6 ms·

Better late than never I guess, but what changed his mind really? "I actually did more research and was shocked, shocked by what I found!" or "I'm making a docu

Better late than never I guess, but what changed his mind really? "I actually did more research and was shocked, shocked by what I found!" or "I'm making a documentary and the tides of public opinion continue to shift, writing's on the wall, time to change my tune..." Maybe (probably) I'm being overly cynical, but people like him have lent support and legitimacy to a machine that literally destroys people's lives for their involvement with a fairly innocuous plant. Oops!

tptacek 13y ago
He wrote that he's "shocked, shocked" at what he found as a device to get more people to read the piece. I'm sure that editorial decision was commercial and not public-spirited, but still. Yes, you are being overly cynical. My guess is that you agree with virtually everything in the article, and, instead of being pleased that someone has not only come around to your position in the most public fashion possible, but also apologized for previously disagreeing with you, you manage to be unhappy about the prominence of the piece. The impression you leave is that you'd be happier if he slunk off to hide somewhere like a petulant bridge troll. That might be more satisfying for you, but it's an outcome that serves the public poorly.
- beambot 13y ago
  Being pleased about a new opinion and being cynical about its motivations are not mutually exclusive. I think it's perfectly acceptable to question a public figure's motives when their changing outlook (regardless of stated reasons) are highly correlated with changes in public opinion.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    Correlation does not prove causation.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Prove? No. Suggest? Absolutely.
- mapster 13y ago
  It would be refreshing if Gupta had said "I finally opened my eyes to the truth that was in front of me all along' as opposed to an opener for an expose 'shocked at what I found...', as if there was a hidden conspiracy against the plant. all in a day's work, and a book to follow I presume. overall I like the Doc and am hopeful his revelation will enable others to do likewise.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  >He wrote that he's "shocked, shocked" at what he found as a device to get more people to read the piece. I felt a strong impression that he had written this article for the same reason as he wrote the exact opposite 4 years ago, i.e. self-serving commercial interest.
- dave_sullivan 13y ago
  Hardly! He doesn't have to slink off anywhere, nor do I think he should. But frankly, the convenience and timeliness of his argument is well worth pointing out. Speaking personally, I hold a special disdain in my heart for smart people that perpetuate the war on drugs for various reasons and then profess to stand for individual freedom. In particular, the argument of not enough research, keep it illegal is the most insidious kind of argument because it sounds reasonable enough but inherently contains the opinion that we should keep jailing people until this research materializes. So yeah, when I get a chance to rub it in with someone like that, I take it. I guess that's petty, but so is jailing people for getting high.
  - vehementi 13y ago
    Yeah I agree with you. It is utterly implausible that he was not previously aware of every last thing he mentioned in the article. There's just no way. Oops, I ignored all of this evidence and all the worldwide recommendations of doctors prescribing it to patience this whole time? No, of course not. He knew full well - probably on his initial pass of the data a decade ago or whatever if he's at all competent - of all the things he "discovered" in this article. He merely sacrificed the health and comfort all of those people who could have benefited until now, in order to further his career.
- mikeash 13y ago
  It shouldn't be pleasing when someone comes around to your position merely because it's advantageous for them at the moment. For one thing, it means you can't count on them, and their position will change again the next time the winds shift.
