💸 The Tape

Every few years, the War on Drugs gets a nostalgic reboot. A familiar refrain returns: if only we had enforced harder, said “just say no” louder, or resisted cultural drift, we’d have won.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: drugs won the war on drugs—and they did so under the most punitive, expensive, enforcement-heavy regime in modern American history.

Former “drug czar” William Bennett argues that rescheduling marijuana sends the wrong signal and risks harming young people. That concern for youth health is legitimate. What’s not legitimate is pretending the decades-long enforcement-first strategy delivered anything close to its stated goals.

If the mission was to eliminate drugs from American streets, the record is clear: it failed.

Today, illicit fentanyl is more available than ever. Cocaine production in South America has reached record levels. Synthetic drugs evolve faster than enforcement can regulate them. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that overdose deaths have remained historically elevated, even after modest recent declines.

After 50 years of escalation, the supply side is thriving.

The War on Drugs has cost taxpayers well over a trillion dollars when accounting for federal enforcement, state-level incarceration, court costs, interdiction efforts and overseas operations. We built prisons. We expanded mandatory minimums. We militarized policing. We filled court dockets.

What we did not do was meaningfully reduce long-term demand or eradicate supply.

Instead, we created one of the largest prison populations in the world. Millions of Americans—disproportionately from low-income and minority communities—were saddled with criminal records for nonviolent drug offenses. Those records often meant barriers to employment, housing and voting rights long after any sentence was served.

Even many former architects of tough-on-crime policy now acknowledge the excesses. Conservative think tanks, libertarian scholars and bipartisan criminal justice reform coalitions have documented how drug prohibition policies amplified incarceration without producing proportional public safety benefits.

None of this means drugs are harmless. They are not.

Marijuana, like alcohol, carries risks—particularly for adolescents. The science is clear that heavy use during brain development can impair cognitive performance. That deserves honest discussion, parental engagement and evidence-based education.

But here’s the key distinction: acknowledging risk does not justify repeating a strategy that has demonstrably failed.

The “gateway drug” argument, long invoked in drug debates, has also weakened under scrutiny. Correlation does not equal causation. The overwhelming majority of marijuana users do not go on to use heroin or methamphetamine. More importantly, the rise of synthetic opioids has been driven by illicit supply chains and chemical engineering—not teenagers experimenting with cannabis.

If marijuana were truly the on-ramp to societal collapse, states that legalized would be descending into chaos. Instead, what we see is something more nuanced: regulated markets, tax revenue generation, reduced illicit possession arrests and ongoing public health debates about best practices.

Legalization did not eliminate drug misuse. But criminalization didn’t eliminate it either.

Meanwhile, the cultural “Just Say No” era, while rhetorically forceful, coincided with the crack epidemic, surging incarceration rates and massive racial sentencing disparities. Messaging alone cannot override complex socioeconomic realities, mental health conditions and trauma-driven substance use.

The modern public health consensus increasingly favors harm reduction, treatment access and regulated frameworks over blanket prohibition. Countries that have shifted toward treatment-centric models—Portugal is often cited—have seen improved overdose outcomes without a spike in use.

Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III does not legalize it nationally. It does not greenlight youth consumption. It primarily facilitates research and adjusts tax treatment for legal operators. Ironically, keeping cannabis in Schedule I—the same category as heroin—has restricted rigorous clinical study that could clarify both benefits and harms.

If the goal is protecting young people, policy should prioritize prevention programs, school engagement, parental awareness and responsible regulation—not criminal records for low-level possession.

The War on Drugs promised safety through punishment. What it delivered was ballooning incarceration, fractured communities and a thriving black market that adapted faster than policymakers.

Drugs didn’t retreat. They innovated.

So when critics warn that loosening cannabis policy signals surrender, it’s worth asking: surrender to what? A strategy that has already lost?

A serious conversation about youth health, addiction and community safety is overdue. But clinging to a half-century of evidence-defying enforcement as the moral high ground is not seriousness—it’s nostalgia.

The lesson of the War on Drugs isn’t that we weren’t tough enough. It’s that toughness without effectiveness is just expensive theater.

And American taxpayers have already footed that bill.

🗞️ The News

📺 YouTube

Charlotte’s Web Jumps 47% — Hemp Debate Heats Up | TDR Cannabis in 5

What we will cover:

✅ In the latest episode of TDR Cannabis in 5 presented by Flowhub, host Shadd Dales breaks down the weekly performance of the two most closely watched cannabis ETFs — AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF (NYSEARCA: MSOS) and AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF (NYSEARCA: YOLO).

MSOS closed at $3.96, down 4.81% week-over-week, with heavy concentration in its top three holdings: Curaleaf Holdings (CSE: CURA | OTCQX: CURLF), Trulieve Cannabis (CSE: TRUL | OTCQX: TCNNF), and Green Thumb Industries (CSE: GTII | OTCQX: GTBIF). Curaleaf gained modestly after announcing a proposed $500 million senior secured notes offering due 2029, aimed at refinancing 2026 maturities. Meanwhile, Trulieve and Green Thumb traded lower ahead of upcoming earnings calls.

Volatility was most pronounced in Glass House Brands (CSE: GLAS.A.U | OTCQX: GLASF), which declined 15% on the week, and Charlotte’s Web Holdings (TSX: CWEB | OTCQX: CWBHF), which surged nearly 47% amid renewed hemp legislation discussions.