I’ve been looking at the literature on psychoactive substances, and it’s interesting that there’s little correlation between the harms and the government response. Alcohol causes all sorts of problems, short and long term, in a subset of users, and it’s sold by government under a specific set of regulations, presumably to mitigate the harms, although not very successfully. Tobacco is harmful, as we all know, but remains legal, with the government regulating price through taxation and supply through regulations, again not very successfully, given the ready availability of illegal smokes. Cannabis is also harmful (and can be quite addictive), but was legalized, and the government would love to turn it into a profit centre, like alcohol, but they can’t compete with the “private sector”. At the other end we have opioids, which are useful for things like acute pain, as well as for recreational drug use, but again some users get into trouble. We’ve gone from “prohibition” to “decriminalization” to “safer supply” and “opioid agonist therapy”, the latter two of which are costing us a lot of money, all in the name of harm reduction, although the extent to which they reduce harms is up for debate. In between, of course, are all sorts of things taken for recreational purposes, all with varying harms and benefits, all subject to differing government regulation.
Bottom line is that addictive and harmful psychoactive drugs can fall anywhere on a spectrum from government supplied to government regulated to more or less unregulated. Makes no sense!
David, I offer both an answer and a cynical interpretation - all in one - to your concluding question of, "But I am wondering why politicians find it so difficult to wait for even minimal scientific evidence before driving the country over the cliff?"
The answer has to do with the dopamine high that the politicians of a particular party received when they received adulation and sufficient votes to form government in 2015. Put differently, who the hell worries about consequences when you can get elected for a policy popular (particularly) with young people legal to vote for the first time and who will vote FOR the policy, whether it is wise policy or otherwise?
I do not apologize for my cynicism as I believe it to be entirely appropriate in the particular circumstances.
Ken, your reference to politicians' dopamine high is a very interesting point and I think could be extended to other things such as:
- other bad policy ideas beyond the legalization of marijuana, and
- beyond politicians, the reason that so many people jump on dubious bandwagons that are nonetheless popular thus resulting in support and affirmation...and dopamine.
Growth in the popularity of food delivery services (UberEATS, etc.) in Canada tracks almost exactly with increased cannabis usage. Just sayin'...
Might our collective growing fondness for the jazz cabbage be part of our national productivity problem? Stoners aren't exactly known for their work ethic.
Commercial cannabis entrepreneurs and their weed activist friends did a nice collab vis a vis selling straight folks on the idea that weed was harmless.
Pity the Trudeau government did not opt for the middle way of decriminalization over legalization. Decriminalization would have spared police resources, and reduced the burden on the court system and the lives of people convicted of possession or minor trafficking. But it would have stopped short of actively encouraging the use of a substance --just to be cool--that causes problems for at least some users as your article makes clear. Thanks for sharing it.
Maybe the cannabis use and the psychosis and the other deaths of despair are all caused by the same factor, rather than one being causal to another. What causes the despair, or at minimum indifference to life, that precedes the substance abuse?
Endorsement of Marijuana implicit in "legalization" can be added to the long list of negative consequences of a culture of increased outsourcing of adult and personal responsibilities to the Nanny state. At least "legalization" relies on "free will" as opposed to the more mandated use of a certain experimental "vaccine" the adverse effects of which are continuously emerging from the fog of authoritarian deceit. The joke line (famous lie) of: "we're from the government and we're hear to help you" is well beyond funny and now just another sad truth.
John - some stats for you. Most of the conspiracy theories about covid vaccines don't stand up to statistical analysis. See this and note that serious reactions to covid vaccines occur in less than one one hundredth of one percent (0.011 of one percent) and most of those were treatable. The risk of serious outcomes from covid is far greater than the risk of the vaccine, like all vaccines. We are fortunate to live in an era when vaccines are available - history is clear on the horrors people experienced prior to the development of vaccines.
"Statistically, official data from major health organizations consistently show that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death significantly outweigh the risks of rare, mostly mild side effects. Serious adverse events are extremely rare.
