*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, August 8th, 2013 8:44am PDT - promote requested by original submitter pumkinandstorm.

Maybe the brainwashed masses will pay attention to Dr. Gupta.

The opponent says "Of course it's not worse than alcohol." Then he questions why we should offer another option to get high. If people could just use pot they wouldn't need alcohol or other much worse legal drugs to get high, innit?

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by lucky760.

I'm glad Gupta has come around on his position regarding medical marijuana, and I will be tuning in on Sunday to watch "weed". However what was up with that "debate" ? Gupta thought that medical marijuana was a legitimate medicine and should not be a schedule one drug, and Howard seemed to agree with him. Howards angle was all about not legalizing it for recreational use which wasn't even part of the discussion. They seemed to be talking about two totally different things, or did I miss something?

That was my take. It was a nonsense exchange.

Marijuana harms the oil industry and big pharma.

I agree. His suggestion seems to be that any recreational drug use is drug abuse, which ofc is completely absurd. Not everybody needs to be completely abstinent to maintain a healthy balance. As for medicating emotions, don't people get written prescriptions for that already?

And damaging young lives?...I think its far more damaging to get hit with a criminal conviction and jail time for possession of a controlled substance. I think its far more damaging for familes south of the border caught up between drug enforcement and drug cartels.

Drug lords using the press (Bozo the Limey Clown) to orchestrate the next consolidation/acquisition...

...Was that supposed to be poignant, or just an extremely obscure inside joke?

Anyway, this "debate" was a bit ridiculous. Howard Samuels was, as others have already pointed out, very clearly straw manning - at no point was it suggested that opposing party thought marijuana should be legalized for recreational use by big companies.

It should also be noted that while Samuels runs a rehab center and in fact has a personal history of fighting addiction, this also has a negative effect on his ability to form an opinion on this situation. For him, extreme vulnerability to addiction is the norm. He himself is probably very prone to addiction, and he exclusively works with other individuals who are also extremely prone to addiction. I would say that the only people for whom marijuana can be seen as a gateway drug is the sort of people for whom alchohol, caffeine, nicotine, adrenaline or really anything that could possibly be abused could be seen as a "gateway drug."

These are the sort of people who always go too far. They drink too much coffee, they take too many risks, they smoke too much and they are always that one guy who gets embarrassingly drunk at parties because he just doesn't know how to limit himself.

But these people shouldn't be seen as the norm because honestly, they simply aren't.

And because Samuels apparently does think that these people define the norm, his view cannot be seen as being comprehensive. He's only looking at the extreme ends of the spectrum, and even then, he's really only looking at the potential negative extremes, because that is where he used to be, and it's where the people he now tries to heal are stuck.

@Procrastinatron That's my take as always, on the underlying nature of propaganda/newspeak/mass mind control in the 21st Century-CNN is an extreme example consisting of bobbleheads spewing shit-think and while producing infotainment, agenda-establishing dialogs, or a window into human tragedy, the parent company Turner Broadcasting, sucks cock by choice. There is ALWAYS an agenda in mind that works for a very few who hold the keys to our economic shackles-Follow the money, follow the power, and discover children, the true nature of the bullshit-

...Wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the mentality of the strawman here, all the signs of an addictive personality, spewing the party-line like so much projectile vomit.

It's sadder to me that they apparently don't understand (or worse, intentionally obfuscate the fact) that the outlawing of a substance makes it MORE available to children, always. Black markets have no scruples and sell to anyone. If you people want to limit the availability to your children and are really worried about it being a gateway drug, it needs to be REGULATED, not outlawed. (I have no children, so I'm not one of you).

I definitely agree that society in general is, and always has been, poisoned by ideology. Well, ideology and religion. Society is, always has been, and probably always will be, defined by a majority that finds excuses to stay stupid, and a minority that never stops looking for more ways to manipulate others into giving them more power.

In this case, however, I don't think that's what's happening. Really, I think that Samuels just happens to be overzealous because the only context within which he ever interacts with drugs in any way is one in which they are abused, with no possibility of responsible use even existing. It's much like a dentist who cannot understand who normal people don't turn dental hygeine into a religion like they do, or an oncologist who cannot for the life of him understand why more people don't live their entire lives in constant fear of getting cancer.

They only ever see the worst, so the worst is what they learn to expect. For them, the negative extreme becomes the norm.

And that is why they cannot be expected to provide a comprehensive view of their subject matters. A valuable and important view, of course, because they do know a fuck of a lot more than us plebes who haven't dedicated our lives to the study of their chosen subject, but... not a comprehensive one.

Don't forget the even smaller minority that simply want reason, fairness, "truth", and honesty, damn the 'cost'... many in this group aren't looking for power and they rarely get it. Perhaps this group is too small to define society.

