(Banned)May 21, 2023·edited May 21, 2023
User was indefinitely suspended for this comment. Show
Expand full comment

It's not in a table. You have to analyze the underlying survey data. I've explained this now three times. It's not that complicated.

Expand full comment

Courtesy of American Addiction Centers (check about their financing options!) here are the criteria for Marijuana Use Disorder:

"In order to be diagnosed with a cannabis use disorder, a person must manifest at least two of the 11 symptoms that the DSM-5 sets forth, and they must occur in the same 12-month period. The number of symptoms determines whether a person is diagnosed with a mild, moderate, or severe cannabis use disorder. For people concerned about their own marijuana use, or for those concerned about someone else’s use, these 11 criteria can be thought of signs to watch for. The 11 criteria, paraphrased, are as follows:

1 Loss of control: using more marijuana or using it for a longer period of time than intended

2 Social impairments: not engaging in important work, social, hobbies, or recreational activities because of marijuana use

3 Inability to stop: having the desire to quit or to reduce the amount of marijuana used but not being able to do it

4 Ignoring risks: ongoing use of marijuana despite dangers that arise around it

5 Cravings: Experiencing an urge to use marijuana when not using it

6 Frustration of existing issues: ongoing use even though marijuana use is worsening an existing physical or psychological problem

7 Troubles in main spheres of life: due to the marijuana use, not being able to perform to one’s familiar standard at home, work, or school

8 Tolerance building: over time, needing more marijuana in order to get the desired, familiar effect

9 Disregarding problems caused by use: despite the negative impact that the marijuana use is having on relationships, continuing to use the drug

10 Withdrawal: when not taking the familiar amount of marijuana or when stopping use completely, the emergence of withdrawal symptoms

11 Disproportionate focus: dedicating too much time and too many resources to marijuana use


(Isn't it possible that in the case of an illegal drug, a "yes" answer to criteria #2, #4, and #9 can be just as easily attributed to the pariah status officially conferred on the users by the most powerful institutions in society?)

Those are pretty much the same 11 criteria as the APA uses in the DSM-5 for any "substance use disorder", which is a phrase now used interchangeably with "addiction"- a term that used to mean something, before it got applied to any behavior that people might find so enjoyable that it becomes a habit with a downside.


From another site, VeryWellMind: https://www.verywellmind.com/dsm-5-criteria-for-substance-use-disorders-21926

" Severity of Substance Use Disorders

The DSM-5-TR allows clinicians to specify how severe or how much of a problem the substance use disorder is, depending on how many symptoms are identified.

Mild: Two or three symptoms indicate a mild substance use disorder.5

Moderate: Four or five symptoms indicate a moderate substance use disorder.

Severe: Six or more symptoms indicate a severe substance use disorder.

Clinicians can also add “in early remission,” “in sustained remission,” “on maintenance therapy” for certain substances, and “in a controlled environment.” These further describe the current state of the substance use disorder..."

"...The DSM-5-TR recognizes substance-related disorders resulting from the use of 10 separate classes of drugs:2








Hypnotics, or anxiolytics

Stimulants (including amphetamine-type substances, cocaine, and other stimulants)


While some major groupings of psychoactive substances are specifically identified, the use of other or unknown substances can also form the basis of a substance-related or addictive disorder..."

Expand full comment

The "source" link for the single table that you keep falling back on for reference support to justify a Federal move to re-criminalize marijuana in every state in the Union is Some Dude On Twitter. https://twitter.com/KeithNHumphreys/status/1536002121023164416

Dude doesn't provide his source for the table, either.

The chart has the hallmarks of the reports put out by SAMHSA, such as the newly ordained (2021) National Survey On Drug Use and Mental Health (yet another one of those bureaucratic reshuffles that makes indexing and statistical comparisons with earlier annual reports more difficult to search, reference, and cross--index.)

In 20 minutes of searching, I still haven't come up with that particular table. The newly acronym'ed NSDUH format is not making it easy- it seems to have a couple of extra levels before getting to the data findings, as compared with what I recall form earlier SAMHSA and ONDCP reports.


But I should have your legwork done for you by tomorrow, hopefully.

It's as if you don't want to link to actual primary source material that might provide a wider and more comprehensive context for the one table that you've extracted. I should be able to supply some of those statistics and charts within a day or so, too.

Expand full comment

it's from Jon Caulkin's presentation, below. Keith just tweeted the original slide.


Expand full comment

oh, for crying out loud- you rickroll me to a Youtube presentation?

I don't waste my time on Youtube guided meditations. Youtube is where I go to tune into music clips.

