Piece published for The American Conservative “There is nothing more valuable than the human capital of a nation. An educated and healthy population determines not just the faith and destiny of a society, but more importantly, it is through it that the greatest civilizations are built. The degradation of human capital is the first sign of the degradation of a nation.”
You have written an article so annoying that I am now writing my first-ever substack comment.
1. You wrote "The recreational consumption is not just a public health masquerade, but a socio-economic bomb, as several studies showed how, along with alcohol and tobacco, the consumption of cannabis is associated with job loss." The study you cited is correlational not causational, it could be that people who are more likely to lose their jobs are more likely to drink, smoke, and consume marijauna. It's also ironic that in this study, both alcohol and tobacco were more highly associated with job losses, yet you did not write an article about banning alcohol or tobacco, you wrote an article about banning marijauna.
2. "This is an expected consequence, since the use of cannabis is associated with irreversible declines in cognition, given that long-term cannabis users perform poorly on tests of memory and attention." The study you cite literally states that the declines are not irreversible, and that in fact for the vast majority of marijauna users there will be no such decline, and that whether in even very heavy users these impairments are irreversible is not known: "The risk to most medical cannabis users is likely to be small, as long as they are not maintained at high doses for many years. For habitual users, the kinds of impairments observed in this study have the potential to impact academic achievements, occupational proficiency, interpersonal relationships, and daily functioning. The extent to which these cognitive impairments may recover following cessation or reduction of cannabis use will be addressed in a follow-up of this sample subsequent to treatment for cannabis dependence. "
3. "unlike opioids and other drugs, cannabis is not addictive—an obvious lie and a poor attempt to gain public support after years of disappointment and mistrust. Indeed, cannabis is not only addictive, but its very normalization will trigger a wave of addictive behavior." Nobody said that cannabis is not addictive, they said that it is not addictive *like opioids*. Opioids cause physical addiction, people literally die when they're denied opioid, no one has ever denied from being denied marijauna. You made a strawman and attacked it, congrats.
4. "In Colorado, where aggressive legalization took place, evidence shows that illegal activities have increased. " this is literally false: https://www.mpp.org/issues/legalization/marijuana-legalization-is-not-linked-with-increased-crime-rates. Marijauna legalization is *not* linked with increased crime rates of any kind. In fact, just the opposite: "In a more recent paper using regression analysis, a University of Washington researcher wrote, “Results indicate that the legalization of marijuana, both recreational and medical, does not increase violent crime rates. In contrast, marijuana legalization could lead to a decline in violent crime such as homicide, robbery and aggravated assault.”[4]" (see link above).
5. The article completely ignores all the benefits of marijauna legalization, such as increased tax revenue and reduced burden on law enforcement, as well as the extremely racist past of marijauna enforcement and all the ways in which that affects minorities in this country. The assertion that the pro-cannabis campaign's goal is to create a "stoner nation" is overly simplistic and dismissive of the complex motivations behind the push for legalization.
I am not much of a cannabis fan, but I have to admit that I don't really "get it", or see the form behind the argument, besides a reflexive conservatism. Is cannabis so different from other recreational yet potentially harmful substances that it deserves special treatment? Or am I missing something about the aim of the piece?
You have written an article so annoying that I am now writing my first-ever substack comment.
1. You wrote "The recreational consumption is not just a public health masquerade, but a socio-economic bomb, as several studies showed how, along with alcohol and tobacco, the consumption of cannabis is associated with job loss." The study you cited is correlational not causational, it could be that people who are more likely to lose their jobs are more likely to drink, smoke, and consume marijauna. It's also ironic that in this study, both alcohol and tobacco were more highly associated with job losses, yet you did not write an article about banning alcohol or tobacco, you wrote an article about banning marijauna.
2. "This is an expected consequence, since the use of cannabis is associated with irreversible declines in cognition, given that long-term cannabis users perform poorly on tests of memory and attention." The study you cite literally states that the declines are not irreversible, and that in fact for the vast majority of marijauna users there will be no such decline, and that whether in even very heavy users these impairments are irreversible is not known: "The risk to most medical cannabis users is likely to be small, as long as they are not maintained at high doses for many years. For habitual users, the kinds of impairments observed in this study have the potential to impact academic achievements, occupational proficiency, interpersonal relationships, and daily functioning. The extent to which these cognitive impairments may recover following cessation or reduction of cannabis use will be addressed in a follow-up of this sample subsequent to treatment for cannabis dependence. "
3. "unlike opioids and other drugs, cannabis is not addictive—an obvious lie and a poor attempt to gain public support after years of disappointment and mistrust. Indeed, cannabis is not only addictive, but its very normalization will trigger a wave of addictive behavior." Nobody said that cannabis is not addictive, they said that it is not addictive *like opioids*. Opioids cause physical addiction, people literally die when they're denied opioid, no one has ever denied from being denied marijauna. You made a strawman and attacked it, congrats.
4. "In Colorado, where aggressive legalization took place, evidence shows that illegal activities have increased. " this is literally false: https://www.mpp.org/issues/legalization/marijuana-legalization-is-not-linked-with-increased-crime-rates. Marijauna legalization is *not* linked with increased crime rates of any kind. In fact, just the opposite: "In a more recent paper using regression analysis, a University of Washington researcher wrote, “Results indicate that the legalization of marijuana, both recreational and medical, does not increase violent crime rates. In contrast, marijuana legalization could lead to a decline in violent crime such as homicide, robbery and aggravated assault.”[4]" (see link above).
5. The article completely ignores all the benefits of marijauna legalization, such as increased tax revenue and reduced burden on law enforcement, as well as the extremely racist past of marijauna enforcement and all the ways in which that affects minorities in this country. The assertion that the pro-cannabis campaign's goal is to create a "stoner nation" is overly simplistic and dismissive of the complex motivations behind the push for legalization.
I am not much of a cannabis fan, but I have to admit that I don't really "get it", or see the form behind the argument, besides a reflexive conservatism. Is cannabis so different from other recreational yet potentially harmful substances that it deserves special treatment? Or am I missing something about the aim of the piece?