May 4, 2025 • 52 mins
Producer Phillip James Latham @PHiLOSOPHEEZ joins for another episode of 'Last Weed Tonight' to discuss the most recent Cannabis & Hemp headlines
5.4.25 | Topics & Headlines
-Overwhelming Majority Support Legalization
-Did the Government cure Cancer in 1974 using Cannabis?
-Texas Overturns Voter
-Approved Cannabis laws.
-New Federal Cannabis Research Opens Where?
-DEA Nominee says, "Rescheduling A Priority."
-Legal Cannabis Leads To A Decrease In Misuse.
Guest: Phillip Latham | Producer
https://www.instagram.com/imphillipja...
https://www.instagram.com/philosopheez/
https://www.youtube.com/@UCvpqMS3x2ok...
News Sources:
https://norml.org/news/2025/04/24/lar...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-y...
https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/can...
https://www.bing.com/search?q=republi...
https://norml.org/blog/2025/04/22/tex...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:07):
Welcome back to the Cannabis Podcast to another episode of
Last Weed Tonight. Joining us again is Philip James
Latham. You know Mel's fees.
Hello. And seem to be a regular people
love you, I love you. So we're going to keep doing it
this way. I love you too dawg.
Yes Sir, it was just visited him, saw him in person, gave big
(00:29):
hugs. Now we're back to this digital
smoked. A joint that was it's an
important. We did, we shared a joint.
I had a nice little chat during the Lakers game and then had to
hit the road. But how was your drive back to
see you? Man, I recommend everyone see
(00:49):
their friends in person. That's what I recommend.
Mental health. Mental health is #1 all right,
what do you want to take a look at Mr. Philosophies first?
So it's been a couple of probably a couple weeks or so
since we last linked up, but I've pulled some stuff together
and I think there's some interesting shit happening.
(01:10):
All right, well, I got it set upto start with the last one
first, but we'll go back to the beginning.
Do it live. So I came across this the other
day because I hit my inbox in their newsletter and I was like,
this is this is this is legitimizing all the stuff that
we've been talking about since we started talking about
cannabis years and years ago. So this is coming at you from
(01:34):
the National Organization for the reform of marijuana laws
normal, the largest ever meta analysis.
There exists a quote, strong consensus support supporting the
therapeutic use of cannabis as if we didn't know that already.
It's really exciting to know that there's actual like medical
studies happening that are validating it.
(01:56):
So it comes from New York. This is published April 24th.
So you know, almost a week ago. Cannabis has a quote well
established role in managing symptoms related to cancer and
there is a quote substantial scientific basis for re
evaluating its classification asa Schedule 1 controlled
substance. According to the findings of a
meta analysis of over 10,000 scientific papers published in
(02:18):
the journal Frontiers and Oncology, investigators
affiliated with the Chopra Foundation in New York and the
Whole Healthy Oncology Institutein Hawaii reviewed the data from
10,641 peer reviewed studies assessing the efficacy and
safety of cannabis for managing cancer related symptoms.
The analysis of the is the largest ever conducted on the
(02:41):
subject of cannabis and cancer management.
They reported that quote all across all categories examined,
health metrics, cancer treatments and cancer dynamics.
There is a consistent consensus that supports the potential of
medical cannabis. So you know, we can, we can keep
kind of chatting about the rest of the article.
But like, I feel like that's kind of the crux of the point is
(03:03):
like if there's 110 / 10,000 peer reviewed studies that
they're using for this meta analysis that all come to the
same conclusion specifically around cancer.
So like, you know, I don't necessarily want to go
proselytizing that it's the be all end all solution for all
ailments by any means, but specifically when it comes
something as pervasive as cancerand the treatment there of
(03:26):
therapeutically. I'm really, you know, strong
advocate for people to have access to this substance as an
alternative to any kind of, you know, petroleum derivative,
pharmaceutical medications that are being shoved down their
throats or radiation and all thenasty stuff that comes with
chemo. You know, I have friends, family
(03:49):
that have all dealt with cancer,cancer scares and spats.
And you know, by the grace of God, haven't had any losses yet
to, to speak of. But you know, it's, it's just
another one of these things. It's very validating in a
scientific standpoint that you know what you and I and so many
other people in the, you know, advocacy real have been talking
(04:11):
about are just finally, you know, getting the the support
from the scientific community that we've been vying for for a
long time. Yeah, and to your I can relate
with that well as well. My uncle had cancer, passed away
of lung cancer, my aunt had Melanoma.
(04:32):
I've had some skin cancer. My mom and dad both had skin
cancer. My grandmother had breast cancer
and my other and her husband, mymom's dad died of pancreatic
cancer. So I, I, I feel yeah.
And this last section right here, I'll.
I want to read it because it says the study's authors
concluded. In medical practice, the strong
support for cannabis as a palliative adjunct to cancer
(04:55):
treatments, which is just another fancy way of saying
alternative offers healthcare providers a data-driven
foundation to consider cannabis as part of a comprehensive
cancer care strategy. The demonstrated efficacy in
managing symptoms like pain, nausea and appetite loss can
significantly enhance patients quality of life, making cannabis
a valuable tool in both palliative care and potentially
(05:19):
in curative settings. Repeat that in potentially in
curative settings, meaning they know they cured it.
And we'll talk about this later.I don't know, maybe we can pull
it up now, but the 1979 study from Virginia that said cancer
(05:39):
or cannabis cures cancer and then Nixon was like, get rid of
that study. We'll go back to that in a SEC.
But anyway, the growing consensus around cannabis
therapeutic benefits also highlight the need for medical
professionals to stay informed about the latest research as
cannabis continues to evolve from a controversial substance
to a scientifically validated treatment option.
(06:02):
Now real quick, this would be a great tool for AI where every
morning a healthcare provider will have in their inbox all the
new peer reviewed papers, all the new articles having to do
with cannabis right there in their inbox so they don't have
(06:23):
to search for it. Hey AI, find me and curate all
the articles about cannabis thathave come out in the last
whatever. And then there you go.
Yes, this is a great article. I don't know if I looked at the
one from up in post, but it's phenomenal.
I suggest you look I. Was going to say it basically
(06:44):
goes into what you were just talking about.
Scroll down a little bit. Yeah, I want to see where it
talks about the actual. This one.
There it is first experiment documenting POTS potent anti
cancer effect took place in 1974at the Medical College of
(07:04):
Virginia at the behest federal bureaucrats and in the
government. The result of this study
reported in the Washington Post,which I'm going to find that
where the marijuana's primary psycho epic component THC slowed
the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus
induced leukemia in lab mice andprolonged their lives by as much
(07:27):
as 36%. That's huge.
That's huge. So whatever I talk about,
whenever somebody says anyway, sorry, I'll keep going.
Despite these favorable did I already just skip one?
No. Despite favorable preliminary
findings published in the Journal of the National Cancer
(07:50):
Institute later that year, U.S. government officials refused to
authorize any follow up researchuntil conducting a similar,
though secret preclinical trial in the mid 90s.
That study, conducted by the US National Toxicology Program to
the tune of $2,000,000, concluded that mice and rats
administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater
(08:11):
protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls.
However, they want to word that sure, go ahead.
In the years since the completion of the National, No.
No, no, read the highlighted section.
However, rather than publicize their findings, the US
government shelved the results, which only became public after a
(08:34):
draft coffee copy of its findings were leaked to the
medical journal AIDS treatment News, which in turn forwarded
the story to the national media.So without a leak or a mole or
somebody doing the right thing. Whistleblower, we'll call them.
Whistleblower is another term for them.
We would never know this. So hey, guys, if you're like
(08:56):
your government, don't care, sorry, I'm going to bring it to
you. They don't like you.
They don't like you. And when you accept it, that's
when we move forward. So this is insane.
Let's keep going because this isan article that is actually
insane. In the years since the
completion of the trial, the US government has yet to authorize
a single additional study examining the drugs potential
(09:20):
anti cancer properties. Federal permission is necessary
in order to conduct clinical research on marijuana because
it's illegal. Status as schedule 1 and
sidemar. A little quick aside, we've said
this before, but the only place in the country where you can
grow federally cannabis legal isOle Miss.
(09:42):
That comes up. Later, which I'm assuming had a
connection with the people in the 70s who made this, which is
the South, which is all that stuff.
So which is where this actually comes from?
Which? Is where this is a great
natural. Anyway, transition, well,
there's a lot of like spawned off transitions that we can go
(10:03):
through because like so. Thanks for following along with
us. We appreciate it.
But we're giving you some good, some good articles.
We're going to pin all the comments and the links or excuse
me, pin all the links in the in the comment section.
So, so yeah, so like this, this is, you know, this ties in very
well. So the meta analysis of 10,000
studies stemming, you know, potentially finally how many
(10:23):
this 40 years later. That's insane.
That's. Crazy. 50 No 4040 years later.
Math. Math 74 2004 1424 Wait, no,
yeah, that's ish. That's 50 years.
Yeah, that's insane. Modcasters does it take to do
(10:44):
math? I hope only two, because if 1
doesn't get it, I hope the otherone gets it.
And honestly, both of us have calculators on our computer and
our phones so. We got it.
We got there. Oh, that's interesting.
So the article where? Where do I click?
Is it dead? Link.
It's this one. Yeah, it's a dead link.
Womp, womp. But quick, quick teaching
(11:06):
moment. I mean, you can't make this up,
people. Copyarchive.org If you've never
heard of the Wayback Machine useful tool paste return.
Well, the Internet archives. Well, they actually started
scrubbing it. Oh look, what are all these
(11:26):
black bars mean? These are all the times this
website was modified. Let's go back to the beginning.
This is a teachable moment. I don't think a lot of people
know about this. Yeah.
This is where you know, if you guys ever get question, where we
get our sources, where I read news, where I get my
information, Internet Archive and.
(11:48):
There's other kind of ancillary tools to the Internet Archive,
OK, And you wonder why they don't want you to see this.
Why would? You expand that.
Yeah, on that article. There we go.
Pot shrinks tumors government new in 1974.
(12:12):
Imagine my shock that the government doesn't want you to
know in 2024 what it knew back in 1974.
So. This was leaked bro.
This was leaked when posted when?
So this was posted May 31st 2000.