Primary source, please. Text.

Expand full comment

Jon is a drug policy scholar at CMU. The presentation is part of an academic colloquium on the marijuana market. He did the analysis from the NSDUH and its predecessor household survey, which is obvious if a) you watch the video for 15 minutes or b) are at all familiar with the underlying data. I don't know what you mean by "primary source," unless you want me to point you to the underlying data, in which case, it's not hard to find the NSDUH public microdata. But for most other definitions, "an academic's analysis of public use data" is a fairly reliable source of information. Have a nice day.

Expand full comment

It isn't a primary source.

I don't have 15 minutes to watch a video. I can read 10 pages of text in that amount of time, scanning for "wait- say that again" lines. I don't need to sit through someone else's interpretation of data when I can review the original data for myself. In its full and appropriate context, which can in turn be compared with other primary source data.

I use text for my references- they're authoritative. Unlike screenshots, they can be easily copied and pasted, and the full context can be instantly recalled with a URL.

Expand full comment

can you just quickly define "primary source"

Expand full comment


"Primary sources provide raw information and first-hand evidence. Examples include interview transcripts, statistical data, and works of art. Primary research gives you direct access to the subject of your research.

Secondary sources provide second-hand information and commentary from other researchers. Examples include journal articles, reviews, and academic books. Thus, secondary research describes, interprets, or synthesizes primary sources.

Primary sources are more credible as evidence, but good research uses both primary and secondary sources..."


That's one site of many, but the sources are agreed on the definition. There's even a Wiki page! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

Pro tip: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22primary+source%22&t=newext&atb=v336-1&ia=web

Found the answer in under 60 seconds. That's how I use the Internet for research. Not fumbling around in the Twitter sandbox.

I could have supplied the definition myself- some of us learned it in school- but I wanted outside support.

Expand full comment

"One is that Sullum does not both to actually estimate the effects of marijuana arrests on employment, housing, and education."

having some trouble with the syntax here

Okay, got it- ""One is that Sullum does not bothER to actually estimate the effects of marijuana arrests on employment, housing, and education."

< this must be like that wordle thing

Expand full comment

Another important "Libertarian" argument is that there are already too many unenforceable laws on the books which the police/politicians can selectively enforce for reasons other than the stated socially beneficial purpose. Like police targeting women for pot to extort sex. Get a cop drunk and ask him about it if you don't believe it. Marijuana use didn't thwart the career of Barack Obama, he didn't let it interfere with his choices and he was pretty successful. But others limited their choices because they worried about persecution. They won't apply for a job because there might be a drug-test. My grandfather went broke during Prohibition because he complied with the law and switched over his Chicago brewery from beer to malted milk, while Busch went to Canada and continued to brew beer. Except for his devotion to obedience to the law, I might have been born into a wealthy family. So, now the girls "vape" their pot so the cops can't smell the smoke...Prohibition is not the answer. What happened when they threatened to prohibit "assault weapons" and "Hi-cap mags"? Thousands of "assault weapons" (with hi-cap mags and billions of rounds of ammo) are out in circulation now that wouldn't have been had they never done it. It turned a previously sleepy market into a "must-have" feeding frenzy amongst people who have absolutely no use for the product- or even know how to use the product. They had to gear up production to meet the increased demand. You can't change anything without it affecting everything. As with lotteries, taxing marijuana gets to be one more regressive tax on a long menu which bleed the poor/ignorant and spare the rich. But people claim regulation benefits the poor! It's all smoke and mirrors.

Expand full comment

"people claim regulation benefits the poor! It's all smoke and mirrors."

I'll put regulated legalization up against the "regulations" of arrest, convictions, random workplace drug tests, denial of student loans and scholarships, coerced rehabiliation based only on a possession plea, etc., any day.

That's the status quo you're arguing for.

Expand full comment

The two arguments for MJ legalization I think are most persuasive are 1)that keeping it illegal did not mean it was unavailable, 2)and scarce tax dollars were being expended to prosecute & incarcerate offenders. In states with constitutional limits on spending, spending on MJ enforcement meant less money for everything else (k-12 Ed, higher Ed, incarceration of violent offenders, etc.) If the data show that legalization substantially increased it availability to underage users, that would be a point against legalization.

Expand full comment

"keeping it illegal did not mean it was unavailable"

To understate the case! A million impromptu illicit retail franchises were founded on that particular 2nd order impact of marijuana prohibition. And that was as far back as the 1970s. A sizeable number of them went on to diversify their product lines.

Expand full comment