
Why I Changed My Mind On Weed - tptacek
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/
======
gregpilling
I am a medical marijuana user. I have fibromyalgia (a catch all label for
constant pain), and it helps some with neuropathic pain. My doctor is kept
informed about how much I am using, and I have to get my card renewed each
year. MJ works, but at best it dulls the pain, and also helps to make the pain
less 'front and center' and instead kind of makes it more something that is in
the background.

I was never a stoner, and did not use it until I was 38 years old. I am happy
it exists, because I was being treated with Vicodin for pain and was on a
schedule of 6 pills a day. Enough that liver damage and addiction started to
be a concern. I am allergic to pills in the Percoset family (hives and skin
lesions) and I consume about 5 joints a day worth of weed. I don't even get
high anymore, but it does help with the pain. It is costing me about $100 per
week, compared to the $3 per month the Vicodin cost on my medical insurance. I
could buy a new car with the weed money, but couldn't buy a coffee at
Starbucks with the Vicodin money.

I hope the government gets around to reclassifying the drug soon. In the
current situation, Child Protective Services would take my kids away if I was
to consume the drug in front of them. A reclassification would enable more
research, more research would lead to easier ways to ingest it. I find food
products make me stomach sick, vaporizing doesn't work as well as smoking, and
smoking is unappealing and difficult to do with any discretion.

I am fortunate that I can afford it, and can fit it into my schedule (I own my
business). Many people need something like MMJ and can neither afford it, nor
can they keep their employment with it because of widespread drug testing.
While the state I live in says that card holders can't be fired for holding a
card, it is a state that has 'right-to-work' laws and you can fire someone for
no specified reason at all. (source- I employ ten people).

~~~
gadders
Interesting that you don't get high any more. I wondered whether MMJ would
fall into the category of "do not drive or operate machinery" whilst using.

~~~
gregpilling
I believe most states have rules that are about "driving under the influence"
and the influence could be alcohol, drugs, illness, or basically anything that
would alter your mental state. I have had days when the pain alone would make
me fail a roadside sobriety test (slurred words, can't walk a straight line).
I don't recommend consuming drugs or alcohol and driving, prescription or
otherwise.

At work I avoid operating the forklift, milling machine, or anything else that
could cause injury to me or my people. I still get a very slight buzz, but
nothing at all like when I first started using it (think 5 or 10% of previous
effects). I have had times when I consumed what I needed (four or five bowls)
when friends were in the same room, and they have gotten high from just being
there while I had no change. In general I consume in the very early morning
and at night when I know I won't be leaving again before sleep. I avoid using
during the day because most days I have to drive and work.

MMJ is certainly not a perfect solution, but it beats constant never ending
pain (no drugs) or addiction and liver failure (opiates with acetaminophen)
[http://www.drugs.com/vicodin.html](http://www.drugs.com/vicodin.html) .

~~~
peller
Once your tolerance has been built up to such high levels, taking a week off
(in my experience) is all you need to get a "90% reset."

------
kyro
I'm glad that Gupta has made this public apology. It takes a lot of courage to
make that statement especially for someone with great public influence.

I'm just curious as to why it took him this long. Medical marijuana has been
prescribed in hospitals for some time with great benefit. I mean, just from a
clinical standpoint, he should've seen the great upsides and limited downsides
to using the drug. Patients, typically the elderly, with cachexia from cancer
are often given marijuana to stimulate their appetite, and it works. Given its
possible links with the development of Schizophrenia and the rest of its
relatively mild side-effects, a quick and simple benefits/costs analysis
should show that in many cases, its efficacy far outweighs the potential
risks.

A _huge_ percentage of physicians today, as indicated in the article, would be
supportive of a move to legalize it. And it has been this way for several
years. I just do not understand why it took Gupta so many years, having to go
to the ends of the earth to dig up research from various countries to come to
that conclusion.

My suspicion is that his initial viewpoint was more rooted in irrational bias
and ignorance than in scientific evidence proving the drug's inefficacy. You
can tell that by his mentioning of his children and how he wouldn't let them
try marijuana, which is both irrelevant to the issue and an ignorant
emotionally-charged argument commonly used when the topic of legalization (for
medical use) is brought up. It's effectively "but remember the children!" The
same could've been said for legalization of opioids and a myriad of other
medications that have much more severe side-effects. And that really saddens
me, because I've got great respect for the guy. I'm glad he's on what I
believe to be the right side, but as someone with great influence in this
country, with such an accomplished background, I feel he could've arrived to
this conclusion much earlier, with much less data, and pushed for its medical
legalization when the conversation was happening.

All in all welcome aboard, Dr. Gupta. Please be a little more forward-thinking
from here on out.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
Being a bit pedantic here, I'd just like to point out that development of
schizophrenia is _not_ a mild side effect. With higher THC% strains, we have
no idea the extent of latent mental disorders we're stimulating.

~~~
JPKab
As a person who had a roommate whose schizophrenia was likely induced by heavy
marijuana use (along with his tripping on multiple bottles of Robitussin), the
fact of the matter is that the harm done to this small percentage of people is
vastly outweighed by the damage done to people who can't get access to it for
their medical needs. And that's ignoring the huge harm caused by prosecuting
recreational users due to an absurdly ineffective prohibition policy.