This article at least. But yeah, it says in 19. 74
There's your, there's your, there's your inverted. 531
(12:35):
Interesting. Well, just the three in one.
I know, I know, I know. I didn't it.
Is that's amazing. So in 1974, researchers learned
the THC, the active chemical marijuana, shrank or destroyed
brain tumors and test mice with the DEA quickly shut down the
study and destroyed its results,which were never replicated
(12:55):
until now. So This is why whenever.
Oh, interesting. So this this this study was
actually replicated in February 2000.
In Madrid. In Madrid, shock it didn't
happen in the United States. Well, right, that's where that's
why this stuff had to happen in other places.
(13:18):
Now, you know what I mean? So if it was just up to the US
to do it, they would just slow walk it.
But these started doing it. Most Americans don't know
anything about the Madrid discovery.
Virtually no US major US newspapers carry the story,
which ran only in the AP and UPInews wires on February 29th,
2000. What a shame dude.
(13:38):
Bro, we got all right. Stay tuned.
We're going to go into this more.
We're going to do another deep dive on this.
Yeah. But I actually we could just
turn this all into this. True.
We'll, we'll, we'll stick with, we'll stick with what we did
because we go this, this is, yeah, this is its own little
rabbit hole of like, yeah, this is, this is.
This is good stuff. This is good stuff.
(13:59):
Pin pin this and if you want to research the article, you now
you know how to find it. This is a preview.
Naughty, naughty, naughty naughty in 2025, discoverable in
2025. Don't let anybody fool you, OK?
But this is a good Segway into our next point because another
normal article Republican leaning poll finds quote, there
(14:20):
is no demographic group that doesn't believe cannabis should
be legal. And if that is the case, by way
of a majority or Republican leaning, we'll say poll who, if
anybody, believes stereotypes, Republicans, I thought were
supposed to be the people that advocated against cannabis
legalization. If a poll that is leaning
(14:42):
Republican a la conservative right wing, whatever is finding
that no demographic thinks it shouldn't be legal, then what
are we doing? Why is it still illegal then?
Or what's, you know, decriminalized, whatever,
whatever. It's very interesting you say
that because this this is coupled with kind of our next
(15:03):
story, which can kind of be the same one because Texas is right
leaning. I would say, you know, and
they're actually halting. I live in Austin right now and
they're trying to overturn the voter ballot initiative from I
don't know what year 2022 I. Think it was year 2022.
And where San Marcos and Austin both have. 8081%.
(15:28):
Both voted 81%, which is insane.You almost never get that much
majority or consensus I should say, to decriminalize cannabis
in both the cities. And it went through, approved by
City Council, all that kind of stuff.
And now The Who, the Lieutenant governor and the top.
(15:52):
Attorney General. Attorney General, That's what it
is. The attorney General and a bunch
of other top Republicans are literally trying to overturn.
They're in the process of overturning A voter approved
ballot initiative that was certified and is already in
practice with businesses workingwith a whole kind of ecosystem
building, and now they're going to overturn it.
(16:15):
Why? OK, so.
Why now? I want to answer your question
and go on a little bit of a rantfor a second.
Do it. In February 2024, Republican
Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit against San Marcos
and four other cities that had adopted voter approved de de
penalization laws. Opining quote.
I will not stand idly by as cities run by pro crime
(16:36):
extremists deliberately violate Texas law and promote the use of
illicit drugs that harm our communities.
He filed a similar suit against the city of Dallas in December.
Pause. OK, I don't consider myself a
right leaning person. I don't consider myself anymore
a left-leaning person. Although if you go by where I
(16:58):
fell in like the little grid test thing, I'm a left slight of
center leaning libertarian. And this, this statement fucking
pisses me off because on one hand I'll agree with, I don't
like the fact that like a lot ofthe Democratic LED cities and
(17:23):
you know, in some instances states, although I do still
reside in one and live in a county that is run by them, that
there's like no accountability or you know, punishment,
consequences, whatever. For crime.
I have been the victim of crimes.
Me and my wife were assaulted and nobody got in trouble for
(17:45):
it. So, you know, I'm the first one
to say like, yeah, dude, like, Idon't care if it's, you know,
considered a petty crime or whatever.
Although I, you know, going to the whole prison industrial
complex and the fact that's problematic too.
Again, leaving all that aside, there's too much information
(18:06):
that says that cannabis itself is not a problem in the sense
that it's, it's it's able to be used as a medicine.
It's able to be used for all sorts of very positive purposes.
But it's been stigmatized and ostracized and demonized by, you
know, collective society becauseof shit like this where this
(18:30):
guy's coming out and you know, I'm not going to stand idly by
and like he's taking some righteous moral stand against a
plant. And it's like, dude, get a grip.
Maybe smoke a joint, find out, oh, it's not so bad.
And then get off your high horseand and be a little bit more
explicit in terms of how you're talking about these kinds of
(18:53):
subjects. Because if you're lumping in
cannabis with meth and heroin and all these alcohol, all these
other super destructive illicit drugs, you're missing the mark
in my opinion. And you know, I don't like, I
(19:13):
don't enjoy living in places that are led by hypocrites or
people that are just uninformed or misinformed.
You know, I think I try and do my best.
Dude. No shit.
And like it's in, it's in the pipeline.
But you know, I think. I'm like the country if that's
the case. Where and go where?
That's my point. Go where?
That was my ultimate point, is going to keep hopping around the
(19:36):
hypocrites. End up on an island that I had
to buy or like, you know, stake out.
Yeah. Anyways, rant over.
But it's just like, come on, man.
Like, why can't we just like, recognize that both based on
like what the last article was saying and the one before that.
It's like, OK, clearly there's benefit.
(19:59):
Or for like a large demographic of people that are suffering, at
the very least, please recognizethat 2.
Nobody in their right sensible mind agrees with you that this
plant is like destroying society.
At the very least, they're indifferent, right?
(20:21):
Like, like they're like, I don'tcare.
I've got shit to worry about. I've got to feed my family.
I don't care about a plant. Exactly.
Just don't do it around me or whatever, you know?
I don't like how it smells or whatever.
Like everybody's allowed to havethose kinds of honestly.
Honestly, if the if the smell and I get it, if you don't like
to smell, it's just like cigarettes for me.
It smells like shit. It's awful.
(20:42):
I get it. But if you if you take away the
smell, then they're don't care. They really don't, you know, and
all the studies are coming out saying even pregnant women are
not getting any second hand problems, you know, with because
by the time everything gets to the baby, if it gets to the
baby, there's nothing there. You know it's been filtered.
(21:03):
Yeah, it's, it's like a triple distillate, you know, but it's
just to your point, what's what's the difference between a
pro crime extremist and an anti crime extremist?
Isn't there a difference? 1.
You know, it's just the, it's just the sign they hold.
Like that's what Texas is. It's a anti crime extremists
(21:26):
now, whatever that's going to beon a national scale to like,
what? What do we always hear?
You know, law and order, you know, law and order and crime.
And I get it. The cartels run a ton of stuff,
legalize weed. They won't run half of what they
run. Oh, maybe that's why you can't
(21:49):
do it, because you're partnered with them to do that job and now
you have to untangle those webs,which is what we're watching
play out in real time. Yep, Yep.
So that's my rant over. So anyways, but like OK, so now
(22:10):
we can. Text.
These often make your voice heard.
Be loud. Amen.
Amen. But yeah, so jumping kind of
from the same tone and token or what a sentiment, whatever you
want to call it, to the next thing you know, we were talking
about Ole Miss earlier. New federally backed marijuana
Research Center launches A university that for decades held
(22:31):
a monopoly is the only institution federally authorized
to grow marijuana for study purposes, is touting the launch
of a new cannabis Research Center it is hosting with the
help of a federal grant. I didn't even read this article
yet before we that's. The University of Mississippi
has been selected to house the National Institutes of Health or
the National Institute of Health's Research Center or
(22:52):
Resource Center for Cannabis andCannabinoid Research, which the
federal agency first announced in late 2023.
The college will be partnering with Washington State University
and the United States Pharmacopia with support of a
grant awarded by the National Center for Complementary and
Integrative Health under NIH. Ole Miss will lead the efforts
(23:15):
regulatory guidance core, while WSU will research support and
USP or will handle research support and USP will focus on
research standards. Ole Miss is National Center for
Natural Products Research will house the NIH Resource Center to
quote, provide cannabis researchinformation through an
interactive website, webinars, seed funding and conferences to
(23:37):
empower researchers to quote generate more science backed
evidence, it said in a press release.
Should we just e-mail in that article we just found?
Like, do you think we could justspeed up the process and just
say, hey, where's our grant? I want a grant.
We just I'll teach people. We just saved you 30 years of
research and a lot of pretend theatrics.
(23:59):
Wow. Yeah, So, yeah, so this is going
to be headed. Donald Stanford, assistant
director of the University of Mississippi's Research Institute
of Pharmaceutical Sciences, saidR3 CR, which is the acronym that
they're using, will raise attention to quote, significant
changes in the landscape of cannabis research.
Changes such as stronger and improved regulation, compliance,
(24:22):
development of more cannabis technologies, as well as the FDA
are receiving relevant safety data to make decisions on
cannabinoids in food and dietarysupplements can all eventually
contribute to people's health. Well, ain't that about a bish?
I just want to say to everybody,This is why I'm sure they
relate. It's frustrating to read
(24:43):
articles like this when you know, if you've been watching
this podcast, which we really appreciate by the way, you being
here and supporting the channel.But if you've been listening,
you know, we've mentioned old miss multiple times, multiple,
multiple times about that fact that they're the only place that
has had approval and now they'rebeing awarded the federal grant
(25:08):
for the new. So my question is not question,
just statement, I guess. So they're just going to slow
bleed this information out at the pace they want and at the
height they want. But all this news is going to be
superseded probably by bigger World News to where this will
(25:29):
be, as they said in the article earlier, carried by one or two
news outlets, if that. We're putting you on some game
right now, peeps. Yeah.
This is wild. Yeah.
Like this is actually like I'm actually.
This is a good article. This is pretty wild.
(25:50):
I I really recommend people readthis.
I'm going to actually go back and read it again.
But right about the center came months after a national Advisory
Council where members approved the concept.
They approved the concept for the institute.