Overall Safety Statistics
Health authorities, including the CDC, FDA, and Health Canada, have continuously monitored the safety of the vaccines through robust surveillance systems.
Total Adverse Events: As of early 2024, in Canada, there were 58,712 reports of adverse events following the administration of over 105 million doses, a reporting rate of about 0.056%.
Serious Adverse Events: Of those reports, serious events (e.g., those requiring hospitalization) were reported at a rate of approximately 0.011% of all doses administered.
All-Cause Mortality: Large-scale, long-term studies, such as one involving over 28 million adults in France, found no increase in all-cause mortality linked to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination; in fact, vaccinated individuals had a 25% lower risk of death from all causes over four years, primarily due to protection from severe COVID-19.
Common Side Effects
Most side effects are mild to moderate, typically occur within 1 to 3 days of vaccination, and resolve within a few days.
Common Local Reactions: Pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site.
Common Systemic Reactions: Fatigue, headache, muscle or joint pain, fever/chills, and nausea.
Rare, Serious Adverse Events
Specific, rare serious adverse events have been identified and are closely monitored. The absolute risk of these events is very low, and they are generally outweighed by the risks associated with actual COVID-19 infection.
Myocarditis and Pericarditis: Cases of heart inflammation have rarely been observed, primarily in adolescent and young adult males, usually within a week after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna). The risk of these conditions following vaccination is lower than the risk of cardiac complications after contracting COVID-19 itself.
Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST): An increased risk of GBS and CVST was associated with the first dose of some viral vector vaccines, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine, leading to changes in recommendations for their use in certain age groups in some countries.
Anaphylaxis: A severe allergic reaction has been reported at a rate of approximately one case per 100,000 doses administered. Healthcare providers monitor individuals for a short period after vaccination to provide immediate treatment if needed.
Conclusion
Statistical evidence from global surveillance and large-scale studies shows that the COVID-19 vaccines have a strong safety profile and are a critical tool in preventing severe health outcomes and death from the disease. "
I’ve been looking at the literature on psychoactive substances, and it’s interesting that there’s little correlation between the harms and the government response. Alcohol causes all sorts of problems, short and long term, in a subset of users, and it’s sold by government under a specific set of regulations, presumably to mitigate the harms, although not very successfully. Tobacco is harmful, as we all know, but remains legal, with the government regulating price through taxation and supply through regulations, again not very successfully, given the ready availability of illegal smokes. Cannabis is also harmful (and can be quite addictive), but was legalized, and the government would love to turn it into a profit centre, like alcohol, but they can’t compete with the “private sector”. At the other end we have opioids, which are useful for things like acute pain, as well as for recreational drug use, but again some users get into trouble. We’ve gone from “prohibition” to “decriminalization” to “safer supply” and “opioid agonist therapy”, the latter two of which are costing us a lot of money, all in the name of harm reduction, although the extent to which they reduce harms is up for debate. In between, of course, are all sorts of things taken for recreational purposes, all with varying harms and benefits, all subject to differing government regulation.
Bottom line is that addictive and harmful psychoactive drugs can fall anywhere on a spectrum from government supplied to government regulated to more or less unregulated. Makes no sense!
David, I offer both an answer and a cynical interpretation - all in one - to your concluding question of, "But I am wondering why politicians find it so difficult to wait for even minimal scientific evidence before driving the country over the cliff?"
The answer has to do with the dopamine high that the politicians of a particular party received when they received adulation and sufficient votes to form government in 2015. Put differently, who the hell worries about consequences when you can get elected for a policy popular (particularly) with young people legal to vote for the first time and who will vote FOR the policy, whether it is wise policy or otherwise?
I do not apologize for my cynicism as I believe it to be entirely appropriate in the particular circumstances.
Ken, your reference to politicians' dopamine high is a very interesting point and I think could be extended to other things such as:
- other bad policy ideas beyond the legalization of marijuana, and
- beyond politicians, the reason that so many people jump on dubious bandwagons that are nonetheless popular thus resulting in support and affirmation...and dopamine.
Growth in the popularity of food delivery services (UberEATS, etc.) in Canada tracks almost exactly with increased cannabis usage. Just sayin'...