The higher % strains, by the way, are a direct result of prohibition. If a
drug dealer is caught with an ounce of high grade that sells for 400, vs. an
ounce of low grade that sells for 100, he gets the same penalty. Take a wild
guess which one brings more reward for the risk. And this, my friend, is why
you have higher THC %.

~~~
tptacek
The problem is that there are two simultaneous arguments happening.

The first is whether cannabis should be legalized and available as a business
opportunity. You'll find very few people here to disagree with about this;
there's a practically universal belief that cannabis should be legalized.

The second is whether cannabis is benign. There is a valid discussion to be
had about how safe cannabis is. Having it does not imply that anyone thinks
cannabis should be outlawed. Trans-fats, tobacco, and sugar are also not
benign, and few people jump to the conclusion that critics of those substances
are pushing for their prohibition.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
Very well stated, this is essentially what I'm getting at. I'm all for
legalization/decriminalization, but there are serious issues with chronic
marijuana use that need to be addressed.

~~~
tracker1
Here's the question as far as I am concerned.. are the medical risks
associated with chronic use of marijuana greater than, or less than other less
than universally beneficial and completely legal substances (tobacco, alcohol,
trans-fats, hfcs, etc)?

I'm not a pot head, and for that matter, I only have a drink a handful of
times a year.. that said, I don't think that marijuana should be illegal for
recreational use, let alone medical use.

------
rickdale
One of the biggest issues with marijuana in this country is the lack of
research behind it. Here in Michigan where over 60% of the people voted for
medical marijuana, they just outlawed medibles. Meaning no pot brownies for
patients. Which makes no sense when applying medical marijuana.

Caregivers and patients are outraged because they feel like they know more
than the judges or politician do, and I have to agree.

On another more general note about marijuana, I think most peoples perception
of the drug is that out of a hollywood movie. In my own experience you can use
marijuana to lose weight, as opposed to inducing the munchies, but generally
people don't know that or expect it.

Medical marijuana is legal in more states than gay marriage and growing in all
50+ Canada and Mexico. I am so tired of the US lagging behind the rest of the
world and not listening to the people.

Marijuana is safer than alcohol, and its time we treated it that way -quote
from pulled commercial that was going to play of Nascar event..

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H8Cz9woC2A](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H8Cz9woC2A)

Edit-- Additionally, here in Michigan we have real doctors that refuse to sign
marijuana recommendation forms for fear of their contracts with hospitals and
insurance agencies. Meanwhile we have doctors from states close and far
recommending patients come to medical states to get marijuana. This leads to
dingy doctors signing medical forms for patients they have little interaction
with, which makes the law seem abused.

~~~
bjourne
The US is not lagging behind. When it comes to marijuana liberalisation, it is
definitely leading the way. With the exception of Netherlands, attitudes to
marijuana is pretty strict in Europe. The US has the most pot smokers/capita
by a long shot.

Also, Hollywood movies seem to portray it as some cool party drug, that
hippies and pseudo-intellectuals use. The drug is present in most American
Pie-style movies, many sitcoms and animated series like Family Guy.

Personally I believe marijuana going mainstream is an engineered phenomena.
Hollywood is able to create perceptions and demands where none was before.
Older generations weren't miserable all the time because they couldn't smoke
pot. New generations found out about it by the marketing.

~~~
hanley
I don't necessarily disagree with your post but you should be careful with
generalizations that aren't backed up with evidence. "The US has the most pot
smokers/capita by a long shot" sounds a lot like some assumption you just made
up based on your own personal experience. A study like marijuana users per
capita is inherently difficult because people don't like admitting that they
partake in illegal activity. The only statistic to go on for that study is how
many people were arrested for marijuana crimes, which only shows how many
people were caught breaking a law, not how many people use.

Also I think your marijuana/drug law knowledge is a little behind. There are a
number of countries in Europe and elsewhere who are changing to more relaxed
drug policies similar to the progress in the US (including Portugal who
effectively decriminalized all drugs in 2001).

~~~
leoedin
The "how many arrested" statistic is completely useless because the level to
which marijuana possession results in arrest varies wildly between countries
and even states or cities. Equally the frequency of searches, the criteria for
selecting people to search all vary wildly.

Anecdotally, marijuana usage was _much_ more prevalent amongst students I knew
when I lived in Canada than it is in the UK. My experience (admittedly while
travelling through) in the US was similar to Canada. This drug-use map[1]
corroborates that (US 14%, Canada 12%, UK ~7%), although I do agree that any
survey about drug use will probably not see completely truthful answers.

[1]:
[http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/ju...](http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/02/drug-
use-map-world)

------
dave_sullivan
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
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
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
Correlation does not prove causation.

~~~
jlgreco
Prove? No. Suggest? Absolutely.

------
jgrahamc
After I saw Gupta in Japan talking about protection against gamma radiation
([http://blog.jgc.org/2011/03/cnn-sounding-authorative-
while-t...](http://blog.jgc.org/2011/03/cnn-sounding-authorative-while-
talking.html)) I stopped listening to him at all.

~~~
tptacek
He's a practicing neurosurgeon with published research, but, like half of HN,
doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to radiological safety;
therefore, his opinions on pharmacology are irrelevant to you?

That seems like a surprisingly dumb argument for you, John, but maybe I just
misunderstood it.

At any rate, the importance of the piece isn't Gupta's authority on the
subject. After all, vis a vis cannabis, Gupta is best known for his former
opposition to legalization, which is a self-evidently dumb position for him to
have taken.

The importance of the piece is that Gupta was Obama's first nominee for
Surgeon General, and the best known medical reporter in the country; he's
doing a very public about-face on the issue just as the US appears to be
reaching a tipping point on legalization.

Also: it's just a good piece, or at least an atypically good one for CNN.
That's why I posted it.