Meanwhile, DEA recently notifiedan agency judge that the
marijuana rescheduling process is still on hold, with no future
(26:11):
actions currently rescheduled asthe matter sits before the
acting administrator, who was called cannabis a gateway drug
and linked its use to psychosis.Now maybe, just maybe, he's just
buying time and running cover sothat this new federally funded
research place can discover new information to be shared with
(26:33):
him to where he will now open his brain and he just will be
enlightened to the truth. Because that seems like the
route it's going down, but I digress.
Which then leads us to well and.On a positive note, legalizing
marijuana led to an increase in use but a decrease in
(26:55):
problematic misuse, study shows by the American Medical
Association. You want to read it?
Oh yeah, sure, sure, sure. So new research published by the
American Medical Association finds that while federal or
While frequency of marijuana useamong adults in Canada increased
(27:17):
slightly in the years following nationwide legalization,
problematic misuse of cannabis in fact saw modest decreases.
The report, which was published on Wednesday in JAMA Network
Open, looked at data from 1428 adults aged 18 to 65 who
completed assessments roughly every six months between
September 2018 and October 2023,a primary goal.
(27:40):
Peer reviewed I believe. Yeah, I think JAMA is peer
reviewed. A primary goal of the study,
which was partially funded by the federal agency, the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research, was to examine how consumption
patterns changed following the country's legalization of adult
use marijuana, sales of which began in October 8th, 2018.
(28:00):
Researchers also wanted to understand whether the use
patterns changed based on how frequently people use cannabis
prior to legalization, as well as how users product preferences
changed. Interesting.
So they were just trying to do like an analysis of people's
buying and consumption patterns.Like I do like that.
What this shows is that on a bigger scale, Speaking of the
(28:22):
human, humans can make their owndecisions of how much they want
to consume because they know their body, they know their
limits and tolerance, etcetera. Like, yes, there's always going
to be a percentage of people that misuse anything, but that's
the same with hammers and nails and, you know, and.
Objects you. Know that kind of thing.
(28:43):
So sure, you don't want what's the saying?
You don't want perfect to get the way of progress but lead to
their own devices. Humans will make decisions, I
think, that are fine. Yeah, I mean, that's where my
biggest thing recently is just like, you know, give people
(29:05):
information, give them choice, and then let them make their own
decisions because all of us havefree will.
And you know as well. Yeah, exactly.
As long as you have informed consent, you know, don't stand
in people's way of doing and getting what they want.
Like, yeah, like you said, hammers can be used to build a
house or to bludgeon someone over the head, you know, I mean,
(29:27):
go ahead. No, I was just going to probably
continue ranting. So article goes on.
Frequency of marijuana use overall increased slightly, but
significant significantly over afive year period.
Among all participants, the meanproportion of days using
cannabis increased by .35% per year, or 1.75% over the five
(29:49):
year study period. People who used cannabis most
frequently before legalization saw the largest declines in use.
People who consume marijuana on a daily basis prior to
legalization decrease their frequency use more than those
who'd used marijuana on a weeklybasis.
How I don't know this, this getsa little, this gets a little
(30:10):
convoluted for me. So it's like.
You can just we'll just pin it and let the.
Yeah, anyways. That's the point.
You get the point, but basicallyit's just like alcohol.
It's just like alcohol, right? Yes, there's a portion of people
that get blackout drunk. I used to be one of those
people. No, I don't drink, but but it's
(30:31):
most people who can have a drinkor two.
Most people that drink just havea drink or two or three.
You know they don't get blackoutdrunk every night.
But segue. But But alcohol retailers say
only they should be able to legally sell marijuana products.
(30:53):
That's interesting. Yeah, that's interesting.
I don't have a problem with you also selling it, but like only
doesn't. So before we get into this, I'll
tell the people what I told you earlier too.
I was meeting with when I had one of my sales jobs.
I was meeting with the, I believe President at the time.
(31:14):
I don't know if he is now president of the time at the
Tennessee Alcohol Commission or whatever they call it.
He had a liquor store we were meeting in his office on the the
upstairs floor trying to sell some, I think THC gummies or
something into him and he's but they're not allowed to sell
them. But he said the only way he
would support he's like, I support legalization, but like
(31:37):
only from a, you know, my business is going to be taking
the big hit, you know, from people going over to cannabis.
So I want to sell it here. And I was like, well, would you
also I my point at the time to him was I would you also block
home grow? And he's like, well, no, you
know, if they want to grow it athome, go ahead.
And I was like, OK, as long as you don't block that, you can
(31:59):
also grow it, but you only grow it or only sell it.
That that's is that freedom? Is that market?
Is that freedom of market? You know what I mean?
Is that commerce is that American?
I don't think so. That's just power of money, you
know, And I kind of really set it to his face, but he didn't
(32:23):
really know. There wasn't really much to say.
You know, it was just like, well, yeah, you know, if we're
going to legalize it, I want to sell it in here.
And that would probably be the reason why alcohol lobbies,
until they get what they want out of this legalization deal,
are going to keep opposing it. You know, it's not that they
don't. They don't oppose it becoming
legal because there's already brands Lagunitas and all these
(32:44):
other beer brand Pete Paps. They're making cannabis drinks,
you know, or someone's white labeling and putting paps on
them. But it's actually paps being
sold in a legal dispensary. So it's obviously the brand
hasn't, you know, said no or is the brand so?
I'm waiting. I'm waiting for the Bud Light
(33:05):
weed drink. Oh, I'm telling.
I mean, they already have it. It's kind of like, it's kind of
like, lol, you know, I'm not, never mind.
I'm not trying to be mean to anybrand, but I just not a that not
a fan of their business practices.
Of course not. But I, I, I think if you know,
MGD or Anheuser Busch or like any of those players getting
(33:29):
into the game, like it's just like it's like Philip Morris and
the, and the cannabis cigarettes.
It's like as soon as that hits the market, like is game over,
right? Well, just just like alcohol has
the Bud Lights, the the Coors lights, the Miller Genuine
Drafts, and it's also got the small batch Burt, you know, the
local brew. The craft stuff.
(33:51):
Craft beer economy is booming. That what you see in the
alcohol. That's where the cannabis
industry is going to go. Like that's going to be the
blueprint. I think to to that to that
specific point, though, I think it'll kind of reflect a little
bit more of like the wine industry just because there's
(34:13):
like the terroir that impacts wine or alcohol, probably wine,
yeah, I mean tomato, tomato, tomato.
No, no, no. I know what you mean by the wine
analogy, because you got your Reds or whites, and then in the
Reds and the whites you got Pinot Noir, you know?
Right. You know, OK, you got to blend,
then you and then. And people are going to want to
(34:34):
start to get well, I think we talked about this on the last
show where we were talking aboutlike, you know, the ethic you're
like this, the the entourage effect versus like cannabinoids,
specific effects, flavonoids, terpenes, and like how the
synergy impacts the, the physiological feeling that you
get from ingestion and all that kind of stuff.
(34:56):
I think as consumer palate refines and as this becomes a
more pervasively adopted substance to consume, I think
people are going to kind of get,well, I don't know, because you
still have a huge proportion of people that are drinking the Bud
Lights and like the crap beer that's just like mass pump
(35:16):
because. They're boycotting it.
They're they're pro, they're probud.
Like it's like. A yeah, Kidron, Kidron like,
shot off one shot off a case that made me laugh.
I was like, big. And then still sold it at his
bar. I know.
Like that that just like. Hypocrites bro.
Why? Hypocrites.
(35:38):
Do you not have any? Honestly do not have anything
better to do with your time thenshoot a case of bud lights with
a gun. I mean, Alex Jones shot up, shot
up his YouTube, his YouTube plaque.
Anything you could do, anything that you could have donated that
beer to a frat that you didn't like as a joke.
(36:01):
True. True, True.
True. Be creative about it.
Yeah, fair enough. I don't know, I'm just joking.
But like, you also could be just, I don't know, maybe Kid
Rock's got some charities I don't know about, but.
Maybe he spends a lot of time with Dana White and Trump.
So I don't know. We'll see.
Anyways, so just just to put it on the record, the, the agency
(36:22):
or the, you know, entity, the retailers group that put this
memo forward is the American Beverages or the American
Beverage Licensees Trade Association.
So if anybody wants to, you know, send some hate mail or
something, I'm not against that,no.
Not not hate mail. That's that's violence, not.
Oh, right, words are violence, Silence is violence.
(36:44):
Words are violence. It's all violent, but if you But
if you stab somebody and. Actual violence.
And and they told you to move. Just make sure not your house.
Right. Oh yeah, castle doctrine does
not apply. But if you're at a track meet
and you stab somebody because they asked you to move, you can
play the victim. Apparently.
(37:05):
That's I guess the. They are.
You shouldn't have been in the way.
Just saying. But this is 22 white dudes
talking and we shouldn't tread into race, racial politics or
anything like that so. We'll.
We'll keep it moving anyways, just to round out our point on
the whole administration and by.The way I despise Trump.
(37:27):
Same. Just for anybody watching that
thinks the opposite. He's a.
He's a. But I haven't liked him since I
was like 12. He's a reality TV star turned
president. Well, there's a one of the most
honestly, I I watched this, obviously we're the MTV
generation. So Tupac was on MTV back in the
(37:48):
day and I'm you maybe seen this interview, but it's like, oh.
Yeah, I think I have. He's talking and he goes on this
rant about Trump and he's like, everybody wants to be like
Trump. Just Gimme, Gimme, Gimme, Gimme
more, more, more. He's like, why don't you got to
have 10 houses and somebody elsecan't have none?
You know, why do you got to have515 yachts and I can't have
food? And he goes on this rant and it
(38:08):
just like hit me like, like, whoa, that's that's I, I agree
with that. Like, I agree with those words.
I don't need. I don't want.
I don't even. Yeah.
So it was just I recommend everybody just Google Tupac
talks about Trump or something like that on YouTube, and it'll
come up. All right, you know what?
I'll just pin the link in the comments because everyone should
(38:30):
see that. But it's just phenomenal.
Oh, there you go. Yeah.
Will we get copyrighted for this?
Where's the volume? Can you hear it?
Yeah. Oh, I can't hear it.
(39:02):
You don't have to say the whole,you know, I just wanted to see
the thing about Trump. Anyways, he said he said the
thing about Trump. I was.
I was. I'll send you I'll send you the
the link. Like I was 7 watching that and I
was like, dude, this guy's passionate.
He's talking about I agree, thisguy's awesome.
And so I just never liked Trump because I just didn't like that
kind of, oh, look, 13 million views.
(39:23):
That's crazy. I just didn't like, I just
never, never liked Trump so, letalone the politician.
But. Anyways, to round it out,
Trump's pick to lead the DEA says marijuana rescheduling
review will be quote one of my top or one of my first
(39:44):
priorities on the job. President Trump's pick to lead
the DEA says examining a proposal for federally
rescheduling marijuana will be quote one of his first
priorities if he's confirmed forthe role and says it's time to
move forward on the stalled process.
However, DEA Administrator nominee Terrence Cole repeatedly
declined to to commit to supportthe specific proposed rule.
(40:04):
To move cannabis from schedule one to Schedule 2 of the
Schedule 3, pardon me, of the Controlled Substances Act, which
was initiated under the Biden administration.
If confirmed, it'll be one of myfirst priorities when I arrived
at the DEA to see where we are in the administrative process,
Cole told Senator Alex Padilla of California during his during
his confirmation hearing. Is that AI written sentence or
(40:25):
what? If confirmed, it'll be one of my
first priorities when I arrived at DEA.
Maybe a transcription error. Sorry, I'm not familiar exactly
where we are, but I know the process has been delayed
numerous times and it's time to move forward.
Pressing his position on the specific proposal to move
marijuana into schedule three. I need to or quote.
(40:48):
I need to understand where we orwhere quote agencies are and
look at the science behind it and listen to the experts and
really understand where they arein the process.
Yeah, your fair statement is just odd.
More it's just BS though, you know what I mean?
It's. More more pandering and stall
tactics and all that kind of stuff.
(41:09):
Now kind of like we said earlieroffline, I'd, if you want to
break it down, literally not, you know, take the emotion out
of it. He did say I got to look at the
science and get, you know, I don't know where we are and I
got to look at where we are and then go forward.
OK, good statement. If it's genuine based on what we
know now, could be, could be not, I don't know.
(41:31):
I don't know his intent, but arethey really going to actually do
anything or just move forward? But I don't know what does move
forward mean? You know, and since he didn't
commit to and you can't really put too much in when he's like,
will you commit to schedule three?
Well, I don't want him. I don't this would imply the way
(41:52):
they put that. This would imply that we want
Schedule 3. That's not what we want.
And that's why I don't necessarily agree with this
article to that extent because we want to deschedule it, which
means we take it completely off and it's decriminalized all
(42:12):
across the country as opposed toschedule three.
They could still get you for trafficking and I don't know,
growing a huge operation with nolicense and all that kind of
stuff. And then it still says it has
some. It's still a controlled
substance at Schedule 3. So we don't want Schedule 3.
So I don't know if this is intentionally doing that or
(42:34):
unintentionally doing that. I don't know.
I don't know. But the way they imply we want
Schedule 3 is not necessarily accurate.
Yep. So anyways, man, I mean, I'm
hopeful for where things are going.
I you know, I feel like I don't have the the Rose colored
(42:54):
glasses on too hardcore though. And yet, you know, if you don't
retain some degree of optimism, you're just going to end up sad
and depressed and stuff. So.
I, I am, I am optimistic becauseit's not like it's a it can't
get worse situation because it can always get worse of.
Course. But in but in, Yeah, I'm not
(43:14):
saying that just for the world, but what I am saying is that in
theory, it's only going to move towards whether it's slow or
fast. It's only going to move towards
legalization or, you know, more access to it because once the
genie is out of the bottle, it'sa slow bleed.
(43:34):
But it'll happen no matter what,especially if other countries.
I mean, we're not even considering that either.
We're just considering the United States.
What if other countries, Great Britain, France and like all
these other, I mean, they're notgoing to, but what if they do?
I don't, I don't know. I think the United States, I
think Bobby Kennedy will. I think that could maybe get him
(43:55):
an easy win if he does like a schedule one to schedule 3, even
though he knows it's not the right thing to do, could get an
easy one with both people. You know what I mean?
I think that's why they're goingto tightrope that.
You still keep it illegal and then yet you kind of minimize it
a little bit and then you pass safe banking, you know, I don't
(44:18):
know, I don't know what's going on with that, but I am, I missed
it, you know. But that interview with
Katherine Austin Fitz on Tucker sure was interesting it.
Was fascinating. That was that was AII like I
enjoy. She's fascinating to listen.
To dude, she's awesome. If you don't know about the
Solari, report solar with an I at the end of it report.
(44:40):
Katherine Austin Fitz, former assistant director of HUD under
the second or the Bush Junior administration, I'm pretty sure.
Yeah, multiple roles and all across the world and finance and
HUD and everything. She's a boss came from came from
Wall Street, but now she's like hardcore blowing the whistle on
(45:01):
all the awful stuff that's like coming out of the pipes hard and
fast. And she's like, yo, we need to
like, stop this train. That's my, my conspiracy gripe
is my, my gripe about whistleblowers is.
And again, it's a pretentious gripe and it's a perfectionist
gripe. Check your privilege bro.
But why didn't you blow the whistle sooner?
(45:23):
Oh, she's been blowing the whistle.
For a while, no, no, no, I know,I know, I with her.
But like in general, a lot of people, you're like these people
that are coming out now opposed to things like you're like, hey,
why didn't you do it before? Or do you feel safer now?
Or do you know, the narrative's already changed enough to where
you can just already? I don't know.
Again, like I said, I don't. She has been saying stuff for a
(45:44):
long. Time I think the Overton window
in terms of the mainstream ideals has shifted a little bit
plus you had a bunch of the mainstream people get kicked out
of the mainstream so that now they can kind of, you know,
quasi take over the. Reassigned independent media,
you mean? Yeah, you know, but then he's,
you know, he's traced back the funding for some of these huge
creators that have like multi $1,000,000 homes and situations
(46:08):
and you find out like, oh, you're like bought and paid for
it too now. Great.
Cool. But even with even with all
those, let's say right leaning of news people that went
independent like. Tucker, Megyn.
Kelly, Megyn Kelly, you. It's interesting to see the same
people within a couple days of their own podcasts on each
(46:29):
making the rounds. So when you notice that you go,
oh, convenient. Interesting that you're just
that booked up well. Apparently I learned something
the other day from listening to episode of the LAT, one of the
last episodes of Grand Theft World with Richard Grove.
I think his name's Hovier, and Ireally apologize if I'm getting
(46:51):
his name mispronounced, but he runs a platform called
Geopolitics and Empire. Another great platform, dense
and awesome but he actually madea comment about the fact that
like some of these people whenever they like put out a new
book or something, they have PR firms that will like spray and
(47:11):
pray to all the different podcasts when.
It's part of the book deal, right?
So. So like, he's gotten access to
people that like, if they dug one step further, they're like,
oh, wait, no, we can't have our globalist or Zionist guy come
and talk to you because like, you're just going to out him for
all this stuff, you know? And it was funny because he was
(47:33):
talking about it. He was just like, yeah, I, I
interviewed one of the guys thatwrote the book on the New World
Order. And, you know, he, he, he wrote
about it. And so like, I asked him about
it and he was like, oh, that's like a conspiracy thing.
And he's just like, but like, here's the quote in your book
New World Order or something. And he and the guy's like, Oh,
well, so, you know, not that he's like looking for the gotcha
moments, but he's, I think rightfully courts people that
(47:58):
are part of the, you know, the them of it all.
And, you know, kind of asks whatthe opinions are straight from
the horse's mouth in in actuality.
And I think that's an important role to play and, you know, kind
of the assessment of everything that's happening.
Yeah, it's, it's a very true andaccurate statement, my friend.
(48:20):
And unfortunately, as all these things are happening, you're
seeing people one topic at a time show their true colors.
Absolutely. And you don't.
And it sucks too, because I've Ilike Bobby Kennedy for a while.
I still like him on some topics,one very noticeably.
No genocide being the big one, but I would.
(48:43):
I'm big enough to jump off any train or any wagon or any
support. I can withdraw my support for
anybody at any time for any reason.
And I wish more people would. I mean, I don't know why we
don't treat politicians with thesame like criteria.
(49:03):
We do like partners, you know, like we let, we don't let our
partner lie to our face like every day, you know, about
anything, whether it's a big, small, medium topic.
But yet we let these people lie to them our faces everyday about
everything about your health, about your life, about death,
energy, money, everything. And you're just like lie after
(49:26):
lie after lie. It's fine and.
Cannabis. Cannabis, I mean, obviously the
biggest one being the podcast, like you do deep dives and it,
like you said, it does depress you.
But the one thing I do like is that the people that aren't in
charge didn't do it and they're just going by the information
(49:48):
they have, just like we are. And so if you didn't do it, I'm
not mad at you. You didn't do it.
You know, I, I, I'm not saying you're, you're not fighting
against me. You're just not doing anything
because you didn't do it. Exactly.
So, you know, I just wish more people would.
I don't know have. Integrity be.
(50:12):
Honest. I mean, at this point, if money
is worthless, which at this point it kind of is, what else?
What other currency is there besides your soul, right?
Besides integrity? I mean, we see job postings all
the time for like content creators.
Oh, you got to do this and that.And like, OK, I don't want to.
I don't want to do that. You know, it's, you know, I
(50:32):
don't want to be Mr. Beast. You know, I don't want to be
Logan Paul or any of these people.
You don't want your own HBO documentary series.
Not by HBOI can do my own documentary series.
You know what I mean? Like that's you can do
documentary series about me, I can do or yourself and I can do
one about myself. Well, what about the bias?
(50:53):
You got bias too. If you do it against me.
You got a narrative you want to tell.
So I don't know. I just wish everyone the best.
And thanks for joining us. Yeah, your episode last rant
tonight with philosophies in theCannabis podcast.
Appreciate you all being here. Please like, share and subscribe
(51:15):
if you've made it this far. God bless you.
Amen. And I appreciate you and what
you got going on and go follow philosophies on his YouTube, his
Instagram, his. I promise I'm going to be more
active. I promise, I promise, I promise.
Support slowly just like here. Slow build.
I'm a bit I'm a busy person right now and.
(51:37):
Until I'm actually going to makea root beer float.
But the root beer is cannabis infused yummy.
So I love root beer floats. So I'm going to make myself a
little root beer float. Watch the Lakers probably lose.
Hopefully they win. Wait, where's your flag?
Oh, it's just right there. Oh, sorry, it's.
(51:57):
All good. It's all good.
I literally, I literally just noticed I was like I.
Know I just did Wait. Oh, where is it?
No, it's it's over there. I'll put it up back, back for
next time. Until next time y'all stay
blessed. Subscribe and don't forget to
tip your bud tenders.
Welcome back to the Cannabis Podcast to another episode of
Last Weed Tonight. Joining us again is Philip James
Latham. You know Mel's fees.
Hello. And seem to be a regular people
love you, I love you. So we're going to keep doing it
this way. I love you too dawg.
Yes Sir, it was just visited him, saw him in person, gave big
(00:29):
hugs. Now we're back to this digital
smoked. A joint that was it's an
important. We did, we shared a joint.
I had a nice little chat during the Lakers game and then had to
hit the road. But how was your drive back to
see you? Man, I recommend everyone see
(00:49):
their friends in person. That's what I recommend.
Mental health. Mental health is #1 all right,
what do you want to take a look at Mr. Philosophies first?
So it's been a couple of probably a couple weeks or so
since we last linked up, but I've pulled some stuff together
and I think there's some interesting shit happening.
(01:10):
All right, well, I got it set upto start with the last one
first, but we'll go back to the beginning.
Do it live. So I came across this the other
day because I hit my inbox in their newsletter and I was like,
this is this is this is legitimizing all the stuff that
we've been talking about since we started talking about
cannabis years and years ago. So this is coming at you from
(01:34):
the National Organization for the reform of marijuana laws
normal, the largest ever meta analysis.
There exists a quote, strong consensus support supporting the
therapeutic use of cannabis as if we didn't know that already.
It's really exciting to know that there's actual like medical
studies happening that are validating it.
(01:56):
So it comes from New York. This is published April 24th.
So you know, almost a week ago. Cannabis has a quote well
established role in managing symptoms related to cancer and
there is a quote substantial scientific basis for re
evaluating its classification asa Schedule 1 controlled
substance. According to the findings of a
meta analysis of over 10,000 scientific papers published in
(02:18):
the journal Frontiers and Oncology, investigators
affiliated with the Chopra Foundation in New York and the
Whole Healthy Oncology Institutein Hawaii reviewed the data from
10,641 peer reviewed studies assessing the efficacy and
safety of cannabis for managing cancer related symptoms.
The analysis of the is the largest ever conducted on the
(02:41):
subject of cannabis and cancer management.
They reported that quote all across all categories examined,
health metrics, cancer treatments and cancer dynamics.
There is a consistent consensus that supports the potential of
medical cannabis. So you know, we can, we can keep
kind of chatting about the rest of the article.
But like, I feel like that's kind of the crux of the point is
(03:03):
like if there's 110 / 10,000 peer reviewed studies that
they're using for this meta analysis that all come to the
same conclusion specifically around cancer.
So like, you know, I don't necessarily want to go
proselytizing that it's the be all end all solution for all
ailments by any means, but specifically when it comes
something as pervasive as cancerand the treatment there of
(03:26):
therapeutically. I'm really, you know, strong
advocate for people to have access to this substance as an
alternative to any kind of, you know, petroleum derivative,
pharmaceutical medications that are being shoved down their
throats or radiation and all thenasty stuff that comes with
chemo. You know, I have friends, family
(03:49):
that have all dealt with cancer,cancer scares and spats.
And you know, by the grace of God, haven't had any losses yet
to, to speak of. But you know, it's, it's just
another one of these things. It's very validating in a
scientific standpoint that you know what you and I and so many
other people in the, you know, advocacy real have been talking
(04:11):
about are just finally, you know, getting the the support
from the scientific community that we've been vying for for a
long time. Yeah, and to your I can relate
with that well as well. My uncle had cancer, passed away
of lung cancer, my aunt had Melanoma.
(04:32):
I've had some skin cancer. My mom and dad both had skin
cancer. My grandmother had breast cancer
and my other and her husband, mymom's dad died of pancreatic
cancer. So I, I, I feel yeah.
And this last section right here, I'll.
I want to read it because it says the study's authors
concluded. In medical practice, the strong
support for cannabis as a palliative adjunct to cancer
(04:55):
treatments, which is just another fancy way of saying
alternative offers healthcare providers a data-driven
foundation to consider cannabis as part of a comprehensive
cancer care strategy. The demonstrated efficacy in
managing symptoms like pain, nausea and appetite loss can
significantly enhance patients quality of life, making cannabis
a valuable tool in both palliative care and potentially
(05:19):
in curative settings. Repeat that in potentially in
curative settings, meaning they know they cured it.
And we'll talk about this later.I don't know, maybe we can pull
it up now, but the 1979 study from Virginia that said cancer
(05:39):
or cannabis cures cancer and then Nixon was like, get rid of
that study. We'll go back to that in a SEC.
But anyway, the growing consensus around cannabis
therapeutic benefits also highlight the need for medical
professionals to stay informed about the latest research as
cannabis continues to evolve from a controversial substance
to a scientifically validated treatment option.
(06:02):
Now real quick, this would be a great tool for AI where every
morning a healthcare provider will have in their inbox all the
new peer reviewed papers, all the new articles having to do
with cannabis right there in their inbox so they don't have
(06:23):
to search for it. Hey AI, find me and curate all
the articles about cannabis thathave come out in the last
whatever. And then there you go.
Yes, this is a great article. I don't know if I looked at the
one from up in post, but it's phenomenal.
I suggest you look I. Was going to say it basically
(06:44):
goes into what you were just talking about.
Scroll down a little bit. Yeah, I want to see where it
talks about the actual. This one.
There it is first experiment documenting POTS potent anti
cancer effect took place in 1974at the Medical College of
(07:04):
Virginia at the behest federal bureaucrats and in the
government. The result of this study
reported in the Washington Post,which I'm going to find that
where the marijuana's primary psycho epic component THC slowed
the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus
induced leukemia in lab mice andprolonged their lives by as much
(07:27):
as 36%. That's huge.
That's huge. So whatever I talk about,
whenever somebody says anyway, sorry, I'll keep going.
Despite these favorable did I already just skip one?
No. Despite favorable preliminary
findings published in the Journal of the National Cancer
(07:50):
Institute later that year, U.S. government officials refused to
authorize any follow up researchuntil conducting a similar,
though secret preclinical trial in the mid 90s.
That study, conducted by the US National Toxicology Program to
the tune of $2,000,000, concluded that mice and rats
administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater
(08:11):
protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls.
However, they want to word that sure, go ahead.
In the years since the completion of the National, No.
No, no, read the highlighted section.
However, rather than publicize their findings, the US
government shelved the results, which only became public after a
(08:34):
draft coffee copy of its findings were leaked to the
medical journal AIDS treatment News, which in turn forwarded
the story to the national media.So without a leak or a mole or
somebody doing the right thing. Whistleblower, we'll call them.
Whistleblower is another term for them.
We would never know this. So hey, guys, if you're like
(08:56):
your government, don't care, sorry, I'm going to bring it to
you. They don't like you.
They don't like you. And when you accept it, that's
when we move forward. So this is insane.
Let's keep going because this isan article that is actually
insane. In the years since the
completion of the trial, the US government has yet to authorize
a single additional study examining the drugs potential
(09:20):
anti cancer properties. Federal permission is necessary
in order to conduct clinical research on marijuana because
it's illegal. Status as schedule 1 and
sidemar. A little quick aside, we've said
this before, but the only place in the country where you can
grow federally cannabis legal isOle Miss.
(09:42):
That comes up. Later, which I'm assuming had a
connection with the people in the 70s who made this, which is
the South, which is all that stuff.
So which is where this actually comes from?
Which? Is where this is a great
natural. Anyway, transition, well,
there's a lot of like spawned off transitions that we can go
(10:03):
through because like so. Thanks for following along with
us. We appreciate it.
But we're giving you some good, some good articles.
We're going to pin all the comments and the links or excuse
me, pin all the links in the in the comment section.
So, so yeah, so like this, this is, you know, this ties in very
well. So the meta analysis of 10,000
studies stemming, you know, potentially finally how many
(10:23):
this 40 years later. That's insane.
That's. Crazy. 50 No 4040 years later.
Math. Math 74 2004 1424 Wait, no,
yeah, that's ish. That's 50 years.
Yeah, that's insane. Modcasters does it take to do
(10:44):
math? I hope only two, because if 1
doesn't get it, I hope the otherone gets it.
And honestly, both of us have calculators on our computer and
our phones so. We got it.
We got there. Oh, that's interesting.
So the article where? Where do I click?
Is it dead? Link.
It's this one. Yeah, it's a dead link.
Womp, womp. But quick, quick teaching
(11:06):
moment. I mean, you can't make this up,
people. Copyarchive.org If you've never
heard of the Wayback Machine useful tool paste return.
Well, the Internet archives. Well, they actually started
scrubbing it. Oh look, what are all these
(11:26):
black bars mean? These are all the times this
website was modified. Let's go back to the beginning.
This is a teachable moment. I don't think a lot of people
know about this. Yeah.
This is where you know, if you guys ever get question, where we
get our sources, where I read news, where I get my
information, Internet Archive and.
(11:48):
There's other kind of ancillary tools to the Internet Archive,
OK, And you wonder why they don't want you to see this.
Why would? You expand that.
Yeah, on that article. There we go.
Pot shrinks tumors government new in 1974.
(12:12):
Imagine my shock that the government doesn't want you to
know in 2024 what it knew back in 1974.
So. This was leaked bro.
This was leaked when posted when?
So this was posted May 31st 2000.
This article at least. But yeah, it says in 19. 74
There's your, there's your, there's your inverted. 531
(12:35):
Interesting. Well, just the three in one.
I know, I know, I know. I didn't it.
Is that's amazing. So in 1974, researchers learned
the THC, the active chemical marijuana, shrank or destroyed
brain tumors and test mice with the DEA quickly shut down the
study and destroyed its results,which were never replicated
(12:55):
until now. So This is why whenever.
Oh, interesting. So this this this study was
actually replicated in February 2000.
In Madrid. In Madrid, shock it didn't
happen in the United States. Well, right, that's where that's
why this stuff had to happen in other places.
(13:18):
Now, you know what I mean? So if it was just up to the US
to do it, they would just slow walk it.
But these started doing it. Most Americans don't know
anything about the Madrid discovery.
Virtually no US major US newspapers carry the story,
which ran only in the AP and UPInews wires on February 29th,
2000. What a shame dude.
(13:38):
Bro, we got all right. Stay tuned.
We're going to go into this more.
We're going to do another deep dive on this.
Yeah. But I actually we could just
turn this all into this. True.
We'll, we'll, we'll stick with, we'll stick with what we did
because we go this, this is, yeah, this is its own little
rabbit hole of like, yeah, this is, this is.
This is good stuff. This is good stuff.
(13:59):
Pin pin this and if you want to research the article, you now
you know how to find it. This is a preview.
Naughty, naughty, naughty naughty in 2025, discoverable in
2025. Don't let anybody fool you, OK?
But this is a good Segway into our next point because another
normal article Republican leaning poll finds quote, there
(14:20):
is no demographic group that doesn't believe cannabis should
be legal. And if that is the case, by way
of a majority or Republican leaning, we'll say poll who, if
anybody, believes stereotypes, Republicans, I thought were
supposed to be the people that advocated against cannabis
legalization. If a poll that is leaning
(14:42):
Republican a la conservative right wing, whatever is finding
that no demographic thinks it shouldn't be legal, then what
are we doing? Why is it still illegal then?
Or what's, you know, decriminalized, whatever,
whatever. It's very interesting you say
that because this this is coupled with kind of our next
(15:03):
story, which can kind of be the same one because Texas is right
leaning. I would say, you know, and
they're actually halting. I live in Austin right now and
they're trying to overturn the voter ballot initiative from I
don't know what year 2022 I. Think it was year 2022.
And where San Marcos and Austin both have. 8081%.
(15:28):
Both voted 81%, which is insane.You almost never get that much
majority or consensus I should say, to decriminalize cannabis
in both the cities. And it went through, approved by
City Council, all that kind of stuff.
And now The Who, the Lieutenant governor and the top.
(15:52):
Attorney General. Attorney General, That's what it
is. The attorney General and a bunch
of other top Republicans are literally trying to overturn.
They're in the process of overturning A voter approved
ballot initiative that was certified and is already in
practice with businesses workingwith a whole kind of ecosystem
building, and now they're going to overturn it.
(16:15):
Why? OK, so.
Why now? I want to answer your question
and go on a little bit of a rantfor a second.
Do it. In February 2024, Republican
Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit against San Marcos
and four other cities that had adopted voter approved de de
penalization laws. Opining quote.
I will not stand idly by as cities run by pro crime
(16:36):
extremists deliberately violate Texas law and promote the use of
illicit drugs that harm our communities.
He filed a similar suit against the city of Dallas in December.
Pause. OK, I don't consider myself a
right leaning person. I don't consider myself anymore
a left-leaning person. Although if you go by where I
(16:58):
fell in like the little grid test thing, I'm a left slight of
center leaning libertarian. And this, this statement fucking
pisses me off because on one hand I'll agree with, I don't
like the fact that like a lot ofthe Democratic LED cities and
(17:23):
you know, in some instances states, although I do still
reside in one and live in a county that is run by them, that
there's like no accountability or you know, punishment,
consequences, whatever. For crime.
I have been the victim of crimes.
Me and my wife were assaulted and nobody got in trouble for
(17:45):
it. So, you know, I'm the first one
to say like, yeah, dude, like, Idon't care if it's, you know,
considered a petty crime or whatever.
Although I, you know, going to the whole prison industrial
complex and the fact that's problematic too.
Again, leaving all that aside, there's too much information
(18:06):
that says that cannabis itself is not a problem in the sense
that it's, it's it's able to be used as a medicine.
It's able to be used for all sorts of very positive purposes.
But it's been stigmatized and ostracized and demonized by, you
know, collective society becauseof shit like this where this
(18:30):
guy's coming out and you know, I'm not going to stand idly by
and like he's taking some righteous moral stand against a
plant. And it's like, dude, get a grip.
Maybe smoke a joint, find out, oh, it's not so bad.
And then get off your high horseand and be a little bit more
explicit in terms of how you're talking about these kinds of
(18:53):
subjects. Because if you're lumping in
cannabis with meth and heroin and all these alcohol, all these
other super destructive illicit drugs, you're missing the mark
in my opinion. And you know, I don't like, I
(19:13):
don't enjoy living in places that are led by hypocrites or
people that are just uninformed or misinformed.
You know, I think I try and do my best.
Dude. No shit.
And like it's in, it's in the pipeline.
But you know, I think. I'm like the country if that's
the case. Where and go where?
That's my point. Go where?
That was my ultimate point, is going to keep hopping around the
(19:36):
hypocrites. End up on an island that I had
to buy or like, you know, stake out.
Yeah. Anyways, rant over.
But it's just like, come on, man.
Like, why can't we just like, recognize that both based on
like what the last article was saying and the one before that.
It's like, OK, clearly there's benefit.
(19:59):
Or for like a large demographic of people that are suffering, at
the very least, please recognizethat 2.
Nobody in their right sensible mind agrees with you that this
plant is like destroying society.
At the very least, they're indifferent, right?
(20:21):
Like, like they're like, I don'tcare.
I've got shit to worry about. I've got to feed my family.
I don't care about a plant. Exactly.
Just don't do it around me or whatever, you know?
I don't like how it smells or whatever.
Like everybody's allowed to havethose kinds of honestly.
Honestly, if the if the smell and I get it, if you don't like
to smell, it's just like cigarettes for me.
It smells like shit. It's awful.
(20:42):
I get it. But if you if you take away the
smell, then they're don't care. They really don't, you know, and
all the studies are coming out saying even pregnant women are
not getting any second hand problems, you know, with because
by the time everything gets to the baby, if it gets to the
baby, there's nothing there. You know it's been filtered.
(21:03):
Yeah, it's, it's like a triple distillate, you know, but it's
just to your point, what's what's the difference between a
pro crime extremist and an anti crime extremist?
Isn't there a difference? 1.
You know, it's just the, it's just the sign they hold.
Like that's what Texas is. It's a anti crime extremists
(21:26):
now, whatever that's going to beon a national scale to like,
what? What do we always hear?
You know, law and order, you know, law and order and crime.
And I get it. The cartels run a ton of stuff,
legalize weed. They won't run half of what they
run. Oh, maybe that's why you can't
(21:49):
do it, because you're partnered with them to do that job and now
you have to untangle those webs,which is what we're watching
play out in real time. Yep, Yep.
So that's my rant over. So anyways, but like OK, so now
(22:10):
we can. Text.
These often make your voice heard.
Be loud. Amen.
Amen. But yeah, so jumping kind of
from the same tone and token or what a sentiment, whatever you
want to call it, to the next thing you know, we were talking
about Ole Miss earlier. New federally backed marijuana
Research Center launches A university that for decades held
(22:31):
a monopoly is the only institution federally authorized
to grow marijuana for study purposes, is touting the launch
of a new cannabis Research Center it is hosting with the
help of a federal grant. I didn't even read this article
yet before we that's. The University of Mississippi
has been selected to house the National Institutes of Health or
the National Institute of Health's Research Center or
(22:52):
Resource Center for Cannabis andCannabinoid Research, which the
federal agency first announced in late 2023.
The college will be partnering with Washington State University
and the United States Pharmacopia with support of a
grant awarded by the National Center for Complementary and
Integrative Health under NIH. Ole Miss will lead the efforts
(23:15):
regulatory guidance core, while WSU will research support and
USP or will handle research support and USP will focus on
research standards. Ole Miss is National Center for
Natural Products Research will house the NIH Resource Center to
quote, provide cannabis researchinformation through an
interactive website, webinars, seed funding and conferences to
(23:37):
empower researchers to quote generate more science backed
evidence, it said in a press release.
Should we just e-mail in that article we just found?
Like, do you think we could justspeed up the process and just
say, hey, where's our grant? I want a grant.
We just I'll teach people. We just saved you 30 years of
research and a lot of pretend theatrics.
(23:59):
Wow. Yeah, So, yeah, so this is going
to be headed. Donald Stanford, assistant
director of the University of Mississippi's Research Institute
of Pharmaceutical Sciences, saidR3 CR, which is the acronym that
they're using, will raise attention to quote, significant
changes in the landscape of cannabis research.
Changes such as stronger and improved regulation, compliance,
(24:22):
development of more cannabis technologies, as well as the FDA
are receiving relevant safety data to make decisions on
cannabinoids in food and dietarysupplements can all eventually
contribute to people's health. Well, ain't that about a bish?
I just want to say to everybody,This is why I'm sure they
relate. It's frustrating to read
(24:43):
articles like this when you know, if you've been watching
this podcast, which we really appreciate by the way, you being
here and supporting the channel.But if you've been listening,
you know, we've mentioned old miss multiple times, multiple,
multiple times about that fact that they're the only place that
has had approval and now they'rebeing awarded the federal grant
(25:08):
for the new. So my question is not question,
just statement, I guess. So they're just going to slow
bleed this information out at the pace they want and at the
height they want. But all this news is going to be
superseded probably by bigger World News to where this will
(25:29):
be, as they said in the article earlier, carried by one or two
news outlets, if that. We're putting you on some game
right now, peeps. Yeah.
This is wild. Yeah.
Like this is actually like I'm actually.
This is a good article. This is pretty wild.
(25:50):
I I really recommend people readthis.
I'm going to actually go back and read it again.
But right about the center came months after a national Advisory
Council where members approved the concept.
They approved the concept for the institute.
Meanwhile, DEA recently notifiedan agency judge that the
marijuana rescheduling process is still on hold, with no future
(26:11):
actions currently rescheduled asthe matter sits before the
acting administrator, who was called cannabis a gateway drug
and linked its use to psychosis.Now maybe, just maybe, he's just
buying time and running cover sothat this new federally funded
research place can discover new information to be shared with
(26:33):
him to where he will now open his brain and he just will be
enlightened to the truth. Because that seems like the
route it's going down, but I digress.
Which then leads us to well and.On a positive note, legalizing
marijuana led to an increase in use but a decrease in
(26:55):
problematic misuse, study shows by the American Medical
Association. You want to read it?
Oh yeah, sure, sure, sure. So new research published by the
American Medical Association finds that while federal or
While frequency of marijuana useamong adults in Canada increased
(27:17):
slightly in the years following nationwide legalization,
problematic misuse of cannabis in fact saw modest decreases.
The report, which was published on Wednesday in JAMA Network
Open, looked at data from 1428 adults aged 18 to 65 who
completed assessments roughly every six months between
September 2018 and October 2023,a primary goal.
(27:40):
Peer reviewed I believe. Yeah, I think JAMA is peer
reviewed. A primary goal of the study,
which was partially funded by the federal agency, the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research, was to examine how consumption
patterns changed following the country's legalization of adult
use marijuana, sales of which began in October 8th, 2018.
(28:00):
Researchers also wanted to understand whether the use
patterns changed based on how frequently people use cannabis
prior to legalization, as well as how users product preferences
changed. Interesting.
So they were just trying to do like an analysis of people's
buying and consumption patterns.Like I do like that.
What this shows is that on a bigger scale, Speaking of the
(28:22):
human, humans can make their owndecisions of how much they want
to consume because they know their body, they know their
limits and tolerance, etcetera. Like, yes, there's always going
to be a percentage of people that misuse anything, but that's
the same with hammers and nails and, you know, and.
Objects you. Know that kind of thing.
(28:43):
So sure, you don't want what's the saying?
You don't want perfect to get the way of progress but lead to
their own devices. Humans will make decisions, I
think, that are fine. Yeah, I mean, that's where my
biggest thing recently is just like, you know, give people
(29:05):
information, give them choice, and then let them make their own
decisions because all of us havefree will.
And you know as well. Yeah, exactly.
As long as you have informed consent, you know, don't stand
in people's way of doing and getting what they want.
Like, yeah, like you said, hammers can be used to build a
house or to bludgeon someone over the head, you know, I mean,
(29:27):
go ahead. No, I was just going to probably
continue ranting. So article goes on.
Frequency of marijuana use overall increased slightly, but
significant significantly over afive year period.
Among all participants, the meanproportion of days using
cannabis increased by .35% per year, or 1.75% over the five
(29:49):
year study period. People who used cannabis most
frequently before legalization saw the largest declines in use.
People who consume marijuana on a daily basis prior to
legalization decrease their frequency use more than those
who'd used marijuana on a weeklybasis.
How I don't know this, this getsa little, this gets a little
(30:10):
convoluted for me. So it's like.
You can just we'll just pin it and let the.
Yeah, anyways. That's the point.
You get the point, but basicallyit's just like alcohol.
It's just like alcohol, right? Yes, there's a portion of people
that get blackout drunk. I used to be one of those
people. No, I don't drink, but but it's
(30:31):
most people who can have a drinkor two.
Most people that drink just havea drink or two or three.
You know they don't get blackoutdrunk every night.
But segue. But But alcohol retailers say
only they should be able to legally sell marijuana products.
(30:53):
That's interesting. Yeah, that's interesting.
I don't have a problem with you also selling it, but like only
doesn't. So before we get into this, I'll
tell the people what I told you earlier too.
I was meeting with when I had one of my sales jobs.
I was meeting with the, I believe President at the time.
(31:14):
I don't know if he is now president of the time at the
Tennessee Alcohol Commission or whatever they call it.
He had a liquor store we were meeting in his office on the the
upstairs floor trying to sell some, I think THC gummies or
something into him and he's but they're not allowed to sell
them. But he said the only way he
would support he's like, I support legalization, but like
(31:37):
only from a, you know, my business is going to be taking
the big hit, you know, from people going over to cannabis.
So I want to sell it here. And I was like, well, would you
also I my point at the time to him was I would you also block
home grow? And he's like, well, no, you
know, if they want to grow it athome, go ahead.
And I was like, OK, as long as you don't block that, you can
(31:59):
also grow it, but you only grow it or only sell it.
That that's is that freedom? Is that market?
Is that freedom of market? You know what I mean?
Is that commerce is that American?
I don't think so. That's just power of money, you
know, And I kind of really set it to his face, but he didn't
(32:23):
really know. There wasn't really much to say.
You know, it was just like, well, yeah, you know, if we're
going to legalize it, I want to sell it in here.
And that would probably be the reason why alcohol lobbies,
until they get what they want out of this legalization deal,
are going to keep opposing it. You know, it's not that they
don't. They don't oppose it becoming
legal because there's already brands Lagunitas and all these
(32:44):
other beer brand Pete Paps. They're making cannabis drinks,
you know, or someone's white labeling and putting paps on
them. But it's actually paps being
sold in a legal dispensary. So it's obviously the brand
hasn't, you know, said no or is the brand so?
I'm waiting. I'm waiting for the Bud Light
(33:05):
weed drink. Oh, I'm telling.
I mean, they already have it. It's kind of like, it's kind of
like, lol, you know, I'm not, never mind.
I'm not trying to be mean to anybrand, but I just not a that not
a fan of their business practices.
Of course not. But I, I, I think if you know,
MGD or Anheuser Busch or like any of those players getting
(33:29):
into the game, like it's just like it's like Philip Morris and
the, and the cannabis cigarettes.
It's like as soon as that hits the market, like is game over,
right? Well, just just like alcohol has
the Bud Lights, the the Coors lights, the Miller Genuine
Drafts, and it's also got the small batch Burt, you know, the
local brew. The craft stuff.
(33:51):
Craft beer economy is booming. That what you see in the
alcohol. That's where the cannabis
industry is going to go. Like that's going to be the
blueprint. I think to to that to that
specific point, though, I think it'll kind of reflect a little
bit more of like the wine industry just because there's
(34:13):
like the terroir that impacts wine or alcohol, probably wine,
yeah, I mean tomato, tomato, tomato.
No, no, no. I know what you mean by the wine
analogy, because you got your Reds or whites, and then in the
Reds and the whites you got Pinot Noir, you know?
Right. You know, OK, you got to blend,
then you and then. And people are going to want to
(34:34):
start to get well, I think we talked about this on the last
show where we were talking aboutlike, you know, the ethic you're
like this, the the entourage effect versus like cannabinoids,
specific effects, flavonoids, terpenes, and like how the
synergy impacts the, the physiological feeling that you
get from ingestion and all that kind of stuff.
(34:56):
I think as consumer palate refines and as this becomes a
more pervasively adopted substance to consume, I think
people are going to kind of get,well, I don't know, because you
still have a huge proportion of people that are drinking the Bud
Lights and like the crap beer that's just like mass pump
(35:16):
because. They're boycotting it.
They're they're pro, they're probud.
Like it's like. A yeah, Kidron, Kidron like,
shot off one shot off a case that made me laugh.
I was like, big. And then still sold it at his
bar. I know.
Like that that just like. Hypocrites bro.
Why? Hypocrites.
(35:38):
Do you not have any? Honestly do not have anything
better to do with your time thenshoot a case of bud lights with
a gun. I mean, Alex Jones shot up, shot
up his YouTube, his YouTube plaque.
Anything you could do, anything that you could have donated that
beer to a frat that you didn't like as a joke.
(36:01):
True. True, True.
True. Be creative about it.
Yeah, fair enough. I don't know, I'm just joking.
But like, you also could be just, I don't know, maybe Kid
Rock's got some charities I don't know about, but.
Maybe he spends a lot of time with Dana White and Trump.
So I don't know. We'll see.
Anyways, so just just to put it on the record, the, the agency
(36:22):
or the, you know, entity, the retailers group that put this
memo forward is the American Beverages or the American
Beverage Licensees Trade Association.
So if anybody wants to, you know, send some hate mail or
something, I'm not against that,no.
Not not hate mail. That's that's violence, not.
Oh, right, words are violence, Silence is violence.
(36:44):
Words are violence. It's all violent, but if you But
if you stab somebody and. Actual violence.
And and they told you to move. Just make sure not your house.
Right. Oh yeah, castle doctrine does
not apply. But if you're at a track meet
and you stab somebody because they asked you to move, you can
play the victim. Apparently.
(37:05):
That's I guess the. They are.
You shouldn't have been in the way.
Just saying. But this is 22 white dudes
talking and we shouldn't tread into race, racial politics or
anything like that so. We'll.
We'll keep it moving anyways, just to round out our point on
the whole administration and by.The way I despise Trump.
(37:27):
Same. Just for anybody watching that
thinks the opposite. He's a.
He's a. But I haven't liked him since I
was like 12. He's a reality TV star turned
president. Well, there's a one of the most
honestly, I I watched this, obviously we're the MTV
generation. So Tupac was on MTV back in the
(37:48):
day and I'm you maybe seen this interview, but it's like, oh.
Yeah, I think I have. He's talking and he goes on this
rant about Trump and he's like, everybody wants to be like
Trump. Just Gimme, Gimme, Gimme, Gimme
more, more, more. He's like, why don't you got to
have 10 houses and somebody elsecan't have none?
You know, why do you got to have515 yachts and I can't have
food? And he goes on this rant and it
(38:08):
just like hit me like, like, whoa, that's that's I, I agree
with that. Like, I agree with those words.
I don't need. I don't want.
I don't even. Yeah.
So it was just I recommend everybody just Google Tupac
talks about Trump or something like that on YouTube, and it'll
come up. All right, you know what?
I'll just pin the link in the comments because everyone should
(38:30):
see that. But it's just phenomenal.
Oh, there you go. Yeah.
Will we get copyrighted for this?
Where's the volume? Can you hear it?
Yeah. Oh, I can't hear it.
(39:02):
You don't have to say the whole,you know, I just wanted to see
the thing about Trump. Anyways, he said he said the
thing about Trump. I was.
I was. I'll send you I'll send you the
the link. Like I was 7 watching that and I
was like, dude, this guy's passionate.
He's talking about I agree, thisguy's awesome.
And so I just never liked Trump because I just didn't like that
kind of, oh, look, 13 million views.
(39:23):
That's crazy. I just didn't like, I just
never, never liked Trump so, letalone the politician.
But. Anyways, to round it out,
Trump's pick to lead the DEA says marijuana rescheduling
review will be quote one of my top or one of my first
(39:44):
priorities on the job. President Trump's pick to lead
the DEA says examining a proposal for federally
rescheduling marijuana will be quote one of his first
priorities if he's confirmed forthe role and says it's time to
move forward on the stalled process.
However, DEA Administrator nominee Terrence Cole repeatedly
declined to to commit to supportthe specific proposed rule.
(40:04):
To move cannabis from schedule one to Schedule 2 of the
Schedule 3, pardon me, of the Controlled Substances Act, which
was initiated under the Biden administration.
If confirmed, it'll be one of myfirst priorities when I arrived
at the DEA to see where we are in the administrative process,
Cole told Senator Alex Padilla of California during his during
his confirmation hearing. Is that AI written sentence or
(40:25):
what? If confirmed, it'll be one of my
first priorities when I arrived at DEA.
Maybe a transcription error. Sorry, I'm not familiar exactly
where we are, but I know the process has been delayed
numerous times and it's time to move forward.
Pressing his position on the specific proposal to move
marijuana into schedule three. I need to or quote.
(40:48):
I need to understand where we orwhere quote agencies are and
look at the science behind it and listen to the experts and
really understand where they arein the process.
Yeah, your fair statement is just odd.
More it's just BS though, you know what I mean?
It's. More more pandering and stall
tactics and all that kind of stuff.
(41:09):
Now kind of like we said earlieroffline, I'd, if you want to
break it down, literally not, you know, take the emotion out
of it. He did say I got to look at the
science and get, you know, I don't know where we are and I
got to look at where we are and then go forward.
OK, good statement. If it's genuine based on what we
know now, could be, could be not, I don't know.
(41:31):
I don't know his intent, but arethey really going to actually do
anything or just move forward? But I don't know what does move
forward mean? You know, and since he didn't
commit to and you can't really put too much in when he's like,
will you commit to schedule three?
Well, I don't want him. I don't this would imply the way
(41:52):
they put that. This would imply that we want
Schedule 3. That's not what we want.
And that's why I don't necessarily agree with this
article to that extent because we want to deschedule it, which
means we take it completely off and it's decriminalized all
(42:12):
across the country as opposed toschedule three.
They could still get you for trafficking and I don't know,
growing a huge operation with nolicense and all that kind of
stuff. And then it still says it has
some. It's still a controlled
substance at Schedule 3. So we don't want Schedule 3.
So I don't know if this is intentionally doing that or
(42:34):
unintentionally doing that. I don't know.
I don't know. But the way they imply we want
Schedule 3 is not necessarily accurate.
Yep. So anyways, man, I mean, I'm
hopeful for where things are going.
I you know, I feel like I don't have the the Rose colored
(42:54):
glasses on too hardcore though. And yet, you know, if you don't
retain some degree of optimism, you're just going to end up sad
and depressed and stuff. So.
I, I am, I am optimistic becauseit's not like it's a it can't
get worse situation because it can always get worse of.
Course. But in but in, Yeah, I'm not
(43:14):
saying that just for the world, but what I am saying is that in
theory, it's only going to move towards whether it's slow or
fast. It's only going to move towards
legalization or, you know, more access to it because once the
genie is out of the bottle, it'sa slow bleed.
(43:34):
But it'll happen no matter what,especially if other countries.
I mean, we're not even considering that either.
We're just considering the United States.
What if other countries, Great Britain, France and like all
these other, I mean, they're notgoing to, but what if they do?
I don't, I don't know. I think the United States, I
think Bobby Kennedy will. I think that could maybe get him
(43:55):
an easy win if he does like a schedule one to schedule 3, even
though he knows it's not the right thing to do, could get an
easy one with both people. You know what I mean?
I think that's why they're goingto tightrope that.
You still keep it illegal and then yet you kind of minimize it
a little bit and then you pass safe banking, you know, I don't
(44:18):
know, I don't know what's going on with that, but I am, I missed
it, you know. But that interview with
Katherine Austin Fitz on Tucker sure was interesting it.
Was fascinating. That was that was AII like I
enjoy. She's fascinating to listen.
To dude, she's awesome. If you don't know about the
Solari, report solar with an I at the end of it report.
(44:40):
Katherine Austin Fitz, former assistant director of HUD under
the second or the Bush Junior administration, I'm pretty sure.
Yeah, multiple roles and all across the world and finance and
HUD and everything. She's a boss came from came from
Wall Street, but now she's like hardcore blowing the whistle on
(45:01):
all the awful stuff that's like coming out of the pipes hard and
fast. And she's like, yo, we need to
like, stop this train. That's my, my conspiracy gripe
is my, my gripe about whistleblowers is.
And again, it's a pretentious gripe and it's a perfectionist
gripe. Check your privilege bro.
But why didn't you blow the whistle sooner?
(45:23):
Oh, she's been blowing the whistle.
For a while, no, no, no, I know,I know, I with her.
But like in general, a lot of people, you're like these people
that are coming out now opposed to things like you're like, hey,
why didn't you do it before? Or do you feel safer now?
Or do you know, the narrative's already changed enough to where
you can just already? I don't know.
Again, like I said, I don't. She has been saying stuff for a
(45:44):
long. Time I think the Overton window
in terms of the mainstream ideals has shifted a little bit
plus you had a bunch of the mainstream people get kicked out
of the mainstream so that now they can kind of, you know,
quasi take over the. Reassigned independent media,
you mean? Yeah, you know, but then he's,
you know, he's traced back the funding for some of these huge
creators that have like multi $1,000,000 homes and situations
(46:08):
and you find out like, oh, you're like bought and paid for
it too now. Great.
Cool. But even with even with all
those, let's say right leaning of news people that went
independent like. Tucker, Megyn.
Kelly, Megyn Kelly, you. It's interesting to see the same
people within a couple days of their own podcasts on each
(46:29):
making the rounds. So when you notice that you go,
oh, convenient. Interesting that you're just
that booked up well. Apparently I learned something
the other day from listening to episode of the LAT, one of the
last episodes of Grand Theft World with Richard Grove.
I think his name's Hovier, and Ireally apologize if I'm getting
(46:51):
his name mispronounced, but he runs a platform called
Geopolitics and Empire. Another great platform, dense
and awesome but he actually madea comment about the fact that
like some of these people whenever they like put out a new
book or something, they have PR firms that will like spray and
(47:11):
pray to all the different podcasts when.
It's part of the book deal, right?
So. So like, he's gotten access to
people that like, if they dug one step further, they're like,
oh, wait, no, we can't have our globalist or Zionist guy come
and talk to you because like, you're just going to out him for
all this stuff, you know? And it was funny because he was
(47:33):
talking about it. He was just like, yeah, I, I
interviewed one of the guys thatwrote the book on the New World
Order. And, you know, he, he, he wrote
about it. And so like, I asked him about
it and he was like, oh, that's like a conspiracy thing.
And he's just like, but like, here's the quote in your book
New World Order or something. And he and the guy's like, Oh,
well, so, you know, not that he's like looking for the gotcha
moments, but he's, I think rightfully courts people that
(47:58):
are part of the, you know, the them of it all.
And, you know, kind of asks whatthe opinions are straight from
the horse's mouth in in actuality.
And I think that's an important role to play and, you know, kind
of the assessment of everything that's happening.
Yeah, it's, it's a very true andaccurate statement, my friend.
(48:20):
And unfortunately, as all these things are happening, you're
seeing people one topic at a time show their true colors.
Absolutely. And you don't.
And it sucks too, because I've Ilike Bobby Kennedy for a while.
I still like him on some topics,one very noticeably.
No genocide being the big one, but I would.
(48:43):
I'm big enough to jump off any train or any wagon or any
support. I can withdraw my support for
anybody at any time for any reason.
And I wish more people would. I mean, I don't know why we
don't treat politicians with thesame like criteria.
(49:03):
We do like partners, you know, like we let, we don't let our
partner lie to our face like every day, you know, about
anything, whether it's a big, small, medium topic.
But yet we let these people lie to them our faces everyday about
everything about your health, about your life, about death,
energy, money, everything. And you're just like lie after
(49:26):
lie after lie. It's fine and.
Cannabis. Cannabis, I mean, obviously the
biggest one being the podcast, like you do deep dives and it,
like you said, it does depress you.
But the one thing I do like is that the people that aren't in
charge didn't do it and they're just going by the information
(49:48):
they have, just like we are. And so if you didn't do it, I'm
not mad at you. You didn't do it.
You know, I, I, I'm not saying you're, you're not fighting
against me. You're just not doing anything
because you didn't do it. Exactly.
So, you know, I just wish more people would.
I don't know have. Integrity be.
(50:12):
Honest. I mean, at this point, if money
is worthless, which at this point it kind of is, what else?
What other currency is there besides your soul, right?
Besides integrity? I mean, we see job postings all
the time for like content creators.
Oh, you got to do this and that.And like, OK, I don't want to.
I don't want to do that. You know, it's, you know, I
(50:32):
don't want to be Mr. Beast. You know, I don't want to be
Logan Paul or any of these people.
You don't want your own HBO documentary series.
Not by HBOI can do my own documentary series.
You know what I mean? Like that's you can do
documentary series about me, I can do or yourself and I can do
one about myself. Well, what about the bias?
(50:53):
You got bias too. If you do it against me.
You got a narrative you want to tell.
So I don't know. I just wish everyone the best.
And thanks for joining us. Yeah, your episode last rant
tonight with philosophies in theCannabis podcast.
Appreciate you all being here. Please like, share and subscribe
(51:15):
if you've made it this far. God bless you.
Amen. And I appreciate you and what
you got going on and go follow philosophies on his YouTube, his
Instagram, his. I promise I'm going to be more
active. I promise, I promise, I promise.
Support slowly just like here. Slow build.
I'm a bit I'm a busy person right now and.
(51:37):
Until I'm actually going to makea root beer float.
But the root beer is cannabis infused yummy.
So I love root beer floats. So I'm going to make myself a
little root beer float. Watch the Lakers probably lose.
Hopefully they win. Wait, where's your flag?
Oh, it's just right there. Oh, sorry, it's.
(51:57):
All good. It's all good.
I literally, I literally just noticed I was like I.
Know I just did Wait. Oh, where is it?
No, it's it's over there. I'll put it up back, back for
next time. Until next time y'all stay
blessed. Subscribe and don't forget to
tip your bud tenders.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!