.@JamesTalarico on Texas officially banning THC:
“This bill is insane.
Texans aren’t going to stop smoking weed and eating edibles because politicians in Austin say so. Texans will still use THC — but instead of getting it safely from a local small business, they’ll go back to getting it from the black market. From the drug cartels.
This ban is a gift to the cartels.
We are now telling full-grown adults how to live their lives. This is the nanny state at its worst; this is big government at its worst.
Instead of fully funding our schools, guaranteeing healthcare, or making childcare more affordable — this Legislature is focused on banning a product that gives people a little peace.
We’re making people’s lives harder, not easier.
I want to leave you with a quote: ‘It is time to end needless arrests and incarcerations of adults for small amounts of marijuana for personal use.’ That wasn’t a Democrat. That was President Donald Trump.
To my Republican colleagues, I’m asking you to oppose the cartels, stand with President Trump, and vote no on this insane bill.”
@KevinSabet If alcohol is the fourth floor & opioids are sixth, I agree that cannabis is a few steps off the ground. Govt should add bars to the higher floors or at least make the windows childproof. 😉
Kevin, we believe in the freedom to choose. The product is safe.
Time for some truth... Andrew @hubermanlab is not a neutral "health expert." This is a market clearing strategy disguised as "science" and we all see what you are up to... in lights. Andrew is effectively using his platform to pathologize cannabis as a "brain shredder" to scare his audience away from a plant he can’t monetize (yet). Even your closest friends who platform you disagree with you and use cannabis to feel good (and as a recovery tool). You are utilizing a predatory business model designed to funnel people toward the high-margin powders and supplements that pay for your lifestyle.
Andrew, your "rigor" is a scam. You demand an impossible standard of "perfect" data to dismiss cannabis, yet you pivot to "mechanistic plausibility" the second your sponsors are involved. You will spend 20 minutes explaining how a molecule might work in a petri dish to sell L-Carnitine, CoQ10, and Shilajit fertility protocols pushing $100 supplement stacks with zero independent clinical trials just because they pay you a recurring commission.
Andrew cites biased NIDA harm studies to claim cannabis "shuts down the hippocampus"; claims actual neuroscientists like Dr. Matthew Hill and Dr. Peter Grinspoon have called egregious word salad. But that skepticism vanishes when his sponsors are involved, because Andrew wants that moolah. This conflict of interest is the whole story. You attack cannabis for sleep and anxiety because it competes with your Momentous Sleep Stack and L-Theanine checks. You warn about cannabis brain fog while pushing Alpha GPC and holding a majority stake in Mateína yerba mate?
You prey on people and on an industry that can’t fight back because federal gag orders and advertising rules keep researchers silenced.
When the Executive Order finally clears the path, those companies will be too busy treating actual patients to waste time on a hack like you. Somehow your grift keeps getting swept up and hidden by the social media algorithm. Let's make this as clear as day, Andrew... It is not science when the skepticism only applies to products that do not have a referral code.
$MSOS