Kevin Sabet is co-founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-marijuana lobbying group that provides one-sided information in their quest to keep marijuana unavailable.  However, the method he uses  to make his case is unscientific manipulation of evidence, spread in a morally bankrupt way to further his own talking points.  He cherry-picks data and ignores actual scientific evidence in order to confuse and try (desperately) to prove that marijuana is so dangerous that adults cannot use it safely.

I plan to use this page to point out all the ways in which Kevin Sabet gets it so wrong, and you may decide if this behavior is just sheer ignorance or a purposeful attempt to delude people into his erroneous way of thinking.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Only some opinions count!

SAM has an FAQ that supposedly explains their opposition to marijuana legalization. Truthfully, the thing is so full of factual errors and misleading statements that it will take a while to list all of the problems! However, while I'm working, I decided to share some obvious issues that can illustrate the overall dubious way SAM operates.


Ok, so public opinion should not be considered in policy. Oh, but you only say that because public opinion is against your view? Let's see how (in the VERY NEXT question) SAM can exhibit their loose and fast adherence to any standard such as this...


Well played! So, SAM has an obligation to speak out for those against it, because, will of the people, man!

Nice try, Kevin. Maybe get a consistent compass before you start debating with yourself. 

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Lunchtime Poll!



Here is another excellent example of Kevin rejecting actual data that is counter to his argument.  That's no problem for Kev; he can just make up his own data!

So first, let's review the actual numbers.  Polls of Canadians show a majority actually support legalized marijuana.  A poll of Canadians from earlier this year show that 63% are in favor of legalization of marijuana.  That seems way off from the 95% opposing that Kevin seems to think he has "discovered."  So why the difference?

Survey design is a science that is intended to decrease bias.  One way that surveys can be biased is with leading questions.  I wonder if Kevin would ever dream of asking someone a leading question??  Also, the population of the survey must reflect the general population.  There may be some self selection of a population that is talking to an white, male, anti-marijuana lobbyist.  I somehow doubt that his sample population was free of selection bias and represented the diversity in racial, ethnic, gender, age, income, etc., groups that would be needed to actually make any claims.

Overall, this tweet has the scientific veracity of a Heathers lunchtime poll.  But in Kevin's world, when the data is against you, just make up your own facts!

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Kevin, you need the refresher




Here is a perfect example of cherry-picking data to try to prove a point.  Here is Kevin, citing an observational study for PTSD.  First, the study has its limitations, such as only including veterans (96.7% of whom were male).  The researchers also excluded anyone with alcohol use of more than 2 drinks per sitting or any other drug use in the past 30 days.  These criteria excluded nearly three quarters of potential participants, showing that these exclusions lead to a cohort that do not match a real world population and allows limited extrapolation of findings to a general population.  As is the case with most observational studies of marijuana, it is difficult to control for the exposure dose, as it relies on patient self report of use.  The study did find an association between marijuana use and alcohol use.  Given that alcohol is clearly associated with violent behavior, it would be nearly impossible to attribute any increases to marijuana itself without a controlling for this additional alcohol use. The researchers acknowledge this themselves in the paper, saying, "Our finding that those who started using marijuana in the months after completing treatment had higher overall rates of violent behavior could be partially explained by the fact that starters also had higher rates of of alcohol use at follow-up (which is associated with violence.)"  But that sort of nuance is always beyond Kevin.

However, this is only one of a few, fairly low-quality studies on the subject.  When taken as a whole, the evidence shows some possible trend to worsening symptoms, but due to other confounders and study limitations, conclusions cannot yet be drawn.  Here is how the National Academy of Sciences reported the entirety of evidence on the subject in their 2017 report "The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research":

"Of the relevant studies reviewed, cannabis use appears to be associated with more severe symptoms, but limited sample sizes were an issue in certain studies; that issue, combined with the lack of adjustment for baseline symptom severity and other drug use and the examination of specialized patient populations, limits the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn. Overall, there is limited evidence for an association between cannabis use and increased PTSD symptom severity. The direction of the association is difficult to address, however. It has been argued that PTSD is a risk factor for cannabis use, and cannabis-using patients with PTSD often cite symptom-coping motives for cannabis use, which suggests that more severe PTSD may be driving patients to increase cannabis use in an effort to self-medicate. In contrast, one study () found overall improvements in several symptom domains after 4 months of abstinence from cannabis, suggesting that cannabis use may be causally related to more severe PTSD symptoms." 

Yet another more recent review from The Annals of Internal Medicine from September 2017 by O'Neil, et. al, also concluded that from all available evidence "Evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis preparations in patients with PTSD."

Still, here is Kevin Sabet, citing one study and making blanket claims about the findings, all while snarkily implying that anyone who may not share his myopic view needs his teaching. He will accept any data that supports his own views and summarily dismiss anything counter to his narrative.

Catch Up:

David Bearman, MD:  Project SAM Is Pushing The Lie That Cannabis Kills Vets (2017)

Sunil Aggarwal, MD:
I’m A Doctor and I Went To College with Kevin Sabet; He’s Still Up To No Good (2016)
5 Biggest Lies from Anti-Pot Propagandist Kevin Sabet: It is time to bust the myths Sabet has been perpetuating. (2013)


Etc.,
Leading Opponent of Marijuana Legalization Suggests Pot Contributed to Michael Brown’s Death
We Need to Talk About Kevin Sabet
Pot Propagandists ‘Smart Approaches to Marijuana’ are Trying to Spin Legalization as Anti-Black
Kevin Sabet Pushes More Reefer Madness With Ignorant Tweet
Anti-Cannabis Group Violated CA Campaign Finance Laws, Commission Finds
How One Pro-Pot Activist Punked an Anti-Pot Crusader by Stealing His Gummy Bears

Only some opinions count!

SAM has an  FAQ  that supposedly explains their opposition to marijuana legalization. Truthfully, the thing is so full of factual errors and...