Marijuana

Pot Prohibitionists Invent Marijuana Deaths, Scientifically

|

Center for Accountability in Science

In a Washington Post commentary published on Monday, Joseph Perrone claims "a handful of deaths in Denver were tied to edible marijuana use this year." That's true, if by "handful" you mean two and if by "tied" you mean attributed by pot prohibitionists.

Perrone is referring to Levy Thamba Pongi, a visiting 19-year-old college student who jumped off a Denver hotel balcony after eating a pot cookie on March 11, and Kristine Kirk, whose husband allegedly murdered her on April 14 after eating cannabis candy. Perrone thus exaggerates the number of deaths and blames them on marijuana through post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. This in an essay about  "the junk 'science' behind the marijuana legalization movement," written by the chief science officer at an organization called the Center for Accountability in Science. I guess if you say "science" enough, you needn't worry about being scientific.

Serenity Lane

The day after Perrone's essay appeared, Ron Schwerzler, an opponent of Oregon's legalization initiative, claimed at a debate that "there have been five infant children deaths in Colorado that have picked up those drugs," referring to marijuana edibles. The actual number, as Schwerzler was forced to admit the following day, is zero. "I really need to retract that statement because I can't back it up," he said. Like Perrone, Schwerzler is a man of science: director of medical services at an addiction treatment center in Eugene.

[Thanks to Judith Posch for the Oregonian link.]

NEXT: Ready for Cops to Check You for Explosives, Chicago CTA Riders?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I really need to retract that statement because I can’t back it up,” he said

    Why? Just follow the example of dear leader and lie with impunity and without shame.

    1. Don’t encourage them.

  2. You think these folks would be such squares if they lit up a couple times?

    1. Yes, here is what their thoughts would be like:

      ‘Wow, that was really good! Other people could enjoy this, I need to find a way to stop that!’

      1. Pleasure is to be enjoyed at it most feeble limits. Right where Clover’s feel the most control which is why most of them either don’t drink, smoke, have wild sex, or drink low-calorie lagers.

        1. … That’s like my whole weekend!

          Except the low-calorie lagers. Sick.

          1. Either/or

    2. Yes. Yes I do. It’s what they are.

      1. I just have to think their lives aren’t very much fun. Not that “having fun” should be the primary concern, but enjoying your life should be pretty damn important.

        1. Their enjoyment comes from preventing others’ enjoyment. It’s pretty disgusting, but it’s true.

          “Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

          1. You know, I have a hard time relating to most people, anyway; this is just insane to me.

            1. Oh, I hear you; it’s completely alien to me as well. My mother is something of a sadist and a believer in suffering being good for your character/being/whatever so I should have some insight into it, and it’s still completely alien to me.

              1. A lot of people are into sadism. Masochism, not so much.

                1. Hey, some of us like a little pain with our pleasure.

                  Let’s not be excludin’ people; that’d be rude.

            2. Think of them as perverts whose kink is denying other people pleasure.

          2. Mencken. Best quote ever on ur-lid-jun…

  3. Thank you for this article and for the shoutout!!! I appreciate your articles on this so much.

  4. I guess if you say “science” enough, you needn’t worry about being scientific.

    Gee, wonder what else this applies to. Glo… Globe… Global something.

    1. Global Ebola Epidemic?

      One World Global Government?

      Hitler around the Globe?

      1. Your guesses are better than mine

      2. Hitler around the Globe?

        This was my favorite ice skating show of all time.

        1. That’s a relief, I thought that might have been some kinky sex you have to pay really big bucks for.

  5. Perrone is referring to Levy Thamba Pongi, a visiting 19-year-old college student who jumped off a Denver hotel balcony after eating a pot cookie on March 11

    And yet we’re still stuck with Maureen Dowd.

  6. “there have been five infant children deaths in Colorado that have picked up those drugs,”

    Wow, these people are as mendacious as the gun control industry. A completely unregulated, multi-billion dollar industry, I’d like to add.

  7. You can’t let the truth muddy the narrative.

    1. We have to protect the childins. If the rights of everyone have to be violated, if it saves even one chillun, don’t we have to do it?

  8. , Schwerzler is a man of science: director of medical services at an addiction treatment center in Eugene

    Also an asshole and a liar.

    1. I’n not convinced about the man of science part

      /worked at an intake center

    2. Nah, he’s a just a clever businessman… addiction is a billion-dollar business.

  9. Ban it all!

    For SCIENCE!

      1. +1 people who are still alive

  10. director of medical services at an addiction treatment center in Eugene

    You would think somebody like this would be FOR decriminalization as that would make addicts more willing to come forward and seek help… guess I’m wrong.

    1. I suspect his place gets quite a few marijuana “addicts” referred to him by the criminal “justice” system.

      1. Or what P Brooks says downthread…

    2. Hey, back off. I’m a scientist, man!

  11. “Schwerzler is a man of science: director of medical services at an addiction treatment center ”

    That’s a bold assumption considering the facts there.

    1. The man of science likes his dollars… and will vomit a fountain of lies daily to maintain his stream of addiction bucks.

  12. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..-election/

    Holy shit the Washington Post has now admitted the Democrats have stolen elections.