~~~
jgrahamc
_He 's a practicing neurosurgeon with published research, but, like half of
HN, doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to radiologic safety;
therefore, his opinions on pharmacology are irrelevant to you?_

I guess. I guess you are right. I probably should listen to his opinion about
this. I just have a hard time with media personalities who are willing to
spout crap when they don't know what they are talking about instead of simply
shutting up.

~~~
tptacek
I'm not saying it's a good thing the guy was CNN's subject matter expert on
camera for radiation safety, just that he's got a legit claim to subject
matter expertise regarding pharmacology. CNN is still awful.

~~~
apalmer
What are his pharmacology credentials?

Anyways far as I can tell his big revelation here is "yeah when i told you i
looked at the facts before i really didn't but this time i did!". Makes me
take all of his conclusions with a grain of salt.

Does seem clear indication that the american mainstream is getting acceptance
for the idea of medical ganja though.

~~~
tptacek
I'm going to go with his license to prescribe drugs and his neurosurgery
practice on that one.

~~~
mistercow
The license to prescribe drugs is largely useless as an indicator of
pharmacological expertise. We let _chiropractors_ prescribe drugs in this
country (Edit: I was mistaken; we don't). The government has no idea what it's
doing in its process for deciding who gets that power. I have encountered
plenty of doctors who clearly had no idea what they were doing when it came to
pharmacology, to the point of prescribing drugs together with dangerous
interactions and not informing the patient of the risk.

As for his neurosurgery practice... what? Why would you think that would make
him an expert on pharmacology? Because they both fall under the wide umbrella
of "medicine"?

Not that I disagree with him on this issue, but your reasoning seems
incredibly shaky here.

~~~
300bps
_We let chiropractors prescribe drugs in this country._

What country is that, mistercow? Here in the United States, they cannot
prescribe drugs with one notable exception in New Mexico for chiropractors
that have received "advance practice" training.

In fact, prescribing drugs actually goes against the chiropractic philosophy
that involves physical manipulation of the body and your body's ability to
heal itself.

Source:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic)

~~~
mistercow
Hmm, it seems I was mistaken. We do let osteopaths prescribe medicine though,
and that's almost as dumb. The rest of my point still stands.

~~~
300bps
_Hmm, it seems I was mistaken. We do let osteopaths prescribe medicine though,
and that 's almost as dumb. The rest of my point still stands._

I have to take issue again with what you have said.

You seem to be equating osteopathy (a completely accepted medical science) to
homeopathy (a complete quackery). To quote Wikipedia:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_United_States)

 _Other than teaching manual medicine, the medical training for an M.D. and
D.O. is virtually indistinguishable._

To quote the American Medical Association:

[http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/education-
careers/becoming-...](http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/education-
careers/becoming-physician/frequently-asked-questions.page)

 _Q: What is the difference between an MD and a DO?_

 _A: A DO (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) is a physician just as an MD is a
physician._

Please do more research before you continue to spread additional
misinformation. Thank you.

~~~
mistercow
>You seem to be equating osteopathy (a completely accepted medical science)

No, osteopathy is _not_ completely accepted by medical science. Osteopathy is
absolute pseudoscience. Please do _your_ research.

Yes, I realize that DOs undergo actual medical training in addition to the
quackery that gives their field its name, but they are still taught the
pseudoscience on which the practice was originally based. That they believe
these techniques are legitimate medicine is indicative that their entire
understanding of science and medicine is compromised. This hypothesis has been
borne out by literally every experience I have had with a DO.

~~~
300bps
If you are outside the U.S. then I understand your belief that osteopathy is
quackery because outside the U.S., it is. Inside the U.S. though a D.O. is
equivalent to an M.D.

You would know this if you bothered to read either of the citations I
provided. You and the person downvoting me apparently disagree with the
American Medical Association that says a D.O. is equivalent to an M.D.

For failing to read my citations before you replied to them and for providing
no citations of your own other than "every experience I have had with a DO."
you are currently in the category of Ignorant Fool. If you would like to
provide a citation or two for what you say and perhaps if you actually respond
to my citations instead of around them I might be able to upgrade you to
Misguided Goof.

EDIT: Never mind, I see in another comment below you are saying that you are
just as suspicious of medical doctors. I have no further desire to discuss
this with you.

~~~
mistercow
> Never mind, I see in another comment below you are saying that you are just
> as suspicious of medical doctors.

You accuse me of not reading your citations (I did), did not actually read my
response to your comment, and then somehow you got _that_ out of my comment
below?

I said that MDs don't have _immunity_. If I find out that my doctor believes
in pseudo-medicine, I will find a new doctor. If you think that's
unreasonable, then I guess this "no further desire to discuss" feeling you
mentioned is mutual.

