The best evidence that marijuana has become mainstream is in the air. As I wrote last summer, “the most salient characteristic of the air in many cities is the smell of marijuana.” The essence of my argument then was to protest this mainstreaming, one with which I am uncomfortable on more than just a philosophical level. The results of last November’s marijuana-related state-level votes suggest that voters may be reaching the limits of their willingness to endorse the pervasiveness of marijuana.

In City Journal, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Steven Malanga explains why that might be: the promised benefits have not materialized. And unanticipated costs are adding up. Legalization proponents made many seemingly persuasive arguments. Among them were that legalization would end black markets in the drug and bring in tax revenue from its sale, that the use of weed would not change or might even decrease, and that the health risks were minimal. In Malanga’s view, “the vision of legal marijuana that advocates promised has proved to be a dangerous illusion.” Marijuana black markets have not gone away. Taxpayers are subsidizing pot sellers. Usage has increased, even as the connection between pot-smoking and a variety of side effects, including psychosis, is becoming increasingly well established. As is the connection between the drug and social breakdown.

What to do? Malanga suggests that states that allow medical but not recreational marijuana use should “promote decriminalization, which ends penalties for possession, without creating an industry that manufactures and markets the drug.” Full-legalization states should limit THC, marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient. All would be in service of his broader goal: that states find “a middle ground between full commercialization and outright criminalization.” As regrets over marijuana legalization accumulate, such a middle ground looks — and smells — more and more attractive.