You missed another perfect example, police that can't understand that individuals might not be criminal, because they only deal with those they assume are criminal in some way.

Good points all around. I consider myself to be a part of that minority, which seems to be the smallest minority of them all, and frankly, the loneliness of it kills. I meet others, here and there, but they are few and far between. I don't think society can be defined by them.

I also very much enjoy, and agree with, the example you added. It's the natural consequence of the inherently clannish structure of police forces, and it's exacerbated by many completely needless factors, such as a cultural leaning towards paranoia (considering modern, post-9/11 America in this case) and the fact that most cops are uneducated schmucks. Because of the constant climate of fear and the fact that its members just don't know any better, the group becomes close-knit, but antagonistic against outsiders, and extremely inflexible in its dealings with them.

Even worse, morals become highly relative as those who are outside the group are automatically dehumanized and thus do not become worthy of the groups regard. Especially when one of its members is perceived to be in danger. This is why it's so ridiculous to let the police police themselves. Put a cop on the stand and he's extremely unlikely to tell the truth if he thinks the truth might be against the interests of the police department because at this point him and the group he is a part of is functioning at a very primitive level, and at this level, the truth is perceived to be highly relative.

But then again, this is more or less true for all social groups. Human beings are a lot less advanced than we give ourselves credit for, and we constantly have to keep ourselves from slipping back into more primitive mindsets.

No matter how many years have passed, i've never understood what is the point of getting rid of all mind altering substances in your life? I understand that there re some that don't like it but why do they have to insist that their way is the only one? Everything in moderation of course, not suggesting we should be "loaded" 24/7. I feel that it's religious reasons that makes our society say "sobriety is a virtue" and everything else is a sin. I hear those monks do make great beer thou

"But people use it to get loaded! Think of the children! Now there are two drugs to use!"
Seriously, that's Samuels main argument against legalisation?
First of all, hell yes, people want to get high. Weed isn't healthy but it's certainly healthier than alcohol.
Second, legalisation would also mean a higher likelyhood of age verification. Dealers don't check for ids, store might with the right laws in place. Works for alcohol, doesn't it?
Third, they already have weed available for consumption. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean people don't do it everywhere. You don't add it to the available drugs, you just change how you handle it.

The only good argument I know against legalisation is this: What kind of industry would the weed industry become in a country where favourable legislation can be bought by the highest bidder? Worse than the tobacco industry?
That's where it may become scary.

Just for the record, some of us quite like alcohol.

Even if pot was legal, I doubt I'd give up beer and wine.

Ayup. I've never tried pot, but I doubt I'd ever give single malt scotch for it. Then again, "getting high" was never the point of scotch for me.

Not really the proper use of the term "innit"

and another aye, me drunken brothers!

To clarify, I just meant your legal options wouldn't *only* be limited to alcohol and opiates.

I don't know wo' makes you an expa', but you're fla' out wrong, innit?

Via here:

1. (British slang, esp. Asian, i.e. Indian, Pakistani, etc.)

Contraction of "isn't it", "isn't he/she", "aren't they", "isn't there" and many other end-of-sentence questions. For greatest effect use in places where it would make no sense whatsoever if expanded.

Derives from the chav/townie/pikey sub-culture, but falsely over-labbeled on the British Asian Communities. Innit is a shortened version of is it not, in context, it would be "is it not?" which we can see is a question due to the required question mark and change in the pitch of the voice to indicate a question is being asked. Chavs, however, due to their lack of education (zero GCSEs) and ignorance towards learning English at school because "i already speaks it, innit", tend to, more often than not, use the term innit when a statement has been used, rather than a question.

Now lets see if people realize they are being lied to in many other things where its about a lot of money.
I doubt it, since history has delivered many reasons for that long before, and they were all ignored as a lesson.

Silly argument on the part of Mr. Samuels... I mean, please...seriously...he could take his argument and apply it to *anything* that makes a person feel very good. "Getting loaded" in and of itself is not harmful to anyone, and those two words were essentially his entire argument. Got something floating around which randomly causes serious harm to uninformed parties, including death? Regulate it, please. But "OMG people can enjoy this stuff" is not a good enough reason.

of all the sensible pro-marijuana videos on this site, this might be the first one i show my mom.

and now the articles in the news focus on THC content, yet again.

There is a PHd chemistry professor at my school, young guy, who didnt even know cannabidiol was from cannabis. CBD. You know, the anti cancer neuroprotectant miracle drug?

Yea. Current research and the US PATENT on the substance say we have been misled. Where is gupta on this EASY to find information?

FUck.

Please spread the word. The sin of omission is the greatest of all.

Gupta = dumb ass.