Marijuana research
 

The Case Against Cannabis
A journalist’s pursuit of the truth about marijuana, mental illness and violence.
By The Marshall Project

Alex Berenson is probably best known as the author of the John Wells espionage thrillers, 11 of them so far, but until 2010 he was a reporter, including for 11 years at The New York Times, where his assignments ranged from the pharmaceutical industry to Hurricane Katrina.

He did two reporting tours in Iraq. That battleground may seem relatively tame compared to the response when his new book goes on sale.

“Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence” is an intensively researched and passionate dissent from the now prevailing view that marijuana is relatively harmless. The book is a “bullhorn” (his word) for scientists and physicians whose research has, he argues, been drowned out by the triumphal cheers of the marijuana lobby.

He exchanged emails with TMP’s Bill Keller.

The Marshall Project: Alex, you’re really swimming against the tide. Both public opinion and the law have moved dramatically in favor of marijuana, and you’re arguing that pot is connected to psychosis and violent crime. Before we get to your evidence, what drew you to this subject?

Alex Berenson: My wife Jacqueline is a forensic psychiatrist. She evaluates the criminally mentally ill. She told me that nearly all her patients had used marijuana heavily, many at the times of their crimes. At first I didn't really believe her—stupidly—but she encouraged me to evaluate the evidence myself. And the more I read, the more I realized she was right. Marijuana drives a surprising amount of psychosis, and psychosis—besides being a terrible burden for sufferers and their families—is a shockingly high risk for violent crime.

TMP: Last I checked, 33 states and the District of Columbia had legalized marijuana specifically for medicinal purposes. Doctors are apparently prescribing pot for pain, Parkinson’s, PTSD, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and most recently some forms of autism. Pot has been held out as an answer to the opioid crisis—pain relief without the risk of a lethal overdose. Are you saying all these politicians and doctors are deluded?

AB: This question fundamentally misunderstands medical marijuana. The confusion is not surprising, as the cannabis advocacy community has done everything possible to confuse the way medical legalization works in practice. Marijuana is not "prescribed" for anything. It can't be, because the FDA has never approved it to treat any disease, and there is little evidence that smoked cannabis or THC extracts help any of the diseases you mention, except pain. Physicians "authorize" its use, usually after very short visits by patients who have come to them specifically to receive an authorization card. By far the most common conditions for which medical marijuana is authorized are pain and self-reported psychiatric conditions such as anxiety and insomnia, not diseases such as Parkinson's.

After receiving an authorization card, "patients" can then buy as much marijuana as they like for a year for any reason they choose. Nearly all were recreational users before they became "patients." And there is no difference between medical and recreational marijuana. They are the same drug. Further, the vast majority of physicians will not write authorizations, at least according to the states that keep track of physician authorizations. A tiny number of doctors—so-called "pot doctors"—write nearly all of them.

In other words, in nearly all cases, medical legalization is simply a backdoor way to protect recreational users from arrest. This has been a terrible mistake, mainly because it has further confused the public about marijuana's relative risks and benefits.

TMP: Your other—perhaps more contentious—conclusion is that marijuana may contribute to increases in violent crime. As you know, establishing causal links between crime rates and, well, anything, is extremely tricky. What convinced you that pot is a culprit?

AB: Psychosis is a known factor for violent crime. People with schizophrenia commit violent crime at rates far higher than healthy people - their homicide rates are about 20 times as high. Worse, they commit most of that crime while they are under the influence. Since cannabis causes paranoia—not even advocates dispute that fact—and psychosis, it is not surprising that it would drive violent crime. And in fact there are a number of good studies showing that users have significantly higher violence rates than non-users. Further, in researching the book, I found many, many cases where the causation appeared clear. In some cases it was as simple and obvious as, this person—with no history of violence—smoked, became psychotic, and committed a homicide.

TMP: You write that you don’t believe people should go to prison for using marijuana. How should the law deal with pot? Should it be regulated? Should it carry a warning label?

AB: We need to spend a lot of money warning people—especially young people—about these risks. We've successfully driven down tobacco use. We can do the same with marijuana use. I don't favor full legalization because that creates an industry with a financial interest in low taxes and increasing use. Decriminalization is a reasonable compromise.

TMP: In your Times op-ed, you suggest that the ominous scholarly findings have been ignored thanks to legalization advocates and the private cannabis industry. Is it just that they made a more convincing argument, that they were louder, or is something else going on?

AB: Linking legalization to medical use was a brilliant decision. No one wants to deny terminal cancer patients or people with AIDS a medicine that might help them. They were also supported by a lot of people in the elite media who became convinced by the social and racial justice arguments and didn't do the work necessary to understand the science and health risks.

TMP: You refer to the social and racial justice arguments. You agree that there are real racial disparities in the treatment of drugs, including marijuana? How do they figure in the larger debate about legalization?

