3 ms·

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);

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

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.