Why Kevin Sabet is Wrong About Everything Concerning Cannabis

Why Kevin Sabet is wrong about everything concerning cannabis

kevin sabet marijuana

If there are two assholes I hate to write about (but am forced to write about) it has to be Jeff Sessions and Kevin Sabet. Today we’re focusing on Mr. Sphincter Supreme Sabet who wrote an opinion piece for CNBC where he went on his reefer madness rant about the ills of legalized cannabis.

For those of you who don’t know who Sabet is, he’s the president of “Smart Approach to Marijuana” or SAM for short. They are deeply invested into rehabilitation clinics all over the US where a lot of their “clients” are cannabis users who were busted with pot and sentenced to mandatory rehab. So definitely he has economic incentives invested into the illegality of cannabis.

He starts off his opinion piece talking about the “promises of legalization” from the pro-pot people. “Curing cancer, fighting the opioid crises, eliminating drug cartels and environmental benefits” were all cited as the “promises” of pro-cannabis groups.

I could write an entire book on those points but for the sake of space and convenience I’ll summarize all the points and counter his points simultaneously. The reason I am forced to write about this dipshit is because he has a huge audience of ignorant people who cling onto his words like a moist dingle berry. He claims that “special interest groups” are pushing a false narrative to legalize cannabis for profit as opposed to all the civil rights violations, racial roots of prohibition and of course the decades worth of deceptive information the anti-cannabis movement has been spewing forth.

checklist for cannabis information

When Reginald Schooled Sabet

In the following part, I’m going to simply write out a summary of the points Sabet made and then I’ll make an effort to respond to them all using facts and logical reasoning.

Sabet: “Commercial market for marijuana not only harms public health and safety, it also places a significant strain on local economies and weakens the ability of the American workforce to compete in an increasingly global marketplace.”

Reginald: First of all, there is absolutely no evidence of a commercial cannabis market harming public health or safety. The only adverse effect of the cannabis market currently is that it’s a “cash-based system”, meaning there are piles of money sitting in buildings creating incentive for people to steal thus said cash. If we would have banking systems in place for the cannabis market, you’d greatly reduce the criminal incentive surrounding the cannabis market. Furthermore, dispensaries are not making people sick. No one has ever died from consuming cannabis alone and thus the claim that “public health” is effective is absolutely wrong. The claim that it places a ‘significant strain’ on local economies is also incorrect. The legal cannabis market creates tax revenue, increases tourism and has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs…If we were to embrace the cannabis industry fully, we’d see millions of new jobs created over the years and we’d be competing with the global market just fine.

Sabet: Drug use costs our economy hundreds of millions of dollars a year in public health and safety costs. The last comprehensive study to look at costs of drugs in society found that drug use cost taxpayers more than $193 billion – due to lost work productivity, health care costs, and higher crime.

Reginald: “Drug Use” costs us $193 billion. That’s not marijuana. It’s all drugs. This tactic is used quite often by prohibitionists who take general facts and apply it to a specific argument. If he’s so concerned about the Tax Payer, he should also look at the cost of Obesity to the tax payer which comes out to about $147 billion. Mental Illness costs the Tax payer $193.2 billion in lost earnings per year. The claim that there is “higher crime” associated with drug use is also bogus. Under a legalized system, crime actually drops. In Portugal petty crime dropped by 80% after they decriminalized all drugs. A lot of the “crime” he cites stems from prohibition itself.

Sabet: And now drug using employees - supported by special interest groups - are organizing to make drug use a "right" despite the negative impacts we know it will have on employers and the companies that hire them.

Reginald: Everyone has a right to use drugs. If he doesn’t think so, then every single company in the US would be allowed to fire people for drinking a beer at their homes. Yes, alcohol has a significant impact on job performance as well, yet we don’t hear him talking about these “legal drugs”. What about people hooked on legal pain killers? Does he want us to live in a puritan society where we abstain from all drug use? I’m not saying, “show up to your job high all the time”, I’m saying, what you do at home should have no impact on your job whatsoever.

Sabet: And what about that promised tax revenue? So far in Colorado, marijuana taxes have failed to shore up state budget shortfalls. The budget deficit there doubled in the last few years, despite claims that pot taxes could turn deficit into surplus.

Reginald: No one ever claimed it will “fix the deficit” but rather the claim was that it would “reduce costs associated with prohibition, incarceration while generating revenue that would have gone to the cartels.

Finally, a point he made on the “eradicating illegal drug cartels” I’d like to say…we have seen an effect happen already. The price of brick weed in Mexico dropped by more than 70% over the past few years and pot farms in Mexico are shutting down.

Kevin Sabet is someone grasping to the idea that “there is a single way people should behave” as opposed to seeing that every single person is different. Drugs don’t affect us all similarly. In fact, if you look at addiction rates all over the US…the only drug that is significantly on the rise is legal opioids being peddled at every pharmacy. So why not focus on that Mr. Sabet?