------
lilbearsbrother
I have no medical issues that marijuana could treat, but I still want to use
it for recreational purposes without being persecuted for breaking the law. I
am a functional member of society. I have a job and a college degree, and I
love to get stoned as shit and play video games. The fact that medical
research is increasingly supporting decriminalization is great; however, I am
wary of the movement to pigeonhole the substance into the realm of
prescription drugs while stopping short of full-scale legalization. I believe
that society has more or less struck the right balance between structure and
self-regulation on the issue of alcohol consumption, and I see no reason why
marijuana cannot exist similarly - especially given that it is a considerably
less harmful substance. Policy should be concerned with preventing kids from
smoking it and preventing people from driving under the influence, but aside
from that I think the people can figure it out for themselves.

------
gadders
"Much in the same way I wouldn't let my own children drink alcohol, I wouldn't
permit marijuana until they are adults. If they are adamant about trying
marijuana, I will urge them to wait until they're in their mid-20s when their
brains are fully developed."

Good luck with that.

~~~
stcredzero
Show them the research, summarize it in plain language if needed, then let
them make their own choice. Really, you can't do much more than that.

I wonder if one could synthesize cards that change color when exposed to MJ
fumes? I bet you could sell those like crazy.

~~~
gadders
I should imagine it's a bit like cigarettes. I have one friend that was stupid
enough to start smoking in his 20's, but he's an outlier. I'd imagine if you
did without fags or dope until your mid-20's, you'd be unlikely to bother
starting.

------
ferdo
> "We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the
> United States, and I apologize for my own role in that."

It takes a large soul to admit, in public, that you've been wrong about
something that has to do with your profession.

And he's right, Americans have been misled about hemp and its products:

[http://cannabis.neocities.org/](http://cannabis.neocities.org/)

~~~
StavrosK
As an aside, I love how neocities has emerged as simple, anonymous hosting.

~~~
ferdo
I love neocities. Kyle is my new favorite geek.

------
nakedrobot2
the headline should read "over-credulous member of establishment is finally
swayed by overwhelming evidence to the contrary, although he has to travel to
the ends of the earth to be convinced"

~~~
tptacek
Or, "it's not enough that he agrees with me, agrees publicly with me, and
apologized for disagreeing with me; the manner in which he arrived at his
agreement with me is offensive, so let's make that a topic of conversation."

~~~
Radix_
I love this argument. It needs to become a reflexive and memetic response
whenever anyone places someone in a damned-if-you-do situation for improving
their position.

~~~
rhizome
He's an extremely visible character expressing medical opinions on a regular
basis to a large portion of the US population, shouldn't he have already done
his research instead of being a tool? Does the past no longer exist, no such
thing as "damned _because he did_?"

~~~
Radix_
Gupta's defense is the sort of defense that will reach people like my mother
convincing them that marijuana is not evil and has real medical uses. That
outcome is a good thing and I do not wish any harm to his reputation now
because it will be against my interest and I'm hoping/assuming having "done
the research" this time will give persons like you ammo for pushing him to
defend his position in the future.

I don't think the past goes away but generally I'd rather not condition people
to not admit mistakes. And here I'd rather win now than be right now. Then
maybe be right in the future.

------
tareqak
Honest question: How many drug companies' bottom lines would be affected if
marijuana was legalized right now?

Reminds me of the quote: If you're not a part of the solution, there's good
money to be made in prolonging the problem.

~~~
arc_of_descent
The problem with drug and tobacco companies is that marijuana is a garden
weed. Anyone can grow it (if it becomes legal). Or rather, no large investment
to start a weed farm.

Tobacco and drug manufacturing plants require a significant larger investment.
So the lobby for anti-marijuana is strong and controlled by rich people.

~~~
smacktoward
Eh, I dunno. Brand names are powerful. Standardization is powerful. If
marijuana were legal I could see there being a lot of money in being the
McDonald's of pot. Low price, universal availability, and lots of advertising
can lift a mediocre product quite high.

~~~
Raphmedia
The thing is, we are not talking about "brands" but "strains". You could get
seeds for the best marijuana strain that is out there and grow it yourself. No
need for "brands".

~~~
daraul
You can, but you can also make the value calculations in your head and decide
that instead of learning how to properly cultivate it, keeping bad plants out,
and the time/money consumed in a quality growing op, you'd rather just throw a
bit of cash at someone else and use all that time for other things.

There are only so many hours in a day, and outsourcing those hours for a
little money is a perfectly reasonable explanation for how a real industry
will pop up around this.

------
tptacek
This is a surprisingly thoughtful article for CNN.

~~~
DamnYuppie
I too am surprised to see such an article on CNN.

The one thing it doesn't touch on is the cost we have incurred as a nation by
making it illegal. We have seen this before with prohibition, it didn't stop
people from drinking it just made better criminals. Once we legalize it we can
stop spending money fighting it and start taxing it!

Of course the funny thing will be watching all the farmers in Illinois plow
down their corn fields to crow weed! Yes I am aware of what it takes to grown
corn in terms of resources, time, and cost and at the current market rate for
weed those fields would be plowed under in record time!

~~~
HNaTTY
It's unlikely that the end of prohibition would have a large impact on
agriculture; growing weed usually requires an indoor or greenhouse environment
to prevent pollination, it doesn't really lend itself to large-scale
production, and the amount that people smoke is minuscule compared to
tobacco/cigarettes. Of course, tobacco companies could roll out some
industrial processing machines and drive the price of production down near to
zero, but as long as the government uses taxes to keep the price high, people
will demand the kind of quality that requires more of a greenhouse type of a
solution.

