Kind: captions
Language: en
Trump signed a EO to reschedule
marijuana from schedule one to schedule
three alongside doctors, cancer,
patient, veterans, and law enforcement.
Interesting thing about this, no, it
doesn't rec uh legalize weed. No, it
doesn't make it recreational in all 50
states. None of those things. It's still
federally illegal, still federally
banned. But what it does do is it allows
now to be access to research facilities,
universities. They can do clinical
trials, things like that. So this seems
like more of a push for the medical
intervention pharmaceutical side versus
now we're going to be seeing weed
vending machines on the streets or
anything like that.
>> Yes. Yeah. He's very clear. He goes into
it in the talk that he was giving about
this like listen this is not me making
something legal. This is not
decriminalizing in any way, shape or
form. This is simply trying to make
something where we can find out what we
don't know about it and we can address
two groups that are very important to
me. Group number one is elderly people
that are dealing with pain management.
CBD and marijuana both have implications
in that. We want to see. And then also
just people being able to get access to
medication that their doctor saying,
"Look, this might help. There's some
evidence. It's not clinically labeled
for this, but off label, go ahead and
try it." And so for those reasons, I
think that goes a long way. Also, this
is an interesting way for somebody that
has a base that is so anti-drug to also
please the Maha crowd, which is going to
be really pushing. He said in the talk
that he gave about this, RFK has been
like banging the drum on him forever,
like, "Hey, when are we doing something
about marijuana? When are we doing
something about marijuana?" Because of
its implications. So, that's
interesting. I would like to see more of
this be done. This is the biggest policy
shift in our drug policy since the war
on drugs began. And so seeing us do the
same with like psychedelics, I think
would be a huge step in the right
direction. For so long, we weren't able
to study it. And so to me, this is an
unmititigated good. I don't know that we
want to go all the way to do we want to
go all the way to federally legalizing
marijuana. Yes, probably marijuana, but
not federally legalizing all drugs.
Having deterrence, being able to get
people off the streets, I think, is a
good thing. Seeing people do the
fentanyl lean all across Southern
California is not ideal. Uh and so
having that card in your pocket that you
can play to be able to get them off the
street, I think is strong magic. So
>> wouldn't want to do that, but there is
something to be said about looking at
ones that do have beneficial effects and
treating them accordingly.
>> This is kind of a sidebar. I don't know
if you heard about the ten the Kennedy
Center, the Trump Kennedy Center that
>> I did unanimously. the board of the
Kennedy Center has decided to call it
the Trump Kennedy Center. And I was
like, "Oh god, like while he's in
office, like that sounds horrible." So
that feels like some donor political
pressure kind of thing. Like
>> once I started going through it, it's he
appoints the board to the Kennedy Center
and then they all unanimously vote it.
Can you imagine?
>> Unanimously in quotes. And I just found
out Congress has to be the one to give
the authority, the board authority.
>> Yeah. It's legally mandated to be that,
which is smart for reasons just like
this.
>> Yeah. So he it was like he made the
press conference, put it in on the
website and everything and it hasn't
even official changed yet. The US House
just passed the Protect Children's
Innocence Act with a vote of 216 to 211.
The bill makes it a felony to perform
gent
genet genital mutilization mutil ah my
>> this one's coming for you
>> man. Puberty blockers and hormone
therapy to
>> exactly what it says by
>> they passed it 216 211. The interesting
thing was there was four nays on the
Republican side. three yays on the
Democrat side. So, this one had a lot
more party splits than uh normal. It
still has to go to Congress and still
has to get passed around. Yeah. What is
your initial thoughts about the Child
Protection Act?
>> Th this one is crazy to me. I cannot
believe that people are open to that
being done to minors. It is
irreversible. They are not
intellectually capable of consenting to
something like that. They certainly do
not understand enough about life. We
have the age of consent for a reason.
People should need to be adults to make
those decisions. If an adult wants to do
that, go for it. No problem. But doing
it to kids really should be criminal. So
yeah, this one I'm very, very, very glad
that it passed the House and I very very
very much hope that it passes the
Senate. People are expecting some tough
opposition. I think that's pretty wild.
So on that, like this is um very
straightforward to me. There's meant to
be friction between the states and the
federal government, but not to the level
that we're seeing now. So, we'll see how
this ends up playing out, but nothing
has changed. Like, this has got to go
through the full legislative process.
So, until it does, like, no need to
panic if this is a big thing for you.
>> Yeah. If you can't buy cigarettes, if
you can't get a tattoo, if you can't get
a piercing, if you can't walk into
certain stores, if you got to get kicked
out of Dave and Busters after 10:00, I
feel like you shouldn't do any
irreversible surgeries. That's
>> I don't even think you can get a tattoo
until you're 18 or 16, but that's
>> Yeah, piercings start at 15. So it's
like you know we we have these arbitrary
limits on one side but we can you can't
pierce the outside of your body but I
can do something inside of your body
that will fundamentally change the
nature of your like your development.
>> Complicated medical procedures man.
>> This is actually interesting push back.
Um thank you J mayor for articulating
it. Circumcision should also be illegal
until 18 because if we're going to stop
messing with uh people's pubes we should
mess with all the way stop messing with
it. I understand that notion. I get that
notion. I think circumcision is probably
going to be the next thing on the
chopping block because that is one of
those grandf grand grandfathered
Christian ethos things that we just
don't talk about.
>> I doubt that will be true unless there
are major complications that I'm unaware
of. I think it will go something like
British common law. The reason that
common law is so brilliant and the
countries that ended up adopting common
law because they were part of the
British Empire for a while have ended up
doing far better than the countries that
don't is common law basically says this.
If we've been doing something for a long
time and we see the result of doing that
thing for this very long time is a
society that we see and we like this
society then it's probably not a
problem. And so the mere fact that it is
common is what gives it the validity. So
the gender affirming care stuff is brand
new. Nobody knows what the long-term
consequences are going to be. It's
entirely possible that 20 years from now
I have to eat all my words because it's
just like oh my god everything is
glorious and everybody should be forced
through gender reassignment surgery. I
can't imagine it but let's say I I'll
follow whatever ends up being true. But
what we are saying is this is so new
that treating it like we know what the
right play is here and that we are so
confident that we know what the right
play is that we're going to do something
that we have historically not done for
anything else is wild. So, this is not
something that is new. Now, if people
don't want to do it, if more and more
people are like, "Oo, that's barbaric.
I'm not here for it." Oh, okay, cool.
Like, make that decision. I certainly
don't think people should have to
circumcise their kids. That one getting
passed as laws being problematic, I
think will fall to the argument of
common