AB: I do. But legalizing marijuana will not solve those disparities—they are related to much broader criminal justice and social issues. In fact, not so long ago, many black and Hispanic leaders strongly opposed legalization, because they saw the way Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol targeted poor and minority communities. And support for legalization is still lower among African-Americans and Hispanics than whites.

TMP: You chose as the title of your book “Tell Your Children”—which was the original title of “Reefer Madness,” the comically alarmist 1930’s anti-marijuana propaganda film. Why?

AB: I expected I would face serious backlash for this book and instead of running from it I decided to lean in. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a journalist, not an advocate—I'm just the messenger for a bunch of scientists and physicians who are too busy researching and helping patients to waste time on talk shows—but I knew how the book would be received.

TMP: Malcolm Gladwell, a pretty good guide to the zeitgeist, calls your book a "worst-case scenario," but seems to agree with you that benign view of pot has been greatly oversold. He says the best-case scenario is that we muddle through, adapting to marijuana as we have to the "once extraordinarily lethal innovation of the automobile." Your thoughts?

AB: I really liked Gladwell's piece. I don't think I'm presenting a "worst-case scenario," though—I am trying to discuss harms that have largely gone unnoticed for far too long. And I think that comparing the legalization of a powerful intoxicant to the invention of the automobile is a stretch at best.

TMP: Forgive the obvious question, but have you smoked/vaped/consumed the drug in question?

AB: To me, that's not so much obvious as irrelevant. But yes, I have used it a handful of times in my life, in college and thereafter. This was mostly in the 1990s, when cannabis was much weaker. To be honest, knowing what I know now, I don't think I would be comfortable using the current high-THC versions.

A case of confusing correlation with causation.....Quotes are from Wikipedia.

"A group of 100 scholars and clinicians (including academics from Columbia University, Harvard Medical School, and New York University, and care providers including addiction medicine doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers) published an open letter criticizing Berenson's claim of a scientific link between cannabis use and violence.[3][6]: 1 [4]In particular, they describe his book as highly problematic because Berenson infers causation from correlation, cherry-picks data that fits his narrative, falls victim to selection bias via use of anecdotes to back up his assertions, and attributes the disproportionate rates of arrest of African-American youth[5]: 1  to the alleged violence caused by their cannabis use, despite individuals of all races using cannabis at approximately equal rates.[3]: 1 [12][6]"

"Carl Hart, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Columbia University and Charles Ksir, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Wyoming, wrote an opinion piece in The Guardian which stated: "As scientists with a combined 70-plus years of drug education and research on psychoactive substances, we find Berenson's assertions to be misinformed and reckless.", and that Berenson confuses causation with correlation (association) when claiming that marijuana use causes increased psychosis, while ignoring that the same correlation also exists for psychosis and use of tobacco, stimulants, and opioids.[2]: 1 They conclude with: "Back in the 1930s, when there were virtually no scientific data on marijuana, ignorant and racist officials publicized exaggerated anecdotal accounts of its harms and were believed. Almost 90 years and hundreds of studies later, there is no excuse for these exaggerations or the inappropriate conclusions drawn by Berenson. Neither account has any place in serious discussions of science or public policy – which means Berenson doesn't, either."[2]"

Florida Amendment 3 Marijuana Legalization POLL
 

How will you vote on Florida Amendment 3 Marijuana Legalization

I will vote in person at Rohan. I will probably take advantage of early voting. I don't remember exactly how to mark the ballot so I will have to listen to the instructions when I arrive.

Being a neighbor to Colorado when marijuana was legalized, one aspect sold to voters was that it would increase funding for education. Sadly, emergency room visits increased, including children who got into parents "gummies" that looked like candy. Vehicular accidents increased as well. Our family who lived there had to stop going to sports bars since they cannot have substances in their systems for work. (You don't want your pilot high on second hand mj). Users abused the priviledge and smoked in public places, not just their homes...afterall....who were they hurting was their mantra. I watch the TV ads and think of the added problems that they never mention since it's all about passing this law. Sad to present only one side of an issue. Bad for people.

Moved from CO to get away from marijuana legalization. Ruined CO. It will ruin Florida. Medical marijuana was a "gateway drug" to eventually get recreational marijuana into states. It is the game the marijuana industry has followed in every state.
Maybe once all the states have legal marijuana the issues will not be as big of an impact with the crap that follows the legalization of marijuana.

Funny, we want to ban smoking, but yet we promote marijuana. Oxymoron in my opinion. Yes, you can eat marijuana, but most of the time it is smoked.....so why do we want to ban smoking tobacco if we are legalizing marijuana?

Of course, it is about the money. Something is only legal if you can tax it properly. Just ask Al Capone.

I urge a person to watch the movie "Up in smoke" with Cheech and Chong before you decide how to vote. Lol

Mail in ballot.