------
ignostic
> _" I do want to mention a concern that I think about as a father. Young,
> developing brains are likely more susceptible to harm from marijuana than
> adult brains. Some recent studies suggest that regular use in teenage years
> leads to a permanent decrease in IQ. Other research hints at a possible
> heightened risk of developing psychosis."_

The same is actually true of alcohol. Unfortunately, the discussion has become
so black and white (legalization vs. prohibition) that no one is even pausing
to consider what is actually optimal.

I wish I could get this message through clearly: the crowd on Reddit could
benefit from learning the actual risks. Yes, I am in favor of legalization or
decriminalization. No, young people should not use pot or alcohol often.

It's hard not to scream at kids as I pass them in a part of the city where
they - some of them not even old enough to drive - are burning away up to 10
IQ points. Perhaps if their teachers and parents taught them the real risks
rather than fear-mongering nonsense, we would see fewer kids throwing away
precious intelligence.

------
nkurz
This is a fine article, as are the other front page stories on e-cigarettes in
New York and cycling in the Netherlands. It's submitted by one of HN's most
respected participants from a major US media source. While obviously "of
interest to Hackers", it's far from exclusively so. It's also currently the
top story on Reddit. I like the discussion of this topic better here than
Reddit, but there are some good points on Reddit as well:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1jy7xa/dr_sanjay_g...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1jy7xa/dr_sanjay_gupta_explains_why_he_changed_mind_on/)

Thomas: how does this article accord with your comments here?
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6158093](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6158093)

As this is also a contentious legal, social, and political issue, I worry that
the currently 'better' level of discourse will be hard to maintain.

~~~
davidw
I too would ask - "et tu, tptacek?"

~~~
tptacek
I thought it was a particularly good article that contained a thoughtful
examination of an issue that was careful to present both sides, from a
reported source. But I wouldn't have gotten mad had it been flagged off the
site, either.

------
aswanson
I dont smoke but I drink. I think alcohol is a more dangerous drug in terms of
causing addiction and inciting violence. When was the last brawl you saw
started when weed was the agitator? Nicotine in cigarettes are far more
addictive than thc.

------
barking
I saw a short news report (over a decade ago) about a Swiss heroin addict who
daily attended a clinic to be given heroin (not methadone) for free (the cost
of legally available heroin would be minimal).

She was able to hold down a job, pay rent and had no need to beg or commit
crime to fund the habit.

She also could afford to eat properly and was no longer at risk of acquiring
disease through contaminated drugs, dirty needles or prostitution.

Also methadone is an absolute destroyer of teeth not least because of the
slowness to provide a sugar free variety. It's also highly addictive in its
own right I believe.

~~~
mikeash
I think a lot of problems in the world can come down to whether you try to
force people to act in an ideal fashion, or whether you try to deal with
people as they are. Drug policy certainly qualifies, anyway.

From the latter perspective, your heroin addict is a massive success story.
She's contributing to society instead of being a burden, and the cost is low.

From the former perspective, this is a terrible story. You're supporting drug
addiction!

The former perspective rarely works, but it's extremely common, on subjects
ranging from drugs to crime to tax policy to education. It is IMO a cop-out,
where you simply rely on vague principles rather than actually applying
thought and study.

------
michaelwww
I think people are forgetting his target audience, which is probably older. I
doubt many young people watch CNN. Even the title "Why I Changed My Mind On
Weed" sounds like it was written for the Readers Digest, which I used to read
as a kid because my grandmother would give me her copies.

~~~
rhizome
What does his audience have to do with him being unprincipled and self-
promoting?

~~~
michaelwww
I think being borderline unprincipled and very self-promoting comes with the
territory of being a TV personality, so if we factor that out, he's actually
doing marijuana advocates a huge favor by speaking to the older generation of
voters who have endured decades of propaganda against marijuana and who now,
by listening to the most credible TV doctor in America, might vote to
legalize.

~~~
rhizome
"Sure, he's a tool...but now he's _our_ tool."

~~~
michaelwww
has Gupta let you down some how? You sound bitter. I'm not that much
interested in him or the issue. He's getting on the marijauna train or to
quote some Dylan: The times, they are a changin'... You don't need to be a
weatherman to know which way the wind blows... Gotta serve somebody ;-)

~~~
rhizome
You're damn right I'm bitter. Did you know there are actual people languishing
in _actual prison_ due to the incurious mindset he supported for _years_?
You're inhuman if you don't see a problem with that without speculating that
I'm affected personally by this jackass.

On the contrary, I stay the hell away from people like him, and he has a lot
more to answer for than is satisfied by his upper-crust PR-driven atonement
assigned to him by the church of TV for the purpose of lining his wallet. Same
goes for Obama and AG Eric Holder.

How's this for Dylan?

