In the Weeds of Misinformation
Dissecting the Fallacious Remark by Green Thumb's CEO
As though the absence of blue chip companies couldn’t be due to factors such as market dynamics, industry-specific challenges, regulatory issues? Nope, it’s because they’re “all about the consumer.” Get real.
Ultimately I want what’s best for our community and statements like the Tweet above are below my tolerance threshold and standards. I think many of us share similar guiding principles and core values. The ones I have in mind are intellectual honesty, integrity and truth in reasoning. This Tweet fell short of those. Let me explain how and why it matters.
The cannabis industry has enough bad publicity.
We don’t need to make it worse by having C-suite executives making erroneous statements. (you’ll see a more egregious example later on). Let alone the bumbling idiots who are cannabis advocates and enthusiasts you can’t not make emotionally provocative statements that are light on the facts and often outright wrong on the facts. Cannabis deserves better. With friends like this, who need enemies. How do people reconcile their contradiction of being a cannabis advocate and then providing easily refutable statements that debase the cause and strips the merit away from them? Inflicting inadvertent self harm and embarrassing counter-productive sabotage isn’t an effective strategy. Let's not say things that are easily refutable and exploitable which ultimately gets used against us. Ok?
His comment does not directly address or provide a relevant explanation for the absence of blue chip companies in the industry. He could have said that the industry was still in its infancy stage and hasn’t seen enough time elapsed for any companies to establish a blue chip status. But that’s not what he said. Because he was more interested in hijacking the conversation than he was interested in having a conversation about the topic at hand. Why use truth when fiction is more flattering? But what he did do was attribute the lack of blue chip companies to being “all about the consumer.” WTF, go gaslight someone else.
What we have here is a false premise and that’s assuming good faith. He wanted to dodge addressing the blue chip status comment while using Jim Cramer as a launch pad to frameshift the focus on the consumer and then hit his talking points and push a narrative with the purpose of gaining attention. But he couldn’t maintain a logical argument doing that. So therefore he was more than willing to compromise his intellectual honesty. Doing what he did required a non sequitur in the form of a false premise that was grounded in a false correlation to allow him to transition the conversation onto different issues that were still relevant and tangentially associated. Bravo! It’s quite an art form.
He also accidentally alluded to how investors often subsidize the end consumer. After all, it’s allegedly “all about the consumer.” We’ve seen this play out with DoorDash, Uber, Peloton, WeWork, Airbnb and so on. The investors are left holding the bag while the consumer gets a cheap product or service.
The real game being played is along the lines of the following. The investors are betting on the company being able to sell below the cost of manufacturing to gain market share and economic scale in order to reduce their costs, as well as, put the competition out of business. This will give their company pricing power towards their suppliers, as well as, pricing power in regards to their consumer base.
And once that company consolidates the industry or the investors refuse to invest anymore money the companies jack up the prices.
Within the cannabis space you’ve seen them struggle to consolidate the industry sufficiently enough due to it being heavily fragmented among states and operators thus leading operators struggling to gain economies of scale (and yes, the government blah blah blah). And this happened at the same time that money became harder to come by and when they could get money it was at a higher interest rate.
And guess what? When these companies jack-up the price and they will once they get a chance, that will contradict the initial premise of it being “all about the consumer.” Because oftentimes what these executives will say is that they’re keeping the prices low to provide a service at a reasonable cost. But that’s just them being in the first stage of development in gaining market share. It has little to do with them having the consumers best interest in mind. Companies charge what they think they can get away with charging.
This plays out time and time again. It reveals the theatricals and if you’re paying attention you come to realize that it was rhetorical grandstanding all along. Smoke in mirrors people, smoke in mirrors.
Once a company has an upper hand they play it. That’s why cannabis was once “expensive”, it’s because they had more demand than supply. Do you think that cannabis became cheaper because companies became consumer-centric or because supply overwhelmed demand?
What Mr. Kovlers response was at best was a woefully incomplete simplification that ignores the vast complexity of both satisfying a consumer base while simultaneously managing a profitable business.
