Medical Marijuana

Sanjay Gupta Pushes Even Further in Support of Medical Marijuana

CNN to air new documentary about pot's medicinal value


Somebody's off the DEA's Christmas card list

Last August, CNN's Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta completely reversed his position on the use of medical marijuana. He was once an opponent, buying into the flippant claim from government prohibitionists that the plant had no medical value. Then he discovered Charlotte Figi, the little girl whose life-threatening seizures resisted all treatments other than medical marijuana. He came around and even apologized for his previous position, realizing he hadn't done enough research.

Now, he says he's "doubling down" on his support for medical marijuana (though if we're going to abuse gambling metaphors, I'd say he's going "all in"). He's been continuing researching medical marijuana and will be airing a new documentary on Tuesday, March 11, on CNN. He writes:

More remarkable, many doctors and scientists, worried about being ostracized for even discussing the potential of marijuana, called me confidentially to share their own stories of the drug and the benefit it has provided to their patients. I will honor my promise not to name them, but I hope this next documentary will enable a more open discussion and advance science in the process.

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, defined as "the most dangerous" drugs "with no currently accepted medical use."

Neither of those statements has ever been factual. Even many of the most ardent critics of medical marijuana don't agree with the Schedule I classification, knowing how it's impeded the ability to conduct needed research on the plant.

Acknowledging that marijuana's Schedule I classification is utter nonsense is a nice touch. Read what else he has to say here. He has interviewed several of what he calls "cannabis refugees" – families who have had to move to Colorado in order to get access to medical marijuana because they could get arrested for drug trafficking if they tried to bring it back to their home states.

NEXT: Administration Announces Another Obamacare Delay

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t know anything about Gupta because I never watch CNN, but it’s nice to hear somebody admit they were wrong and apologize for it.

    1. From what I can tell he’s pretty much a straight Obama-style progressive, but at least he’s coming around on this particular issue.

    2. he never really admits that he was *wrong* to hold his previous view… just that, you know, he’s a progressive enlightened type of person, and when a guy like that *looks deeper* at things (which have been obvious for decades), he is capable of experiencing revelations that remarkably change his current opinion 180 degrees WITHOUT EVER REALLY CHANGING HIS PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT STATE CONTROL OVER SUBSTANCES OR THE DRUG WAR”

      He’s a politically correct media fuckwit amending his official position for the sake of his continued use as a TV-Doctor by the liberal press.

      Only the religiously devoted experience overnight ‘sea changes’ in points of view, ‘revelations’ that completely reverse their thinking…. whereas people that develop positions based on decades of experience and research and accumulated knowledge? Things happen slowly and tend to continue to reinforce basic principles. Of which Dr. Cable-News Guy (*conveniently ethnic too! in the old days he’d have been jewish) has zero to speak of.

      I note that in his ‘doubling down’ piece he never mentions the fact that millions of people have been put in jail over the years due to the ‘pervious positions’ of experts like himself. Baggage, overboard!

      1. previous.

        Pervious should be a word. previouslyperverted.

        1. Would you be pervious to an argument that it already is a word?


  2. Not a real fan of television doctors myself, but at least he’s doing the right thing, and fully admitting his errors on top of it. I’ll take any progress where it can be found too, and it seems Dr. Gupta realizes how useful his platform as a television personality/doctor can be. Good on him.

    1. television doctors

      I’m a big fan of that addict doctor, he seemed pretty cool.

    2. No love for the Oz-man?

  3. He came around and even apologized for his previous position, realizing he hadn’t done enough research.

    Or, you know, any. Hopefully hidden somewhere deep inside Obamacare are severe sanctions for those medical practitioners who fail to toe the company line on the Drug War so these people can get their comeuppances.

    1. While to Docs who never admit that they were wrong go unpunished? I am failing to see the logic here…

  4. Meanwhile, those of us who actually read the medical literature before talking about how effective medications are, let alone before mouthing off about them on national television, realized years ago that the “drugs are illegal because they are dangerous” line is sometimes a bunch of bullshit. A cursory survey of the reasons why marijuana was made illegal in the first place would be all that you’d need to start suspecting something was amiss. I’ll give him full credit for having the guts to admit he was wrong, and then putting his money where his mouth is by campaigning for legalization of at least medical marijuana, but he still sucks for not bothering to research the subject in the first place before pontificating about it.

  5. Now, he says he’s “doubling down” on his support for medical marijuana (though if we’re going to abuse gambling metaphors, I’d say he’s going “all in”).

    You missed the obvious “doobie-ing down”.

  6. “Dr. Oz says…” is usually followed by some inane claptrap in my experience…

  7. At this point in time it has aired.

    I won’t critique anything but the part which stuck out that I didn’t like.

    Near the end it seemed as though Kennedy was not a Prohibitionist, nor Volkow. And no mention of Kennedy’s involvement with SAM was made. 🙁 Volkow, it seems to me, is a “let them eat cake” decriminalizer, she couldn’t care less.

    And for sure Kennedy and the crowd he runs with believes in too many, too complex, and/or too strict laws; the net result being Prohibition.

    But my guess is the thinking is to present them to the audience as people who are in agreement with the need for mmj, and to help end the stigma any viewers have. Perhaps the expos? on how two-faced Prohibitionists have been ? and continue to be ? behind the scenes thwarting progress, will be at a later date.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.