    1. “…with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise”

      And no fucking where does it say ‘illegal’ in that statement of loving franchise and since when does any country on earth allow illegal people to vote?

      Be compassionate. Provide help. Provide sustenance. Provide a way back home. Care for the vulnerable… I’m progressive I guess in this sense… BUT VOTE?!!

      No. Earn your right to vote in my country. You don’t waltz across the border and vote in our elections.

      1. I love how they admit that Franken won and we have Obamacare thanks to illegal voters. Oh well I guess.

        1. Christ, what an awful vector.

    2. Yeah, but it’s ok, cause first black potus. Any attempt to stop this would be racism.

  13. when I was 19,2 of my friends and I went on a all night ‘fishing trip’.One guy’s dad had a van with a bed and 4 captains chairs and a fridge.We smoked pot,drank beer and listened to the Cars,Heart,Rush ect all night parked near this old farm pond.We are still alive!One of the best days ever

    1. Wait. What? Are you hammered or stoned you fucking tale-bearer? You can’t even fucking type you teller of stories.

      1. Just the thought of that night get’s me high.Yeah,just finished painting the house today.On my fourth Sam Adams,going for the sweep.

        1. I’ve heart’d u. Be safe. Fly high, mysterious traveler.

  14. You would think somebody like this would be FOR decriminalization as that would make addicts more willing to come forward and seek help… guess I’m wrong.

    Why wait for patients to voluntarily come to you when you can have them brought by the police, at gunpoint?

  15. There’s a weird disconnect that people have. Physicians aren’t scientists. Scientists are scientists. Calling him a “man of science” is like calling me a “man of medicine” just because I have a doctorate in chemistry. I’ve tried the, “It’s OK, honey, you can show them to me, I’m a doctor” line many times and it generally doesn’t work.

    1. You’re only a scientist if you agree that the earth is warming catastrophically, that humans are the cause, and that the only solution is to give politicians who agree with this scenario more power and increase taxes by a gazillion percent. Oh, and anyone who doesn’t agree with this is a science denier and heretic and must be burned like a witch at the stake.

      That’s science. Any more questions?

      1. When I get together with my scientist friends at the scientist bars, we have a good giggle about that sort of stupid politicization.

        1. I’m not a scientist… well I do have a degree in computer science if that counts. But I work with a lot of them. I don’t discuss politics with them too much, but when I do, I say exactly what I think, no PC bullshit. I’m sure that most of them do not agree with me, but it’s not like a give a shit.

          1. Yeah I have a degree in political science which is about as much as a science as my morning pooper.

            1. That. Is. An. Expensive fucking shit, old boy.

  16. When you pay a “scientist” to find a certain result, he’s likely to find it. Gabriel Nahas (an anesthesiologist) suffocated monkeys in gas masks filled with pot smoke (the eqivalent of 800 joints in one hour) and found brain damage. Some of the monkeys died before the “experiment” was finished.

    1. An anesthesiologist is not a scientist.

      1. Well, Old Man, tell that to the chick pushing an 8 lb. tub of lard out of her vagina… I’ve been there (as you likely have) and, well, an anesthesiologist is actually GOD for a few minutes which I think rates higher than a lowly fucking scientist of a lifetime.

        I’m an atheist so don’t try and beat me with all that anti-god dick. Just sayin’, broseph.

        1. I wouldn’t want a scientist to control my pain during an operation. He’d be likely to start experimenting.

          1. The Old Man is likely expressing Freudian beliefs Reasonoids… He is exhibiting a strong penchant toward being bound and anally explored, disciples…

            I think the Old Man is pretty cool but I’m not finding any disciples that for science would like to stick their gloved hand deep into the asshole of the Old Man… Some kid said snakes live there…

        2. And unfortunately, I can’t bill like an anesthesiologist.

          1. You’re confusing credentials with occupation. Just because you have a piece of paper doesn’t make you a scientist, and just because you don’t have one doesn’t mean you can’t be a scientist.

            1. In theory, true. But having a piece of paper with “MD” on it isn’t even a scientific credential, much less carrying the knowledge and experience to do science. At least with a science PhD, you’ve demonstrated that you CAN do science. An MD does no such thing.

              Some years ago, I was dating a physician. We went to a party thrown by one of her friends- I think I was the only non-physician there. For whatever social reason, she would introduce me as “Dr. Famie.” Inevitably I was asked my specialty. When I replied, “Chemical physics,” the response was universally, “Oh, so you’re not an actual doctor.” I would smile and say, “You’re right, unlike you, I had to actually do something original for my degree.”

              I think we broke up shortly thereafter.

  17. So now I’m waiting for the militant vegans to start posting bullshit about how many people commit murder after eating a cheeseburger.

    -jcr

  18. If there were any justice in the world, perrone and schwerzler would both be boiled in oil. Lucky for them, there isn’t.

  19. How many tobacco smokers died after Dr. Perrone published his “study” in 1963 that “proved” there was no link between cigarettes and cancer? How many Dr. Perrone? Certainly the actuaries working for the cigarette companies could say, yes?

    1. I think you have the wrong Dr Perrone, that doc was 54 in 1961.

  20. Without lies and propaganda, Prohibitionists would be mute.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.