No. And no next year, and next decade. But, one pot head can nullify my vote.:loco:

I did a search to see what effects on downtown Denver legalization had amd found nothing bad.

Can you post support for your claims?

This is why PA does not allow gummies. If governments say putting a cartoon camel camel on cigarettes is marketing to children, that same logic says a gummy is designed for kids. Heck JUUL was snacked down for having tasty flavors in it's nicotine vapes.

I enjoy them, but gummies really are an irresistible piece of candy to kids. Parents need to keep them locked away.

She is a bad psychiatrist since she wrongly believes that correlation is causation.

It has been proven that people with mental issues find relief with pot, yet she thinks the pot caused the problem they found relief from.

The science is anything but clear on this issue and anyone who says otherwise should be completely ignored.

About time Florida enters the 21st century. It needs the revenue to upgrade infrastructure, schools, roads, etc. people can’t smoke it in public and only smoke in their homes. They do it now but now it will be regulated and the state financially benefit. Bravo!

Vote no. Check out how much the death rate has gone up in the states that voted to legalize weed. Colorado and Oregon especially are thinking of trying to reverse it somehow. If you want to loose a love one, vote yes! Don't ruin Florida!

Easy question here. Do you know why kids and young adults are so screwed up today?

Answer. Because their parents smoked dope and used drugs when the fetus was in the womb.

Oh no, that's not true. That's not the reason.
Guess again, idiot.

NO
 

If you are 21 or over, you can do anything to yourself you like............BUT, legal substances trickle down to children. It's bad enough they are wacked out on video games, now they can take the next step with marijuana. No one here did any underage drinking?????? Yeah it was really hard to get booze.........BUT, forget about the kids, it brings in more money so it is good............So you really want your kids to grow up like Jim on Taxi or Robert Kennedy Jr. It's okay because it brings in money...........it's Okay because it brings in money..it's okay because it brings in money............remember you said that:throwtomatoes:

You should worry more about booze and cigarettes since those 2 are in the top 5 most addictive drugs. You know what isn’t on that list? Yep… lets all look at Canada and how it’s been federally legal there since 2018 and then let’s compare, I don’t know, addiction rates in Canada vs US and crime rates in Canada vs us. It’s not the legality of marijuana, that’s the problem I guarantee. Also, kids want what they can’t have i.e. cigarettes, booze, pills from your medicine cabinet, guns…. Because they’re curious and that’s nature.

Please provide link to research that indicates death rate up as a direct result of legalization.

There was an increase in the use of toilet paper also in these states. I guess that increased the death rate also. LOL

Again, confusing correlation with causation. If people don't understand statistics, they should avoid making claims like this.

Top 10 addictions:
 

Top 10 Addictions - What Are The Most Common Addictions?

1. Nicotine
2. Alcohol
3. Marijuana
4. Opiods
5. Cocaine
6. Inhalants
7. Methamphetamine
8. Heroin
9. Benzodiazepine
10. Barbituarates

Has anybody followed the money trail for all those ads on TV? Who is paying millions to produce and air those commercials? What is their role in getting this passed?

This was already posted and moved to current events and news where there is a lengthy discussion.

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...zation-350812/

I believe Trulieve has a large part.

"Selling or possessing with the intent to sell, more than 500-2000 grams of marijuana is a felony, punishable by a minimum jail term of three years and a maximum sentence of seven years, and a maximum fine of $100,000." Interesting list above! If marijuana isn't addictive and we save money on sales, as well as the cost of incarceration, it seems to make sense to legalize the use.

Not the 60s/70s
 

The pot that's out there now isn't the 1-4% stuff of our youth. This stuff is upwards of 50% THC and has been PROVEN to causes psychosis and other SERIOUS health issues. If they limited the THC to the olds days, I'd say okay... not much different than drinking too much. The high THC levels are dangerous. Not Your Grandmother’s Marijuana: Rising THC Concentrations in Cannabis Can Pose Devastating Health Risks < Yale School of Medicine

Consider yourself nullified.

Stands to reason that people who want this stuff just for the high, will find that they need less of it, to get the same high that they got 30 years ago from it. Saves them money, even given inflationary pricing.

People who need it medicinally, will be instructed by their physician on the appropriate dosage. The amount of THC concentrated in medical-grade cannabis and cannabis products ranges roughly between 10% and 30%.

In the 1980's-1990's, the concentration of illegal pot ranged between 2-5%. However, some folks were able to grow their own under controlled conditions and bump that up to around 10%. There was no "medical grade" cannabis, because it was (and is still) illegal to use it for medical purposes under federal law. And state laws hadn't started approving it for state use.

