Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Michael Bloomberg's unintelligible cannabis policy
Hotblack Desiato 26 Feb 20 11:03
Reply |

Bloomberg is one of only two Democratic presidential candidates not in favour of full federal legalisation. Instead, he proposes that it should merely be decriminalised at the federal level, but that the US cannot go any further by legalising medical or recreational sales at the federal level because of concerns over effects on the minds of the young saying "They haven't done enough research and the evidence so far is worrisome. Until we know the science it is not sensible to  push ahead"

There are just so many things wrong with this, which calls into question Bloomberg's competence to run anything, let alone a country:

1. If you are concerned about keeping cannabis away from children, then on an a priori basis you should be in favour of legalising sales to get rid of the black market. Any other approach leaves production and sales in the hands of by definition criminals, who have got comparatively nothing to lose by selling to 15 and 16 year olds as opposed to 18 year olds. Whereas licenced retailers have everything to lose (i.e. their licence and their livelihood) by selling to 15 and 16 year olds as opposed to 18 year olds.

2. If you are concerned about keep cannabis away from children, then on an empirical basis you should be in favour of legalising sales, as the limited evidence to date from legal sale jurisdictions show a decrease in adolescent cannabis use because of the decline in the black market, and also (I would hypothesise) because when sales are legal and predictable teenagers can decide to delay starting cannabis consumption, whereas in a black market, you never know whether what is on offer today, will be on offer tomorrow, making it harder to rationally justify choosing to postpone consumption.

3. And this is probably the killer: you can never do a proper "scientific" study on this particular subject anyway. The only way you could do a proper scientific study of the effect of cannabis consumption on developing minds is by doing at least two control group studies involving child test subjects - i.e. taking 13 year olds who do not currently consume cannabis and splitting them into a control group (who must never consume cannabis) and one or more groups who are required to use specific amounts of cannabis regularly and then subjecting them to a barrage of tests until they were 18. That is obviously morally reprehensible as it involves forcing children to consume mind altering drugs. Any other study which involves merely studying children's brains at 13 and at regular intervals thereafter until 18 and asking the study members about cannabis use would be pseudoscience because:

a. You could never establish causation in relation to any brainscan or cognitive functioning or psychological test results. Any of the group which self-reported using cannabis underage, particularly heavy cannabis could be suffering from mental health or emotional issues which they are trying to self-medicate with cannabis. In any event, your sample size would be exclusively composed of teenagers who had decided to get heavily into cannabis despite prohibition, i.e. by definitional abnormal or unusual  minds (and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense)

b. You would have no reliable dosage information when relying on teenagers' self-reporting.

c. You would have to exclude from your "heavy cannabis use" study group any teenagers who also used other legal or illegal drugs including alcohol in order to isolate the effects of those other drugs Given the extraordinary number of American children who are already prescribed psychoactive drugs by their doctors (e.g. Ritalin/Adderall for ADHD, SSRI's for depression, Xanax for anxiety) quite apart from the fact that teenagers who are heavy cannabis users (as opposed to infrequent cannabis users) under prohibition are also likely to be exposed to other drugs supplied by dealers, you simply are never going to find a reliable study group that enables you to isolate the effect of cannabis and only cannabis, on the developing teenage brain.

d. You would also have to adjust for things which are known to affect brain activity patterns and cognitive and psychological functioning, namely:

     (1) Diet (2) Socio-economic class (3) Parenting (including divorce) (4) Air pollution levels (5) Smartphone and Internet use (6) Computer gaming (7) Reading (8) Exercise (9) Bullying and abuse

So in short, what we can tell from this comment is that:

1. Michael Bloomberg does not understand how science works.

2. Michael Bloomberg is in favour of a policy, namely leaving retail sales of cannabis to adults in the hands of criminals in order to protect children, which makes no sense on its own terms.

3. Michael Bloomberg is in favour of a policy, namely leaving retail sales of cannabis to adults in the hands of criminals in order to protect children, which is contrary to the limited evidence available to date which shows an inverse relationship between legal adult use sales and child usage.

Even if you don't care one iota about cannabis legalisation, there are plenty of other aspects of geopolitics where America sets the tone, whether that is in terms of finance, trade, healthcare, the environment, education, technology, equality etc. If Bloomberg cannot formulate a sensible coherent or logical policy in relation to one issue, there is no reason to suppose that he would be able to do so in any other area.

Nonsense.  People do studies all the time using self-reporting to sort out groups or that are subject to unknowns, and obviously just qualify the results.  Pretending studies that are not absolutely 100% perfect in circumstances where that is not possible shouldn't be done is a pretty transparent (and dishonest) ploy to avoid the studies. And if you, as a active proponent of cannabis law reform, are so desperate to avoid such studies, that pretty much speaks volumes about why they should be done.

Leaving all that aside, your analysis ignoring the obvious fact that Bloomberg is clearly taking a political position on something controversial, and that this might be an additional (if not the critical) factor alongside the bare 'logic' of the decision when judging his reasoning powers, says volumes about your stupidity, not his.

And before you ask, I'm a supporter of decriminalisation.   

HD - whilst I do not doubt your commitment your posts on this are increasingly coming across as someone freebasing on speedballs rather than contemplating calmly after a few tokes.

"Nonsense.  People do studies all the time using self-reporting to sort out groups or that are subject to unknowns, and obviously just qualify the results."

Yes they do. And a lot of that is pseudoscience. Indeed, even a lot of double-blind clinical trial work is pseudoscience, because of the ways in which the data and the study can be manipulated in order to achieve desired results. Which is to say nothing of the fact that a single study proves nothing whatsoever - repeatability is the hallmark of empirical proof.

The point is that you will always find mentally ill people who smoke cannabis heavily, and if you want to imply some sort of causal connection (even if only tenuously) in order to advance a prohibitionist agenda, you could adjust your data accordingly (e.g. by for example deciding not to ask about other drug use. Or prescription drug use. Or parenting etc.)

Likewise you will always find mentally ill people who masturbate excessively, but as there are no vested political and financial interests, that wants to demonise masturbation, you are not going to be taken seriously publishing a study which suggests a causal connection (even if only tenuously) between masturbation and mental illness.

Whereas there are vested political and financial interests in perpetuating cannabis prohibition, so if you produce a biased bit of pseudoscience to suggest that it causes harm to developing adolescent brains it will likely get published in at least one journal.

 

Pretending studies that are not absolutely 100% perfect in circumstances where that is not possible shouldn't be done is a pretty transparent (and dishonest) ploy to avoid the studies. And if you, as a active proponent of cannabis law reform, are so desperate to avoid such studies, that pretty much speaks volumes about why they should be done.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think adolescents should consume cannabis, in the same way that they shouldn't drink alcohol, ride motorbikes, spend too much time on social media, get pregnant, get tattoos, smoke cigarettes, own firearms, be able to take out credit cards,  or be allowed to drive until they were 18.

The reason to push back on such studies are:

a. that it is now really the only argument that the prohibitionists have left, and it is not a good one, but it is one that people latch onto - we all love the "studies have shown..." trope and people's emotional reaction to anything involving child safety is always strong, but strong emotional reactions do not produce good policies.

b. For the reasons given above, you will always be able to produce a bogus study showing a correlation and inferring causation - but you will never be able to produce a study proving causation to the requisite standard.

Leaving all that aside, your analysis ignoring the obvious fact that Bloomberg is clearly taking a political position on something controversial, and that this might be an additional (if not the critical) factor alongside the bare 'logic' of the decision when judging his reasoning powers, says volumes about your stupidity, not his.

And before you ask, I'm a supporter of decriminalisation.   

A few points on this:

1. However controversial the issue, if your position is incoherent, it shouldn't be your position. If it is impossible to have a coherent position on a controversial issue then you should have the balls to back your own mind and powers of persuasion and say to people "You may find it difficult to accept, but this is what I believe to be right, and I will explain why".

2. A much more coherent position for him to adopt would be to legalise it at federal level but then say that it is open to individual states (and counties within States) to set their own policies (as is the case with alcohol, which is illegal in Utah, and various counties in the US). He then doesn't have to take a view as to whether it is good or bad, but merely to reflect given the existing state-level reform, continued federal prohibition is insane.

3. In the Democratic primary process, it is not a controversial issue as the overwhelming majority of Democrats support full legalization at the federal level, as do Buttigieg, Sanders, Warren, Steyer and Klobuchar.

4. The problem from Bloomberg is rather that it is very clear that his own personal view is that he is a prohibitionist (he described the legalisation of recreational marijuana as "the dumbest thing ever") that that hasn't really changed, and he is tying himself up in knots because of this - but that again disqualifies him from being President because he is (a) not receptive to argument or evidence to change his views (b) doesn't have the balls to admit he was wrong and (c) is prepared to dissimulate and mislead.

 

HD - whilst I do not doubt your commitment your posts on this are increasingly coming across as someone freebasing on speedballs rather than contemplating calmly after a few tokes.

BC: That is just how quickly my mind works when stone cold sober.

I wasn't accusing you of posting whilst freebasing on speedballs, just pointing out that's how most of your 'LIBERATE DOPE' posts are coming across.

+++++++ Peace and Love +++++++

Following on from the point about better positions available to Bloomberg on this issue, the American Bar Association has already done the hard work by passing a motion on 13 August 2019 calling on Congress to:

“enact legislation to exempt from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) any production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana carried out in compliance with state laws.”

That is a "ready to wear" policy position, endorsed by the ABA, that he could adopt which would extricate him far better from the conflict between his personal views and the trend of public opinion, and enables him to stay neutral on whether any given state should or should not legalize.

 

While OP's logic is irrefutable, I suspect Bloomberg is less interested in having a good policy position (or doing "the right thing") and more interested in having a sufficiently vague fudge that he can spin as he wishes depending on his audience and which will not put anyone off voting for him..

 I suspect Bloomberg is less interested in having a good policy position (or doing "the right thing") and more interested in having a sufficiently vague fudge that he can spin as he wishes depending on his audience and which will not put anyone off voting for him..

But he has completely miscalculated on this one which shows that he cannot even do political strategy. He is not going to win a majority of Democrats by adopting the same fudge position as Joe Biden.

If he somehow gets the Democratic nomination, and goes head to head with Trump, then he needs to hold all the Hillary states and win between three to four of the following states that Obama won in 2012:

Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin.

Hillary only lost Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio by a combined total of 82,500 votes and turnout was down, so it is more about getting out the Democrat base in those five states than persuading Trump voters to switch sides.

And here's the rub:

1. Michigan has already legalised marijuana through a ballot initiative at state level. Federal prohibition still makes life difficult for Michigan consumers or producers in various ways, because for example government and federally funded employers can still discriminate against cannabis users, and cannabis businesses cannot access most banking services. Trump shows no interest in any federal level reform, and periodically makes noises about seeking to overrule the states. Having a more pro-legalisation stance in Michigan, is only likely to GAIN Bloomberg votes rather than lose them.

2. Florida has wide popular support for legalisation, but Republican and corrupt state level officials continue to thwart attempts to achieve legalisation through a ballot initiative, by introducing an incredibly cumbersome verification procedure for a ballot initiative, which means that activists have decided to wait until 2022. Again, a more pro-legalisation stance in Florida is only like to GAIN Bloomberg votes because Florida voters want reform but are being frustrated by their legislature.

3. In Ohio, there is again wide popular support for reform but it has a high threshold of 440,000 signatures by 1 July 2020 for an initiative to make it onto the ballot, and while an attempt is being made to file the paperwork to start the collection process this week, it will require significant financial backing in order to collect the signatures, and it is not known whether such backing exists. Either way, however, the situation is broadly the same as in Florida and so legalisation at the federal level should be a net vote winner.

4. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin lack ballot initiative procedures, but again have wide popular support for reform (particularly Wisconsin). The lack of reform is due to the relative lethargy of state legislatures, and the ability for legislation to be effectively filibustered by opponents or killed off in committee (as happened this month in New Mexico). Again, therefore, a pro federal legalisation stance is likely to be a net vote winner in Wisconsin and PA.

So if he is just a weasel who will say anything to get elected, he is still a stupid weasel because he doesn't understand his path to victory, which is persuading circa 100,000 Democrats in four to five swing states who didn't bother to turn out for Hilary to turn out for him.

Christ on a bike that’s tedious.

And I am in support of regulation and taxation.

Seriously man, if weed is doing this to you may I suggest giving it a break and trying to read this stuff sober?

Join the discussion

Login Register