Fallacy about entities with no volition and consciousness such as objects, conditions or concepts being the cause of anything?

Consider the statements:

Poverty causes crime.
Drugs cause addiction.
Wealth causes jealousy.
Fatty food causes obesity.
Money causes greed.

Not a fallacy. There is no requirement of consciousness / volition to be a cause. Lightning can cause a tree to catch on fire... Zeus not needed :)

I agree w/ Dr. Bennett. Inanimate objects and social forces can be causes. Many of these statements are truncated and might be more clearly expressed, i.e., "High poverty rates cause high crime rates."

But you are asking a metaphysical question, not a logical question.

I'm struggling with the selected definiens for Poverty, Drugs,
Wealth, Fatty food, and Money as "entities", and even though you aptly describe them
as objects, conditions or concepts without volition and consciousness, I'm wondering
if they still qualify as entities?

According to Merriam- Webster the definition for Entity is:
1a: BEING, EXISTENCE
especially: independent, separate, or self-contained existence
b: the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes
2: something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality

However conceptual or abstract, are any of these conditions self-contained, separate or independent of a
myriad of other contributing social factors? Doesn't the use of the word 'entity' therefore itself suggest agency
or at least some sort of Oversimplified Cause Fallacy?

Here's Dr. Bo's description:

Oversimplified Cause Fallacy
Description: When a contributing factor is assumed to be the cause, or when a complex array of causal factors is reduced to a single cause. It is a form of simplistic thinking that implies something is either a cause, or it is not. It overlooks the important fact that, especially when referring to human behavior, causes are very complex and multi-dimensional.

Logical Form:

X is a contributing factor to Y.
X and Y are present.
Therefore, to remove Y, remove X.

Example #1:

P1. Lead poisoning can contribute to violent behavior.

P2. Many inner-city children have dangerous levels of lead in their blood.
C. Therefore, violent crime in the inner city can be solved by curing the lead problem.

Explanation: We already established that lead poisoning can contribute to violent behavior (note the probabilistic language). This means that there is some unspecified chance. We are taking an unreasonable leap in suggesting that violent crime can be solved (binary language) by curing the lead problem. And, in case you missed it, there is question begging here in assuming that violent behavior leads to violent crime.