Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Photo courtesy of here.

Thanks to Hemprock, we can hear audio files from last year’s meeting where the anti-marijuana law was implemented for one year.  (This week, the law is up for renewal.) Check this link, and scroll down, to hear statements by each member of council.  Of particular interest are the comments made by Leslie Ghiz and Cecil Thomas—both of whom said they would repeal the law if statistics did not substantiate its effectiveness.  It is time to hold them accountable to their word.

As outlined in this analysis by Paul Green, chair of the Hamilton County Libertarian Party, crime has actually increased this past year.  Was the increase linked, somehow, with the anti-marijuana law? 

Perhaps the answer can be found in Denver.  In 2005, voters in Denver took the opposite path of Cincinnati politicians, decriminalizing the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana.  The result?  The Denver crime rate has decreased.

It can prove burdensome, however, to prove direct causality between these actions.  Bobby Henderson (founder of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) has a famous chart demonstrating an inverse statistical relationship between the decrease in the pirate population worldwide, and the increase in global warming—calling for more pirates to combat planetary climate change.  While silly, Henderson’s example satirizes the trouble with statistics of this sort.

If Ghiz’s December statements are any indication, she will cite the number of guns confiscated in the past year as rationale for extending the ordinance. 

So here’s a prediction—expect City Council to say things like this:  “If the law takes just one gun off the streets, then it is working.” Such rhetoric is designed to awaken fear of gun violence and not rational thought.  The statement presupposes that more crime would have occurred had these guns not been confiscated.  However, from a logical standpoint, it is impossible to know what would have happened if something other than history had transpired.

Additionally, the number of guns doesn’t really tell us much.  How many of the guns, for example, needed to be returned because the owner had them properly licensed?  And further, how have these confiscations affected the illegal gun market in Cincinnati?  If every gun taken was illegal and planned for a deadly crime, what is to stop the criminal from simply acquiring another illegal gun?  We could easily conclude that the ordinance has increased the criminal element in the City by widening the market demand for illegal firearms. 

Playing games with numbers is easy, which is probably why Ghiz and Thomas said they would base their decision this year on statistics.

Thank you for reading (and printing from) The Cincinnati Beacon.