Readers Write: Legal marijuana, guaranteed income, self-segregation in schools
Legal weed, a bad idea? How?
•••
In his commentary “Maybe legalizing weed wasn’t such a great idea” (Aug. 15), Tyler Cowen, an economics professor, completely fails to provide evidentiary support for his position.
By searching for an economic justification for legalization, Cowen ignores society’s desire to stop criminalizing people for consuming a drug that is arguably safer than alcohol. Indeed, an April 2020 report of the Minnesota American Civil Liberties Union found that — despite comparable usage rates — Black Minnesotans were 5.4 times more likely than white Minnesotans to be arrested for marijuana possession.
Despite this, Cowen argues legalization is a failed policy because:
- Pot is more potent today than before. So what? If you’re feeling uncomfortable, consume less. Consumers successfully manage alcohol dosage despite the existence of beer (often 5% ABV or so) and Fireball Cinnamon Whisky (33% ABV). Why should cannabis be any different?
- In states with legal marijuana, self-reported usage rose by 28%. Is this a surprise? Isn’t it possible that respondents previously failed to report that they were consuming an illegal drug? Isn’t it also unsurprising that usage would increase after cannabis was legalized? In any event, any policy that moves people away from alcohol and toward cannabis serves the interest of public health.
- Meanwhile, substance use disorders increased by 17%. What substances? Cannabis? Other substances? If this is the basis of your argument, Cowen, you should explain yourself. Keep in mind, moreover, that no one has ever died of a cannabis overdose. Also note a recent Canadian study of 23,000 medical cannabis patients that found only 26 patients were hospitalized for exhibiting cannabis disorders. I’ll do the math for you: That is 0.1%. At that percentage, your time would be better spent focusing on the dangers of cough syrup than cannabis.
- Chronic homelessness went up by 35%. Oh, really? The sun came up each day, too. Do you attribute that to increased cannabis use? Unless you have data linking a rise in homelessness to cannabis, I’ll assume you have none.
- Arrests increased by 13%. Hooray! I presume that law enforcement — now unburdened from criminalizing cannabis users — now has more resources to focus on real crime.
Data linking cannabis to these results does not exist. Stop pretending that it does.
Jason Tarasek, Minneapolis
The writer is a cannabis attorney with Vicente LLP and former Minnesota Political Director for the Marijuana Policy Project.
•••
A recent commentary stated that cannabis is not good for everyone. It cited an increase in substance use disorders, but failed to mention overwhelming evidence that the use of cannabis significantly increases the risk of developing schizophrenia. Why is no one talking about this?
Experts estimate that up to one-third of psychosis disorders might be prevented if heavy cannabis use were stopped.
Minnesota’s 2023 statute legalizing recreational cannabis is silent on this connection. Our lawmakers did put many good things in our law, and decriminalization is long overdue. Minnesota does a better job than most states in treating and supporting people with schizophrenia, but the bar is low. Our jails, prisons and streets are also replete with people with untreated (or poorly treated) disease.
It grieves me that even more people will be plagued with schizophrenia simply because they don’t know the true risk of cannabis. And taxpayers will have to pay for this. Our statute provides for state taxes on cannabis to treat addiction, but did they account for the hefty public costs that will come with more people with schizophrenia?
While most people who use cannabis will not develop psychosis, it is ill-informed or dishonest not to acknowledge the elevated risk. We owe it to our young people to shout this danger from the rooftops.
Mindy Greiling, Roseville
The writer is a former member of the Minnesota House.
•••
Cowen opines, “Measures of GDP and GDP per capita are usually good metrics for human well-being — but not always.”
In fact, GDP is never a proper measure of human well-being, as Simon Kuznets, originator of the concept, explained: “The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income.” Natural disasters are a big boost to GDP; ask tornado survivors about additions to their well-being.
Then Cowen confesses, “I don’t feel good about a social practice that lowers effective IQ.” A search of the actual paper returns zero results for “IQ” or “effective IQ.”
The Fed study does include this disclaimer: “[O]ur analysis does not provide a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of recreational marijuana legalization – such an analysis would need to investigate a much larger set of potential benefits and social costs that are presently unobservable or unmeasurable ... .”
To pretend to assess impacts from such incomplete data is a fool’s errand. Please spare your readers from this kind of junk economics.
William Beyer, St. Louis Park
GUARANTEED INCOME
Study ignored a key variable: COVID
Tuesday’s editorial reprinted from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “They chose door No. 2,″ claimed that a new report should convince us that basic income makes people less likely to work because they reduced their work hours. A closer examination is not so conclusive.
A National Bureau of Economic Research paper looked at the employment effects of a guaranteed income study that may be “the largest unconditional cash transfer program evaluated by a randomized controlled trial” in the U.S., according to the researchers.
There’s just one hitch. The study took place during the pandemic. The three years of monthly payments ran from 2020 into 2023. As we know, many people lost their jobs then. Only essential workers were obligated to show up for work, and then they struggled to find day care and risked getting COVID and dying. Keeping themselves and their families safe was the primary goal during this period. Since low-income families were hardest hit by COVID-19, how were they impacted by the pandemic? How were they impacted by the extra income? Perhaps the monthly payments gave them the income stability to cut back on risky work to protect their families.
The research paper never discusses COVID-19. Health considerations were not included in the study at all. The reality of that period is not even acknowledged. Therefore, even though the research included randomized and controlled samples, we really can’t learn much at all from it.
Susan Dailey, Duluth
EDUCATION
Self-segregation is more complex than that
As a classroom teacher for 15 years and a school administrator for more than 20 years, I must remark that Evan Ramstad missed the most important factor parents exercise in choosing a school: the safety of their child (”Choosing to self-segregate in schools,” Aug. 11).
People often say a child can’t learn if they are hungry. It should also be recognized that a child can’t learn if they are afraid. I’ve met with parents, grandparents, aunties, guardians and social services staffers to ensure that a child attends school. Many young people have chosen to be truant rather than go to school because they don’t feel accepted, valued or even acknowledged in the school settings they were experiencing. (University researchers have found that each student who graduates, rather than drops out, produces on average a $600,000 bonus in terms of wages earned, taxes paid and lower rates of lawbreaking.)
Ramstad also did not mention Minnesota’s Postsecondary Enrollment Options program. A former Minnesota Senate staff member found that this program saves Minnesota taxpayers about $15 million per year, and Minnesota families more than $59 million. This is important information for Star Tribune readers to have.
Bryan Rossi, Golden Valley