Might our collective growing fondness for the jazz cabbage be part of our national productivity problem? Stoners aren't exactly known for their work ethic.
Commercial cannabis entrepreneurs and their weed activist friends did a nice collab vis a vis selling straight folks on the idea that weed was harmless.
About 35% of the six figure earners I know use cannabis at least weekly. I’d agree that cannabis can be abused as can anything.
Excellent commentary. Intuitively it was obvious this was a bad idea before it even started. Fuck.
Pity the Trudeau government did not opt for the middle way of decriminalization over legalization. Decriminalization would have spared police resources, and reduced the burden on the court system and the lives of people convicted of possession or minor trafficking. But it would have stopped short of actively encouraging the use of a substance --just to be cool--that causes problems for at least some users as your article makes clear. Thanks for sharing it.
Maybe the cannabis use and the psychosis and the other deaths of despair are all caused by the same factor, rather than one being causal to another. What causes the despair, or at minimum indifference to life, that precedes the substance abuse?
Endorsement of Marijuana implicit in "legalization" can be added to the long list of negative consequences of a culture of increased outsourcing of adult and personal responsibilities to the Nanny state. At least "legalization" relies on "free will" as opposed to the more mandated use of a certain experimental "vaccine" the adverse effects of which are continuously emerging from the fog of authoritarian deceit. The joke line (famous lie) of: "we're from the government and we're hear to help you" is well beyond funny and now just another sad truth.
John - some stats for you. Most of the conspiracy theories about covid vaccines don't stand up to statistical analysis. See this and note that serious reactions to covid vaccines occur in less than one one hundredth of one percent (0.011 of one percent) and most of those were treatable. The risk of serious outcomes from covid is far greater than the risk of the vaccine, like all vaccines. We are fortunate to live in an era when vaccines are available - history is clear on the horrors people experienced prior to the development of vaccines.
"Statistically, official data from major health organizations consistently show that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death significantly outweigh the risks of rare, mostly mild side effects. Serious adverse events are extremely rare.
Overall Safety Statistics
Health authorities, including the CDC, FDA, and Health Canada, have continuously monitored the safety of the vaccines through robust surveillance systems.
Total Adverse Events: As of early 2024, in Canada, there were 58,712 reports of adverse events following the administration of over 105 million doses, a reporting rate of about 0.056%.
Serious Adverse Events: Of those reports, serious events (e.g., those requiring hospitalization) were reported at a rate of approximately 0.011% of all doses administered.
All-Cause Mortality: Large-scale, long-term studies, such as one involving over 28 million adults in France, found no increase in all-cause mortality linked to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination; in fact, vaccinated individuals had a 25% lower risk of death from all causes over four years, primarily due to protection from severe COVID-19.
Common Side Effects
Most side effects are mild to moderate, typically occur within 1 to 3 days of vaccination, and resolve within a few days.
Common Local Reactions: Pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site.
Common Systemic Reactions: Fatigue, headache, muscle or joint pain, fever/chills, and nausea.
Rare, Serious Adverse Events
Specific, rare serious adverse events have been identified and are closely monitored. The absolute risk of these events is very low, and they are generally outweighed by the risks associated with actual COVID-19 infection.
Myocarditis and Pericarditis: Cases of heart inflammation have rarely been observed, primarily in adolescent and young adult males, usually within a week after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna). The risk of these conditions following vaccination is lower than the risk of cardiac complications after contracting COVID-19 itself.
Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST): An increased risk of GBS and CVST was associated with the first dose of some viral vector vaccines, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine, leading to changes in recommendations for their use in certain age groups in some countries.
Anaphylaxis: A severe allergic reaction has been reported at a rate of approximately one case per 100,000 doses administered. Healthcare providers monitor individuals for a short period after vaccination to provide immediate treatment if needed.
Conclusion
Statistical evidence from global surveillance and large-scale studies shows that the COVID-19 vaccines have a strong safety profile and are a critical tool in preventing severe health outcomes and death from the disease. "