Education is important with regards to ANY mind-altering substance, from alcohol to tobacco (yes, it is a mind-altering substance), caffeine, opiates, cannabis, benzos, etc. etc. MOST mind-altering substances are legal in the USA, though many are controlled and regulated by the FDA. Some, such as caffeinated coffee and tea, are not controlled at all, and aren't even considered supplements.

Someone who hasn't ever used cannabis, who is getting it for the first time, needs to know how much to try. For instance - a brand new user should probably -not- pop a whole gummy into their mouth their first time ever. Maybe take a tiny nibble off the end of one. And wait up to 3 hours before trying another nibble. It can take that long for it to even do anything but once it hits you, you know.

On the other hand, inhaling the smoke from a tiny piece of a sticky bud will likely affect you immediately after you exhale the smoke, or possibly while you're holding the smoke in. So you start out small, until you find your comfort level.

This is true for ANY substance that your doctor hasn't instructed you on the exact dosage, or isn't printed on the back of the bottle (like aspirin).

As for kids getting their hands on it - well that's a parent problem, not a drug problem. Parents need to keep this stuff out of reach of the kids. If that means locking it up, then that's what it means. If it means the top shelf in the medicine cabinet, then that's what it means. Kids shouldn't be grabbing gummies of any kind, whether drug-laced or legitimate candy. That stuff will rot their teeth.

Alex Berenson was also criticized by the medical establishment and much of the press for his warnings that the Covid MRNA vacines were ineffective and had major side effects, up to and including death. Now, a couple years later, he has generally been proven correct. As the references to researchers quoted by Wikipedia state, it is true that correlation doesn't prove causation. However, it also doesn't disprove causation. I wouldn't immediately discount what Berenson states--he's generally been right on with his reporting. Many former Coloradoans have talked about what they have directly seen there, after legalization, yet the TOTV response has been "where are the reports?" The reports "are" the direct observations by these people. If you want some data, here's a report: The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact - PMC

Probably close to 100% of pot smokers will vote YES. Most people that don't care either way but want the tax revenue for the state will vote YES. I have a feeling it will likely pass.

If you can only remember what day to vote and have enough energy to do it:shrug:

Do you want the squares smelling of pot? We lived in Denver for over 30 years. We were one of the first states that legalized marijuana and we couldn’t wait to get out based on what it became. It is not your college day drug. It is rank and strong. We had medical marijuana before but that didn’t have the impact likely because it was still a stigma to smoke in public and not easy to get for those who came for the legal version. Denver grew substantially with 21 years old - 30 all there for the dispensaries. Many also into other drugs, it was the beginning of the city smelling like skunk all of the time. Few cared about work and instead hung around corners looking for handouts.

You can’t get out of your car near most shops without the stench. It is legal to smoke it on your porch next to the elementary schools with the kids walking by and it’s much harder to explain to your high school student why it’s not something you should do when it’s legal. Everyone can try it now and many more do. It is simple to get. College kids were at parties eating dispensary sold cookies, by the way a small piece of it is a full pot serving, eating more than they should and walking off of rooftops at parties in downtown and on campuses. Do you see Wildwood and Leesburg being different sort of folk?

That age group seems to have enough to deal with these days. Imagine your spring break crowd with easily available dope? It draws them here! Denver had folks fly in for $500 a pop to get high in limos and drive around for pot tasting at the dispensaries.

Before you vote envision your next day at the beach sitting in fumes, or at the squares listening to music with the smoke wafting over you. The non-dopers soon stop coming and welcome to Denver, at those venues they are all that’s left. Once it starts you will not enjoy those places again.

Good post.

People don't like an occasional cigar smell, wait for this.

Although I don’t smoke it (I don’t enjoy the paranoia I get from the high), I love the smell. Unlike the smell of tobacco, ganja has a very pleasant odor. Hell, I would consider burning ganja incense if it was available.

I hate the paranoia also but they do have no paranoia strands which if was legal would be easier to obtain.

Secretly. Thanks for asking.

You know how it's illegal to drink alcohol while you're driving? And how it's illegal to drink alcohol on a city sidewalk? And how it's illegal to drink alcohol in a public park, or in a school? What about pot makes anyone think that these exact same laws for alcohol consumption, can't be applied to smoking cannabis?

"No smoking or vaping of the sticky buds is allowed in public, at all, ever, period. And never when you're driving, because that's just stupid." There. Nice easy-to-follow regulation. Problem solved.

As for back yards and neighbors - my opinion regarding cigars stands. When they outlaw THAT - we can have a discussion about anything else.

All we need is more druggies driving on road ways

How true

Revenue drops after a few years
 

Tax revenue drops eventually. Colorado and Washington have seen it this past year. Black market cannabis sells for less and citizens aren’t always buying their pot officially from the state. Don’t get me wrong, I think it should be legal, but tax revenue isn’t the reason.

Unless they include growing your own I vote NO.

Just another way to create tax revenue off our backs.

Hell NO.