    
    
        Let me ask you one question
        Is your money that good?
        Will it buy you forgiveness
        Do you think that it could?
        I think you will find
        When your death takes its toll
        All the money you made
        Will never buy back your soul.

~~~
michaelwww
Now I understand your point of view, which I share. Much of this nation's drug
war is an outrageous assault on civil liberties, from "we'll drop the charges
if you forfeit assets" to swat teams breaking down the wrong door and shooting
the family dog. People are still in prison for convictions long ago on
outdated marijuana laws. Gupta is not hugely guilty here, but "choom gang"
Obama and Holder are for continuing this madness, and now we're finding out
the NSA data is being shared with local law enforcement.[1]

[1]
[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7a7_1375808882](http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7a7_1375808882)

~~~
rhizome
NSA data is also being shared with the IRS:

[http://rt.com/usa/dea-nsa-irs-snowden-216/](http://rt.com/usa/dea-nsa-irs-
snowden-216/)

------
artagnon
[I'm not talking about most parts of the US, where weed is harder to obtain;
I'm talking about most poor countries, where it is readily available]

I've seen many of my friends waste years of their college lives running around
like stoned hippies, overeating junk food, and watching absolute trash with
loud sounds and bright colors. To make things worse, it's considered a great
"social activity", much like going to a bar to get sloshed with friends. Only
weed is _much_ easier to get hooked onto, because it's much cheaper than
alcohol, and you don't need much more than rolling paper (as opposed to
refrigerator, soft drinks etc).

That said, many of them have had very eye-opening experiences where they learn
a lot more about the world and themselves. They have formed strong social
bonds on the basis of meaningful experiences, and have learnt moderation.
They've also found it to be an extremely good analgesic and laxative.
Ofcourse, there are sections of society that need it more than anything:
chemotherapy patients take it for increased appetite, and people with chronic
headaches take it to reduce occurrences (although LSD has been shown to work
with an even more extreme form: cluster headaches).

Every substance in the world has a potential for abuse: there are plenty of
"sugar junkies" who will live horrible lives and die a painful death, for
instance. All in all, the issue is that of education: we need to legalize all
these substances, and objectively explain how people can practice moderation.
In general, enforcing hard-abstinence is a very poor solution; only repressive
regimes should practice them.

~~~
mikeash
Weed is easier to get hooked onto than alcohol? Do you mean in some
hypothetical universe where weed is legal and widely available? Because that's
definitely not the case right now.

~~~
thedigitalengel
I'm from the same place as the artagnon. Anti-weed laws are almost never
enforced, and weed is incredibly cheap (you'll get enough weed to get 10
people stoned out of their minds for the price of a bottle of beer). And the
ease of storage means you can easily maintain a huge stash.

~~~
jlgreco
Where is this wonderful place?

~~~
artagnon
Any Indian village.

Come over sometime ;)

------
benackles
It's encouraging to see public opinion and the medical community evolve on the
issue of medical marijuana. However, there still remains an ambiguous
interpretation to the way the substance is treated between State and Federal
governments. For example, in my home state of Oregon the laws on medical
marijuana possession are quite liberal, yet the consequences at the Federal
level make progress on the issue nearly void. Furthermore the consequences at
the state level in Oregon for illegal possession of marijuana remain quite
harsh [1].

My biggest concern is that people who otherwise wouldn't be criminal are
becoming lifelong criminals by getting locked up for a relatively harmless
substance. From a financial standpoint, our government needs to tax the
substance so we aren't treating a large portion of the economy differently
than any other industry.

[1] [http://www.robertcrowlaw.com/blog/drug-crimes/oregon-
marijua...](http://www.robertcrowlaw.com/blog/drug-crimes/oregon-marijuana-
possession-laws/)

------
gadders
Cool. Can we have a dispassionate review of Performance Enhancing Drugs now?
I'd be interested to see how harmful they are compared to alcohol, tobacco, MJ
etc.

------
Shivetya
I found it interesting they did not comment on the means of using weed.
Smoking it cannot be much better for you than smoking cigarettes.

Even after the Feds remove it from the list there will be regulation governing
its sale. You can grow tobacco all you want; most people don't because prep is
much harder than marijuana; but run afoul of a few laws should you try to sell
it.

It would certainly reduce the jailed population of this country and possibly
even reduce the usage of harder drugs, after all if there was a legal outlet
most people take the easy route

~~~
tptacek
It's an article of faith that cannabis is a major contributor to US
incarceration, but I think that's a belief worth questioning. I looked into
this briefly for a thread a year ago and in the states I researched, domestic
violence was far and away the leading cause of incarceration.

In many major metro areas, you're more likely to be ticketed for cannabis than
arrested.

I haven't taken the time to come up with a conclusive answer for myself on the
extent to which cannabis criminalization imprisons people in the US; maybe
it's as bad as people think it is. I just think it's worth doing some research
on.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It's an article of faith that cannabis is a major contributor to US
> incarceration, but I think that's a belief worth questioning. I looked into
> this briefly for a thread a year ago and in the states I researched,
> domestic violence was far and away the leading cause of incarceration.

Its been a while since I saw figures, but last I did domestic violence was at
the top of the reasons people were sentenced to incarceration (that is, if you
did a ticker at the door, it would be the most common reason) but narcotics
were the most common reason people were incarcerated (that is, if you did a
count _of the currently incarcerated population_ , drugs would be the most
common reason.)

The difference, of course, is length of sentence.

I don't think marijuana is all that high a share of those incarcerated for
drugs, but if you are using the prominence of the reason people _get_
incarcerated rather than the prominence of the reason people _are_
incarcerated as your standard, you aren't looking at the right issue.

~~~
tptacek
Wow, that's a good point that I hadn't considered when I was looking at the
stats.

