A Thoughtful Response On Alex Berenson’s Anti-Cannabis Talk
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, September 27, 2019
A friend sent to me a link to an article which I thoughtfully perused.
It was about cannabis.
Specifically, while it was not exactly surreptitious, it was definitely anti-cannabis.
I am not now, though I once was, “anti-cannabis.”
And to be certain, I read the article with an open mind, as I do most all things which I read.
However, I have made my position upon the matter – along with the rationales – a matter of open and unashamed advocacy for anyone who inquires, and have done so only after extensive and lengthy consideration.
With only minor editing to protect privacy, I share the following response.
––//––
I think the trap we tend to fall in circulates around the idea that correlation is causation, but it is not.
Yes, there are some valid instances in which correlated items are causative (for example, sexual intercourse and pregnancy), but there are other extenuating factors which must be considered. For example, fertility rates of males and females must be considered, as well as contraceptive use, spontaneous abortion (aka “miscarriage”), and other aspects associated with copulation. So, one size does not fit all.
For example, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), in Prevalence of Drug Use in the General Population – National Data (2018), the United States has an opiate abuse rate of 1.04%, and is ranked 7th globally in that regard.
Kazakhstan has a very similar rate of 1.00%. Iran, however, leads the world with 3.31%, with Afghanistan in 2nd place with 2.65%, followed by Russia with 1.64%.
If we examined cannabis use the same way, Canada is in international 1st place with 32.7% annual prevalence, followed by Papua New Guinea with 29.5%, with Israel in 3rd place with 27.0%, then Palau with 24.2%, the Northern Mariana Islands with 22.2%, Ghana with 21.5%, Guam with 18.4%, Iceland with 18.3%, and then the United States with 16.2%.
Regarding the rates of opioid use/abuse in the United States, the article’s author, Alex Berenson, states that “And the United States, the Western country with the most cannabis use, also has by far the worst problem with opioids.” As we can see, Canada is the Western country with the greatest cannabis consumption rate, while their opioid use rate is 0.4%, and are ranked 38th globally in that regard.
Clearly, his statement is not correct, nor anywhere near accurate.
Now, if we stated that correlation was causation (which it is NOT), then we would expect to see a high rate of violent crimes in those nations – for opiate and cannabis use.
However… we do not.
And, if we considered murder as a violent crime (and it is, regardless of the means or method), the United States does NOT even appear in the Top 50 Nations per capita rate which for that category ranges from 61.8 to 9.29. Globally, the United States is ranked 89th of 230 nations for per capita murder rate.
In that regard, Kazakhstan is ranked 93rd, Iran is ranked 129th, Afghanistan is ranked 72nd, Papua New Guinea is ranked 64th, Russia 168th, Canada 91st, Guam 219th, Palau 223rd, Ghana 46th.
In fact, most all nations in the African continent – with ONE solitary exception, that being Saint Helena with a per capita homicide rate of 0.00% – have a homicide rate averaging 12.5%, while many Central and South American nations have a similarly high, or even greater rate.
The report “International Statistics on Crime and Justice” by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is referenced by the Center for Homeland Defense and Security of the Naval Postgraduate School in the Homeland Security Digital Library, and finds the “data unique and valuable.” The report itself states that “Results suggest that the highest homicide levels are found in the Americas and Africa region, with the lowest homicide levels generally in countries in Europe.”
So it’s a fallacy to suppose, or imagine, that cannabis consumption is a cause, or even the cause, of violence.
[NOTE: While not in the original reply, it bears noting that the article’s author, Alex Berenson, employs the exact same technique as the rabidly racist cannabis opponent Harry Anslinger who infamously maintained a “gore” file of salacious newspaper crime stories which all attributed the crimes to cannabis consumption. Such journalism was most often the work of newspapers owned by magnate William Randolph Hearst, who is considered by many as the father of “yellow” journalism.]