Mr. Kovlers response is a fallacious non sequitur in an attempt to grand stand towards his consumer base in an undeserved virtue signaling fashion. And why wouldn’t he? After all, people fall for it. After all, you’re a willful buyer of his non sequitur, pseudo virtue signaling, false premise, frame-shifting and switch-tracking BS. Right?
Just look at the comment section of his Tweet. No one brought up any of these concerns. Thankfully for his shareholders he doesn’t actually believe this nonsense as it’s one of the few profitable cannabis companies. I guess the Canadian names didn’t realize that it was tongue in cheek and took it too literally (sarcasm).
His comment attempts to subtly redirect the focus to the importance of the customer, which may be a valid point in the overall discussion of business success. However, it fails to establish a logical connection between the lack of blue chip companies and the significance of the consumer, making it a non sequitur in the context of the conversation.
This sort of distorted, bastardized and disingenuous speech has funny implications. If Green Thumb were to become a blue chip company it would be the result, at least in part, as a consequence of them no longer being “all about the consumer.”
In equation form, it would look like:
No blue chip = all about consumer
Blue chip ≠ all about consumer
For all intents and purposes he said that Green Thumb isn’t a blue chip company because they’re “all about the consumer.” That takes the form of an indirect conditional proposition.
In this case, the condition "I am all about the consumer" serves as the antecedent (the "if" part), and the consequence "I am not a blue chip company" serves as the consequent (the "then" part) of the conditional proposition.
His comment could be logically written out as:
We’re not blue chip because we’re all about the consumer.
Or,
If you’re all about the consumer then you’re not a blue chip.
False Correlation: Not blue chip ⇒ All about consumer
The inverse of that, which is what we talked about being so funny if they become a blue chip company is:
Inverse: Blue chip ⇒ Not all about consumer
His statement implies that being a blue chip negates being all about the customer and vice versa. Absurd!
But I digress.
It took this long to refute a stupid freakin’ Tweet. This is what Brandolini’s law looks like in real time.
What bothers me the most out of all of this is that no one knows all the infractions he made and worse, no one seemingly cares. The problem with that is then how can I feel bad for all the people who've chosen to stay willfully blind and susceptible to being victimized as a foreseeable result of remaining willfully ignorant. I don’t have an answer to that question sadly. But with that said, I still believe in fighting for people to not be victimized. And there’s a lot of victimized bagholders in these cannabis names.
But it still stands that this sort of speech is absolutely egregious to me, not to mention toxic. And is that what you want in your gang? After all, he did finish it off with #MSOGang. It’s really worth asking who’s side he is on. I don’t say that to create a false dichotomy but rather to emphasize he might not be in your corner as much as you'd otherwise think.
To sum this section up it reveals the ease in which compromised speech and dialogue happen and just how subtle it often is. But It also reveals the ease in which people go along with that compromised speech and how oblivious, careless or non-confrontational they are about it.
If you’re thinking to yourself that this is a recipe for creating a breeding ground of self reinforcing sentiment while being blind to the reality of a situation and any potential hazards associated with it, you’d be right.
The power of speech in conversations is to help us transcend our limitations by making us sharper and more competent beings while also exposing our weak points to improve upon. As such, we become more capable competent human beings who can better orient ourselves in position to the goals we’re trying to achieve. But as much as people say that’s what they want, their behavior would indicate otherwise.
The comment section acts as an example which reveals how people will go along with compromised speech because they approve of the underlying sentiment even when it’s predicated on fallacious talking points. People love factually false but sentimentally true statements, they can’t get enough. As such, things don’t get reviewed and read with critical analysis.
His response served a function. Which was to create a rally cry among the cannabis enthusiasts. Those who feel oppressed under the thumb of big government or whatever other stories people are telling themselves. Even though the conversation didn’t contribute anything meaningful to the actual topic of blue chip status cannabis companies it served it’s role at complementing and elucidating the narrative being pushed. That was the purpose, reason and function of his comment. And all at the small cost of truth.