------
leke
I really can't understand it when people claim to be addicted to weed. From
what I hear, it's not chemically addictive, so can it really be claimed so if
the addiction is placebic?

~~~
Zigurd
Part of that is a kind of devil's bargain where "offenders" are put into a
treatment program that's doomed to be quack medicine for most of the
participants who have no addiction. Better than jail I suppose.

~~~
leke
So if they say that they are addicted to weed, they skip jail and instead go
to rehab? Makes you wonder.

------
jasperkyle
I know this is a classic libertarian argument, and I hope you will forgive me
that, but this whole thing is just silly. Medical considerations around
marijuana are at best tertiary considerations. Far more important are 1)
personal freedoms and the elimination of the standard of a victimless crime
and 2) the incredibly damaging effects of the War on Drugs. Deal with these
two and it is obvious that marijuana should be legalized. Who cares about the
medical benefits.

~~~
HNJohnC
Exactly right. Treat it like lettuce.

------
ctdonath
Starkly absent from the discussion of state-legal pot is the relevance of the
US Supreme Court verdict in _Raich_. That case concluded that regardless of
state legality and medical prescription & supervision, the federal government
is still justified in executing armed raids on citizen possession of
federally-declared contraband - even if the contraband in question never moved
inter-state (by any stretch of the imagination), such possession could be
regulated (including confiscation) on grounds that _intra_ -state production &
possession _reduced_ demand in _illegal inter_ -state commerce therein (as it
_affected_ inter-state commerce). [No, I'm not kidding. The ruling is, in
fact, that deranged.]

I suspect the DEA will sit back for a while on the subject of state
legalization of pot, but at some point they're going to return to exercising
intense control over the subject. This will not end well for many.

------
throwaway0808
As someone who does have schizophrenia and did smoke weed heavily (once a day,
an eighth a week), I support its legalization with the caveat that people
should be screened for its use and people with likely predisposition for
schizophrenia should avoid it, and if Big Pharma (which I hate) wants to
develop a version which lowers the likelihood of developing schizophrenia
(which I do not believe is likely), I'm all for it. I would not say marijuana
use caused schizophrenia in my case, there's a possibility that I would've
developed schizophrenia later in life when I had a career, and it might've
been worse for me, or might have been better.

I'd also like to add that stimulants, alcohol, and psychedelics are some other
classes of drugs to avoid, if you feel you are predisposed to schizophrenia.

------
piokoch
I am wondering why British employers are testing employees for drugs usage.

Is this justified? Are cannabies, etc. really affecting badly people? If yes,
then it makes sense for the employer to spend its money on tests. If no, it
means that employers in UK are victims of some kind of paranoia against
cannabies.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Which UK companies are carrying out drug tests on their employees? I've never
experienced that first-hand, nor heard of it happening second- or even third-
hand. It is _definitely_ not widespread practice, and is probably a
statistical insignificance.

------
jmharvey
Does anyone have statistics on what percentage of "medical marijuana" is
actually used for the treatment of medical conditions? The de facto medical
marijuana regime in California seems to be that anyone who wants marijuana
goes to a doctor, says they're anxious or have trouble sleeping, and gets a
card. I'm sure some people with legitimate medical problems get relief from
using marijuana, but it seems to be a distinct minority.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Recreational users having a steady
supply has no real social cost, and sick people getting the care they need has
real benefit. But as long as we're going to be talking about medical marijuana
in the context of science, it seems like we should compile some kind of
statistics on this.

~~~
arbitrage
What benefit is there to compiling statistics to say that x% of patients have
legitimate medical reasons, and y% don't? Trying to exert tight control on
this issue has achieved nothing but disaster and failure, at great expense.

There are legitimate medical uses of alcohol, too. A great many people self-
medicate, but it does provide them relief.

Investigating the medical science of the drug is important, yes. But perhaps
investigation of the socio/psychological reasons is a red herring.

------
at-fates-hands
This is a great article, but how can you mitigate the abuse of the system by
people who just want to smoke weed and complain of headaches or glaucoma?

I'm all for easing the pain of people who have real pain issues, but it's
abundantly clear people are abusing the system.

~~~
whiddershins
Even if what you are saying is correct, what exactly is the harm in that?

There is obvious harm in preventing people from having access to a drug which
mitigates their symptoms. There is obvious harm when you imprison someone for
a drug related crime. There is obvious harm when you prevent a business from
legally existing and profiting from the sale of the substance.

Where is the obvious harm when a user recreationally uses a substance, whether
they got it under the false pretext of migraines, or not?

~~~
millstone
This is a reasonable question if you think of medical marijuana like most
prescription drugs: primarily serving medicinal users, where some recreational
users might get it by posing as medicinal users.

But this is not the case, at least not in California. Medicinal marijuana
primarily serves recreational users. Medical users get it by posing as
recreational users.

By that, I mean that you don't get a prescription for MMJ by going to your
normal doctor. You go to the doctor advertised in that shady free newspaper by
the bus stop, in the classified section, just past the escorts. That doctor
almost certainly "specializes" in medical marijuana, which means that he
doesn't actually practice medicine, or do any real evaluation of patients. He
just writes prescriptions all day, $70 a pop. Nice gig if you can get it.

(A Colorado doctor landed in trouble for prescribing MMJ to a pregnant woman.
He didn't even bother to take her basic medical history.)

