Video summary
Donald Trump has signed an Executive Order to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, a move he clarifies does not legalize cannabis for recreational use nor decriminalize it in any way across all 50 states. The order remains federally illegal under current law but significantly alters the regulatory landscape by allowing access through research facilities and universities for clinical trials. This shift is framed as a push toward medical intervention rather than widespread availability, such as vending machines on street corners. Trump emphasizes that this action addresses two specific groups: elderly individuals suffering from pain management issues where CBD and marijuana show promise, and patients whose doctors recommend off-label use despite the lack of formal clinical labeling for certain conditions. The policy change is also viewed strategically to bridge political divides, particularly appealing to the MAGA base while responding to long-standing pressure from figures like RFK regarding drug policy reform. This represents a significant pivot in American drug policy since the inception of the War on Drugs and sets a precedent that could extend to other substances like psychedelics if similar research barriers are removed. The speaker notes that this approach allows for studying beneficial effects without immediately moving toward full federal legalization, which is seen as unnecessary given existing deterrents against illegal street drugs like fentanyl. By enabling clinical study, the administration aims to gather data on efficacy and safety before making broader decisions about legality or prohibition. In a separate but related discussion regarding bodily autonomy and medical procedures for minors, the transcript highlights the recent passage of the Protect Children's Innocence Act in the US House by a vote of 216 to 211. This legislation makes it a felony to perform genital mutilation on children without parental consent or judicial approval, specifically targeting puberty blockers and hormone therapy used as gender-affirming care for minors. The voting record showed notable party splits with four Republicans opposing the measure while three Democrats supported it alongside many Republicans. The speaker expresses strong support for this bill, arguing that such irreversible procedures should not be performed on children who lack the intellectual capacity to consent or fully understand life's complexities, drawing parallels to age restrictions on tattoos and piercings which are currently set at lower ages like 15 or 18 depending on jurisdiction. The debate over these medical interventions touches upon broader legal principles involving common law versus statutory regulation. The speaker argues that gender-affirming care for minors is a brand new practice with unknown long-term consequences, making it inappropriate to treat it as established fact and mandate such treatments universally. In contrast, practices like circumcision have historical roots in British common law, where the validity of an action often stems from its longstanding acceptance within society if results are deemed positive over time. The speaker suggests that while they personally oppose non-consensual genital mutilation on minors including circumcision unless major complications arise historically recognized as acceptable under common law might face challenges similar to those facing gender-affirming care legislation, potentially leading to a reevaluation of what is considered standard medical practice versus experimental intervention. Ultimately, the discussion underscores the friction between state and federal authorities in regulating both drug policy and minor medical procedures, noting that nothing has changed immediately despite high-profile actions like Trump's Executive Order or House votes on child protection acts until full legislative processes are completed at all levels of government. The speaker advises against panic regarding these developments since existing restrictions remain in place for activities such as getting tattoos after age 18 or avoiding certain stores and venues, illustrating how arbitrary limits exist alongside complex medical decisions that fundamentally alter human development. Whether future laws will expand to include banning circumcision entirely remains uncertain but depends on arguments surrounding common law traditions versus the need to protect children from irreversible interventions without their informed consent.
Read the full video transcript
Trump signed a EO to reschedule
marijuana from schedule one to schedule
three alongside doctors, cancer
patients, veterans, and law enforcement.
Interesting thing about this, no it
doesn't
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's 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 MAGA 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 unmitigated 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 deterrents,
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.
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 the Kennedy
Center to Trump to 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. It's like
>> I started going through it it's he
appoints the board to the Kennedy Center
and then they all unanimously voted
Kennedy
unanimously in quotes. And I just found
out Congress has to be the one to give
the authority the board authority to
change the
>> legally mandated to be that, which is
smart for reasons just like this.
>> Yeah, so he it was like he made a press
conference, put it in on the website and
everything and it isn't even official
change 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 gen gen gen
genital genital mutilation mutila uh my
>> This one's coming for you. Man, puberty
blockers and hormone therapy to minors.
>> [laughter]
>> They passed it 216 to 211. The
interesting thing was there was four
nays on the Republican side, three yeas
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. 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 &
Buster's after 10:00 Yeah. I don't even
think you can get a tattoo until you're
18 or
>> Yeah. That's Yeah, that's wild.
>> piercings are 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 of your development.
>> complicated medical procedures, man.
>> actually interesting pushback. Thank you
Jay Mayer for articulating it.
Circumcision should also be illegal
until 18 because if we're going to stop
messing with 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 cuz that is one of those
grand five grandfathered Christian ethos
things that we just don't talk about.
>> 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 the 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. Mhm. 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, "Ooh, 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 law is being problematic I
think will fall to the argument of
common law.