This might go to show you why people can write a bullish article that’s light on the details yet heavy on the sentiment and narrative. Then before you know it the bulk of articles and podcasts will be light on the details and heavy on the sentiment. Because people see what’s working and then do it themselves. These overly sentimental publications then start garnering more and more attention bringing in those on the sidelines. It’s much easier to use a bunch of adjectives and emojis than it is to put in the work and do some thorough analysis. Especially when your readers won’t appreciate it and would prefer the sentiment and narrative because it validates their feelings. This all feeds on itself in a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop. Ratcheting the hype up higher and higher. People will validate what they say by saying, “See, everyone else is also bullish on it. We all can’t be wrong.”
Simply put: Feels over reals.
What makes this so disappointing is that when you have truth on your side it isn’t necessary to do what he did. A good idea doesn’t need bias or fallacy. It can rely on its own merits and to provide anything other than that is to compromise reality. And why would you do that when reality is already on your side? It's counterproductive and undermines one’s own merit. Green Thumb is kicking ass in the industry, it need not resort to such silly pseudo virtue signaling.
Hyper emotionalism and grandstanding stifles intellectual growth and reinforces existing beliefs. And when those existing beliefs can’t get any better than what they already are by introducing critical thought you risk it all to the downside. And who needs intellectual growth when it’s already so “obvious” how awesome Green Thumb is? Of course, those who are bag holding 60% losses thought it was also “obvious” a couple of years ago. By making implicit emotional appeals you’re giving your supporters the confirmation that they’re identity and group politics request.
And before you try to say that that’s one example from years ago look at this.
I could and have written about the word just and how it’s used as a thought terminating cliche to coerce compliance. Perhaps I’ll publish that article as an adjoinder to this publication.
I’m not going to write another standalone article criticizing this Tweet and the fallacies it commits. But let me leave you with this thought. He could have not lied and instead said:
“With a lower risk profile and similar effectiveness, marijuana seems like a worthwhile alternative.”
Or,
“Marijuana has a lower risk of overdose and adverse health effects, so why wouldn’t you choose it?”
There’s numerous ways he could have made a true or at least less false statement with similar sentiment and implications and yet he chose the route of lying. Jeez.
And yes, I’m well aware that he’s speaking in particular in reference to the fact that no one has ever died of a marijuana overdose from over intoxication. The problem is that he didn’t contextualize his statement. This boils down to an ultimate vs. proximate cause debate which I’m not particularly interested in due to how moronic people behave around that dynamic and thus how futile my attempts will be.
But it is worth knowing that people against cannabis will point to Tweets like this as being misleading. And not just Tweets but entire articles published along these lines. Because in fact, marijuana does have an indirect corollary and causal role in people dying. The argument your opposition will make is that if it was removed from the equation then less people would die from its existence. A low hanging fruit example is someone who gets in a car wreck who’s under the influence.
Now if you’re smart you might counter with, “Yes, but that fails to consider the lives it would save as a replacement alternative to more deadly substances and therefore might be a net positive.” In which case I would congratulate you on being an astute listener and thinker.
However the argument that your opposition and enemies will make is similar to the one I made above.
So by speaking so carelessly you’re opening yourself up, as well as your cause to all sorts of criticisms. And to think that that’s completely unnecessary and an unforced error. And to think that a rewording of things could make you more truthful and make it harder for your enemies to attack you. And wouldn’t that be better for all the cannabis enthusiasts? So why aren’t you doing that?
And no, this isn’t a hit piece on this man. I own shares in his company for God Sake. This is merely an example of how people say factually false but sentimentally true statements. It’s also an example of how the common person fails to identify such things. You can be buddies and pals with someone but that shouldn’t stop you from seeing through their nonsense. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
Other people will use this article as a reason to bash cannabis for their lying CEOs. All that is is them failing to keep constant their comparisons and control for variables. As though their CEOs don’t say nonsense. Get real.
You need to have an astute understanding of how humans conduct themselves if you want to succeed in the investing game. And that’s still not a guarantee of success. But remember, businesses are run by people. And people say and do a lot of nonsense. The better and quicker you are at identifying that nonsense the better the odds will be that you aren’t a casualty of such nonsense.