This article shares one couple's experiences, with one sick person attempting
to go through Kaiser, and one healthy person going through "Dr. Herb Smoker"
(the actual name on the nametag):
[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/california-
medic...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/california-medical-
marijuana-pot-card)

An excerpt:

 _...medical pot is readily available to recreational users while it remains
inaccessible for many truly sick people who might benefit from it. My wife has
no plans to visit Price-Less Evaluations, and I suspect that many people like
her wouldn 't consult the likes of Dr. Herb Smoker._

So there's your harm. The medical marijuana industry is targeted towards
recreational users, in every way - from the decor in the dispensaries, to
selling strains bred for getting high instead of getting healthy. Medicinal
users are an afterthought.

~~~
whiddershins
I don't see how you've demonstrated any harm whatsoever.

------
crusso
The interesting part of this article for me is the illumination of the
weakness of Science as it's practiced and commissioned by the government
today.

For political reasons, the government decided that marijuana was bad - so
almost all of the approved research went into confirming that decision. If
you'd naively look at the number of papers or scientists who've published the
opinion that marijuana is "bad", the evidence would appear overwhelmingly
confirmative.

------
dreamdu5t
Fuck Sanjay Gupta. There is no debate to be had. It is not up for discussion.
I don't have to justify what I do to my body to fucks like this guy or anyone
else.

------
rglover
Marijuana doesn't hurt you. I smoke it on occasion and I _don 't_ use it for
medical reasons. Here's why:

It allows me to land my spaceship. I see where I'm getting things right in
life and where I'm getting them wrong. In essence, it's a great tool for
gaining perspective on a myriad of things. It's not something to abuse, but
rather, to enjoy.

It's time to let people make their own decision about it. They're fully
capable.

------
bayesianhorse
The discussion needs more balanced voices like this. There are a ton of voices
already overhyping the harmlessness.

Besides the damage to developing brains, there are more immediate effects on
the mind, which are less predictable than alcohol.

Make no mistake: The "learning process" of a society that legalizes weed will
involve deaths.

------
danbmil99
If MJ is so useful medically, wouldn't it be healthier (and easier to control
dosage) to injest it, rather than expose your lungs to all that smoke? Hot
smoke can't be good for your airways.

And eventually, can't the active substances be put into pill form?

------
cjdrake
I had no idea the startup community was so interested in the subject of
marijuana. Well, I guess it's just about as interesting as reading a daily
blog about somebody's impressions of the Go programming language.

------
macowar
Is Hacker News the new reddit now? Should I start posting graphic memes?

------
thebiglebrewski
Have you ever changed your mind...ON WEED?!

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkA9rz-1YoA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkA9rz-1YoA)

------
Rulero
I'm quite fascinated by the fact this is on the first page so quickly.

It's evident what all of you get up to in your free time :)

~~~
hereweare
I swear I thought Weed was the name of a startup, and the guy was the name of
a tech guru lol, thats why I skipped the article first time it was on first
page. If I knew , i would have clicked it the first time hehe

------
anonymouz
I love the ambiguity in the headline.

------
mjfl
Isn't any effect that marijuana has on patients going to be confounded with
the placebo effect? Not that I disagree with what is being said, I still have
my doubts about the actual medical usage of marijuana, and the studies that
have been done on it.

~~~
tptacek
300 seizures a month -> 3 seizures a month is unlikely to be a placebo affect,
but plural of anecdotes and all that, sure.

For pain management and quality of life, we probably don't need to worry about
the placebo effect too much; instead, we should just measure whether cannabis
gets people off opiates.

~~~
jetti
"we should just measure whether cannabis gets people off opiates."

This is something that could be major. My wife was in the hospital off and on
this summer with stomach pains. The doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong
(ran all of the tests, put her on liquid diet and the pain continued) so her
doctor put her on OxyContin until the HMO approved a referral to a research
university. The insurance declined the referral stating they wanted a second
opinion, so my wife went to get one and the doctor wanted her to get off all
of the medications. She did and almost killed herself the day after; the
withdrawal from the OxyContin was terrible. If there was a way to manager her
pain without constantly worrying about her becoming addicted or worrying that
when she stops the med she will end up doing something drastic, it would be
amazing!

~~~
j2d3
I had back surgery following a few months of severe debilitating nerve pain.
The surgery fixed the pain, but I was hooked on prescribed opiate painkillers.
I quit the pills cold turkey rather than tapering, because tapering just
prolongs the horrible withdrawals... less severe, but longer lasting, and more
chances you'll just say F-it and not really taper but stay hooked. I used MJ
edibles to zonk myself out silly during the 7 days of the withdrawals so that
they would be more tolerable, and that REALLY REALLY helped, and I succeeded.

------
saltyknuckles
I am a marijuana user with no medical condition. This is awesome.

------
rogerthis
I've already said: stay away from my kids.

------
sgdnogb2n
Better late than never?

------
mumbi
Man, I didn't even know who Dr. Gupta was but I fucking love this guy after
what his article did to the public.

------
rorrr2
Just a hype for his movie.

This all reminds me of how some famous supposed atheists convert to a religion
X and then write books about it selling millions of copies.

Same shit. You're being manipulated.

We don't need a mediocre surgeon to tell us weed is OK. Any idiot with
internet access knew that for the last 15 years.

~~~
freehunter
>We don't need a mediocre surgeon to tell us weed is OK.

We don't. The US government does. Who do you think they listen to more: the
people or the rich and famous? I've certainly never been asked into Congress
to testify for anything.