- asdfadfasdf 13y ago
  It is ok if you like him so much but seriously, can you stop giving him a blowJob. You don't really look objective at all. It is quite shameful.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Maybe (to be even more cynical) he has come to the conclusion that the regime of marijuana prohibition is coming to an end (or at least losing public support); and as a TV doctor who needs make headlines and wants to maintain relevance in the future, he has finally taken a critical look at US drug policy and discovered that it was based mostly on sham evidence. It is commendable that he apologizes and admits that he based his previous opinion on that sham. This Howard Samuels (a person who makes his living off of a drug rehabilitation clinic) guy is an immoral shit who appears to believe that peoples' real medical needs are secondary to his opposition of "people just getting loaded". He is a prohibitionist. I am so tired of this ridiculous and harmful policy.
- apalmer 13y ago
  Actually the Howard Samuels seemed pretty rational, was all for using marijuana as medicine, and even stated its less harmful than alcohol. He just was pretty clear on the fact that most of the users of marijuana are in it for the high, and that politically medical marijuana is more of a stepping stone for folks interested in recreational use, rather than a deep seeded concern for those who need it medically.
  - disgruntledphd2 13y ago
    You are entirely correct. When I used to smoke, medical marijuana was essentially viewed by me as the thin edge of the wedge. That being said, that doesn't mean there isn't good evidence for it. But, as with most things, we tend to believe the evidence that fits our preconceptions (and argue with the evidence that doesn't).
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Maybe he is rational, but the way he was yelling and carrying on did not help him in my assessment of him. I also note his financial interest in maintaining drug prohibition, which he disclosed. I don't know why he kept carrying on about recreational users, because Gupta merely came out in support of research into medical use. >He just was pretty clear on the fact that most of the users of marijuana are in it for the high, I may be overly skeptical but I got the impression that he felt most medical marijuana users are just recreational users, and he meant for us to think that was a fact, but offered no evidence to support that notion as a fact. >and that politically medical marijuana is more of a stepping stone for folks interested in recreational use, Well, it is probably true that many people who support medical use of marijuana also support something on the spectrum of decriminalization:legalization. You can include me in that, I support both politically. > rather than a deep seeded concern for those who need it medically. Despite the fact that I support legalization, I do have a deep-seeded and personal concern for those who need it medically. As a teenager, I got to watch a close relative who I was very fond of die (in agony) of cancer. It is my personal belief that those in hospice who suffer from pain or are unable to eat, or whose care is complicated by the use of opiates should be denied no drug if it might improve their life/death. As for lesser ailments than agonizingly painful terminal cancer, it appears IMO that marijuana is less harmful than almost everything, and potentially has a wide potential range of medical applications, and therefore it is immoral (and idiocy) to deny its use to people.
apalmer 13y ago
Your not being cynical at all, its pretty much right on the money. Its pretty cut and dry either: LAST TIME, he didnt really look at the evidence and was just regurgitating the standard line without really doing scientific analysis OR THIS TIME, this time he is just trying to jump on the bandwagon and get out in front of this controversal topic... either way he doesn't hold to much weight with me, i am all for smoking ganja but the whole medical marijuana being pushed by recreational smokers thing is kinda perturbing to me

