Record Numbers of Teens Think Marijuana Is Harmless

A majority of teens see marijuana as risk-free

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Although teen smoking rates are at a record low, more of them are smoking pot and fewer than ever believe it is bad for them. Data released last December as part of the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Monitoring the Future project show that only 44.1 percent of 12th graders believe regular marijuana use is harmful, the lowest level since 1973. That may explain why more than one third of high school seniors tried pot in 2012, and one in 15 smoked it daily.

The growing acceptance of medical marijuana may be behind teens' changing attitudes. Since 1996, 18 states, plus the District of Columbia, have made it legal for adults to obtain pot with a doctor's prescription. And last November, Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize marijuana for anyone older than 21 years. “This shift in perceived risk may very well have resulted from the widespread endorsement of medical marijuana use,” says Lloyd Johnston of the University of Michigan, who led the Monitoring the Future project.

But pot poses a higher risk for teens than for adults. In August investigators at Duke University and other institutions published the results of a 25-year study suggesting that heavy use among adolescents can do permanent cognitive damage. Subjects who were diagnosed with marijuana dependence as teens and adults suffered IQ declines of up to eight points between the ages of 13 and 38, even after the researchers controlled for other drug dependence, schizophrenia and education. (Abstainers' IQs rose slightly.) Moreover, the IQs of teen users did not recover even if they quit in adulthood.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


How much marijuana is too much? “It's hard to find out,” says lead study author and Duke clinical psychologist Madeline Meier. There is no accurate way to measure consumption because marijuana joints are rarely identical and potency varies. What is clear is that adolescent brains are particularly vulnerable to marijuana's effects, so teens would be smart to abstain—and may stay smarter for it, too.

Melinda Wenner Moyer, a contributing editor at Scientific American, is author of Hello, Cruel World! Science-Based Strategies for Raising Terrific Kids in Terrifying Times (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 2025).

More by Melinda Wenner Moyer
Scientific American Magazine Vol 308 Issue 3This article was published with the title “No Harm Done?” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 308 No. 3 (), p. 19
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0313-19

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe