←back to thread

662 points JacobHenner | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
ddp26 ◴[] No.40215858[source]
I did some AI-assisted research on this, and have come to the following tentative conclusions:

1. The re-scheduling will happen (90%), the administrative hurdles will be cleared. Only counterexample I could find was Kratom in 2016, which was the reverse of this situation, and the DEA dropped the proposal at the public comment stage.

2. Trump will not reverse it if elected (80%). He's been pro-states-rights on cannabis (or outright legalization) going all the way back 1990, and has criticized Biden on this.

3. Unlikely many US states that outlaw it will change, but I do predict (75%) at least one major European country will follow suit within a year, given Germany beat US to the punch

4. Effects in the US will be minor, outside of weed stores using the banking system as another comment pointed out, since most enforcement is state level.

5. But if there are changes, the best evidence we have on this comes from state legalization, where the effects are estimated to be huge (+3% state income, +17% substance use disorders).

replies(1): >>40216202 #
ceejayoz ◴[] No.40216202[source]
And what did the AI cite as sources for these conclusions?
replies(1): >>40216669 #
ddp26 ◴[] No.40216669[source]
These conclusions are mine, based on research the AI did. None of these probabilities were directly output, it simply found lots of news articles, made simple models, researched what people have said & done historically.
replies(1): >>40246611 #
1. jjulius ◴[] No.40246611[source]
>... it simply found lots of news articles, made simple models, researched what people have said & done historically.

Those are the sources OP is asking about. In point of fact, it would help if AI could provide the sources it used to determine it's response, that way users can verify it's accuracy.