exacerbates the problems at hand.

As I reflect on these issues, I realize that perhaps my perspective is shaped by the very nature of my work. In psychology, we are trained to understand the human condition, to recognize that mistakes are inevitable, and to see the value in addressing them openly. In contrast, the political sphere often operates under a different set of principles, where the appearance of infallibility is prioritized over the reality of human imperfection. This disconnect between the fields of psychology and politics may explain why some of the most critical issues in our society—such as the impact of marijuana on youth—remain inadequately addressed.

Conclusion

California’s approach to marijuana legalization has overlooked a critical aspect of public health: the protection of youth under 25 from the drug’s harmful effects. While the focus on the legal purchase age of 18 is important, the more significant concern lies in the broader demographic of young adults who are still in the midst of crucial brain development. It is time for California to acknowledge this oversight and take action to protect the cognitive and emotional well-being of its younger population.

Moreover, as one of the largest economies in the world, California has a responsibility to lead by example. The state’s policies have a global impact, influencing the decisions of other states and countries. By addressing the missteps in its marijuana legalization framework, California can reaffirm its role as a leader in progressive and responsible governance, ensuring that its actions prioritize the health and future of its youth.

The actions California takes now will reverberate across the nation and the world. It is imperative that the state corrects its course, implementing policies that truly reflect its responsibility to its citizens and its influence on global health standards. By doing so, California can help break the cycle of harm and ensure that future generations have the opportunity to thrive in environments that prioritize their health and development.

In the end, the true measure of a society’s progress is not in the wealth it accumulates or the power it wields but in how it cares for its most vulnerable members. It is time for California—and the nation as a whole—to live up to this standard.