Anecdotally, they are not criminals, and yet they have all consumed cannabis gleefully in their youth. Similarly, none are psychotic, and none have experienced any such episodes. They’re all university graduates, and professionally licensed (doesn’t the profession have a professional accrediting and/or licensing body by the state?).
So, while our experience is anecdotal, I do think it warrants serious reconsideration that cannabis consumption is the malingering culprit of our, or other nations’ problems.
In criticism of his work, one very significant finding I see is that he tends to pick and choose what studies support his unspoken hypothesis, which is that cannabis is seriously bad.
Is he a smart dude?
Sure.
He’s a Yale graduate, with a degree in history and economics.
That’s nothing to sniff at.
One thing, however, which he has neglected is mentioning is the racist origins of cannabis’ illegality globally, and how it originated in the United States.
I find that curious.
And for a guy with a history degree from Yale, I find that not merely disturbing, but alarming – but not as much as his convenient omission of law enforcement statistics and societal costs exacted upon taxpayers for maintaining its prohibition as expressed in dollars and cents (fiscally).
And to illustrate that matter, the word “cost” along with its permutations, is only mentioned once in the entire article and not in a examiner’s sense, and neither the words “money,” nor “dollar,” nor enforcement (as in law), appear in the text, while the words “tax” and “revenue” appear only once alongside each other to identify governmental income, and “finance” appears only once, and only in his introductory biography.
For an economist (and business and investigative reporter) to blatantly ignore – in such a wholesale manner – those pecuniary matters is specifically inexcusable.
Look, I’ve waffled back-and-forth, back-and-forth, and back-and-forth on the matter of cannabis, its legality, efficacy, and other factors, and it wearied me to be unsettled on the matter.
My thinking on it was challenged by a friend who encouraged me to re-examine the scientific data which is now rapidly accumulating because it has been legalized in some states and municipalities (for Adult Recreational and Medical Use). I approached the matter with an open mind, and what I found astonished me. I reported those findings – and a history of its illegality in America – in a 30+ page report which I have shared with you, and many others, including state legislators, and other governmental officials.
Is cannabis consumption harmless?
Probably not.
But neither is water, for abuse of it also kills humans not only by excessive consumption, but also by drowning.
And as I continue to assert, that if we’d known then what we know now about ethanol (beverage alcohol), I daresay we’d have never repealed the 18th Amendment with the 21st Amendment.
Frankly, everyone here now has a death sentence hanging over their head, because no one gets out of here alive. It’s therefore incumbent upon us to learn, educate, and inform, and in the process, permit freedom as much as is practically possible, insofar as the exercise of the same doesn’t harm others, or infringe upon their rights.
And yet, rights also have responsibilities, for there’s no such thing as freedom without some responsibility.
Finally, consider this anecdotal semi-hypothetical scenario:
Give three kids $20 each, and tell one to come back with beer, tell the second to come back with cigarettes, and then, tell the third one to come back with weed, and see who comes back first.
We regulate the sale and consumption of alcohol, and tobacco, and by so doing, exercise some control and limits over its production, sale, distribution and consumption.
We don’t do that with cannabis, and it is abundantly self-evident what problems have arisen from its wholesale prohibition – exactly like the ones we saw with beverage alcohol. Entire criminal enterprises arose to fulfill a demand. But in this instance, the modern cannabis prohibition-inspired criminal compatriots are equally violent and bloodthirsty, but are notorious narcotraffickers of a global scope.
The status quo is quite simply, unsustainable.
––//––
NOTE: The reader should also be aware that, it was only AFTER reading the article on Imprimis (as linked above), did I begin to research the author Alex Berenson and his book. What I wrote as the introduction of the response – “I think the trap we tend to fall in circulates around the idea that correlation is causation, but it is not.” – is PRECISELY the fallacy that others identify in Berenson’s book.
For additional information, read the supporting reference links in these articles linked below:
https://www.thenation.com/article/alex-berenson-marijuana-legalization-tell-your-children-review/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/17/marijuana-book-tell-your-children-alex-berenson
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/04/16/return-reefer-madness/
Leave a Reply