tptacek 13y ago

He wrote that he's "shocked, shocked" at what he found as a device to get more people to read the piece. I'm sure that editorial decision was commercial and not public-spirited, but still. Yes, you are being overly cynical. My guess is that you agree with virtually everything in the article, and, instead of being pleased that someone has not only come around to your position in the most public fashion possible, but also apologized for previously disagreeing with you, you manage to be unhappy about the prominence of the piece. The impression you leave is that you'd be happier if he slunk off to hide somewhere like a petulant bridge troll. That might be more satisfying for you, but it's an outcome that serves the public poorly.

beambot 13y ago
Being pleased about a new opinion and being cynical about its motivations are not mutually exclusive. I think it's perfectly acceptable to question a public figure's motives when their changing outlook (regardless of stated reasons) are highly correlated with changes in public opinion.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  Correlation does not prove causation.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Prove? No. Suggest? Absolutely.
mapster 13y ago
It would be refreshing if Gupta had said "I finally opened my eyes to the truth that was in front of me all along' as opposed to an opener for an expose 'shocked at what I found...', as if there was a hidden conspiracy against the plant. all in a day's work, and a book to follow I presume. overall I like the Doc and am hopeful his revelation will enable others to do likewise.
ronaldx 13y ago
>He wrote that he's "shocked, shocked" at what he found as a device to get more people to read the piece. I felt a strong impression that he had written this article for the same reason as he wrote the exact opposite 4 years ago, i.e. self-serving commercial interest.
dave_sullivan 13y ago
Hardly! He doesn't have to slink off anywhere, nor do I think he should. But frankly, the convenience and timeliness of his argument is well worth pointing out. Speaking personally, I hold a special disdain in my heart for smart people that perpetuate the war on drugs for various reasons and then profess to stand for individual freedom. In particular, the argument of not enough research, keep it illegal is the most insidious kind of argument because it sounds reasonable enough but inherently contains the opinion that we should keep jailing people until this research materializes. So yeah, when I get a chance to rub it in with someone like that, I take it. I guess that's petty, but so is jailing people for getting high.
- vehementi 13y ago
  Yeah I agree with you. It is utterly implausible that he was not previously aware of every last thing he mentioned in the article. There's just no way. Oops, I ignored all of this evidence and all the worldwide recommendations of doctors prescribing it to patience this whole time? No, of course not. He knew full well - probably on his initial pass of the data a decade ago or whatever if he's at all competent - of all the things he "discovered" in this article. He merely sacrificed the health and comfort all of those people who could have benefited until now, in order to further his career.
mikeash 13y ago
It shouldn't be pleasing when someone comes around to your position merely because it's advantageous for them at the moment. For one thing, it means you can't count on them, and their position will change again the next time the winds shift.
asdfadfasdf 13y ago
It is ok if you like him so much but seriously, can you stop giving him a blowJob. You don't really look objective at all. It is quite shameful.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Maybe (to be even more cynical) he has come to the conclusion that the regime of marijuana prohibition is coming to an end (or at least losing public support); and as a TV doctor who needs make headlines and wants to maintain relevance in the future, he has finally taken a critical look at US drug policy and discovered that it was based mostly on sham evidence. It is commendable that he apologizes and admits that he based his previous opinion on that sham. This Howard Samuels (a person who makes his living off of a drug rehabilitation clinic) guy is an immoral shit who appears to believe that peoples' real medical needs are secondary to his opposition of "people just getting loaded". He is a prohibitionist. I am so tired of this ridiculous and harmful policy.

apalmer 13y ago
Actually the Howard Samuels seemed pretty rational, was all for using marijuana as medicine, and even stated its less harmful than alcohol. He just was pretty clear on the fact that most of the users of marijuana are in it for the high, and that politically medical marijuana is more of a stepping stone for folks interested in recreational use, rather than a deep seeded concern for those who need it medically.
- disgruntledphd2 13y ago
  You are entirely correct. When I used to smoke, medical marijuana was essentially viewed by me as the thin edge of the wedge. That being said, that doesn't mean there isn't good evidence for it. But, as with most things, we tend to believe the evidence that fits our preconceptions (and argue with the evidence that doesn't).
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Maybe he is rational, but the way he was yelling and carrying on did not help him in my assessment of him. I also note his financial interest in maintaining drug prohibition, which he disclosed. I don't know why he kept carrying on about recreational users, because Gupta merely came out in support of research into medical use. >He just was pretty clear on the fact that most of the users of marijuana are in it for the high, I may be overly skeptical but I got the impression that he felt most medical marijuana users are just recreational users, and he meant for us to think that was a fact, but offered no evidence to support that notion as a fact. >and that politically medical marijuana is more of a stepping stone for folks interested in recreational use, Well, it is probably true that many people who support medical use of marijuana also support something on the spectrum of decriminalization:legalization. You can include me in that, I support both politically. > rather than a deep seeded concern for those who need it medically. Despite the fact that I support legalization, I do have a deep-seeded and personal concern for those who need it medically. As a teenager, I got to watch a close relative who I was very fond of die (in agony) of cancer. It is my personal belief that those in hospice who suffer from pain or are unable to eat, or whose care is complicated by the use of opiates should be denied no drug if it might improve their life/death. As for lesser ailments than agonizingly painful terminal cancer, it appears IMO that marijuana is less harmful than almost everything, and potentially has a wide potential range of medical applications, and therefore it is immoral (and idiocy) to deny its use to people.

apalmer 13y ago

Your not being cynical at all, its pretty much right on the money. Its pretty cut and dry either: LAST TIME, he didnt really look at the evidence and was just regurgitating the standard line without really doing scientific analysis OR THIS TIME, this time he is just trying to jump on the bandwagon and get out in front of this controversal topic... either way he doesn't hold to much weight with me, i am all for smoking ganja but the whole medical marijuana being pushed by recreational smokers thing is kinda perturbing to me