Gary Johnson: “Cannabis potentially an actual cure for ebola. . . FDA; Give us a shot!”

Varney: “You libertarians exercise a great deal of influence, nowadays, within the Republican Party. You really don’t like government. I put it to you though, particularly with ebola, you have got to have a centralized, government response to this problem. You can’t just farm it all out to private enterprise.”

Johnson: “I would agree; I think government has a fundamental role to protect us against harm. Clearly this comes in under the purview of government.”

Varney: “So are you critical of the government taking this role, or of the government’s performance?”

Johnson: I am not. . . What I am critical of. . . Stuart, recently I took a position as CEO and President of Cannabis Sativa, Incorporated. Medical marijuana, recreational marijuana. We actually believe that we have efficacy with regard to treating Ebola.”

Varney: “Wait a minute; wait a minute. You think that pot, marijuana, cannabis itself has some . . .”

Johnson: “CBD oil and THC . . .”

Varney: “You are not going to claim that . . .”

Johnson: “The point that I’m trying to make here is that what government should be doing is making it as easy as possible for the thousands, I’m going to guess, of researchers and developers around the country who believe that they have efficacy when it comes to treating ebola. . .”

The entire interview can be viewed here:

72 thoughts on “Gary Johnson: “Cannabis potentially an actual cure for ebola. . . FDA; Give us a shot!”

  1. Wes Wagner

    Unfortunately Varney has his number. It is unfortunate that the delegates in Las Vegas in 2012 didn’t understand it.

  2. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Somewhere I missed the point. Why, for example, shouldn’t those with a cure to Ebola be able to make a profit from it!?!? Why argue THAT point? It’s immoral to make a profit from developing a cure to a deadly disease!?!

    Rand would be spinning in her grave over this one . . .

  3. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Paulie,

    Bit hard to argue for the FDA to “get out of the way” while simultaneously claiming that “government has a fundamental role to protect us against harm.”

  4. Wes Wagner

    What Gary wants is the ability to make claims that his product cures ebola, but not get sued when it doesn’t… why are people persecuting him?!?!?

  5. paulie

    Somewhere I missed the point.

    Yep.

    Why, for example, shouldn’t those with a cure to Ebola be able to make a profit from it!?!?

    They should…which is exactly what Gary was bringing up his Cannabis company as an example of, and some other medicine he was mentioning for AIDS, and so on.

    All while dancing around Varney’s attempts to put him entirely on the defensive within a constricted time frame with Varney controlling the mics.

    Live TV is not easy. Here Gary deflects the rope a dope and lands some punches from an unexpected direction. Good job.

    Rand would be spinning in her grave over this one . . .

    Good, she could use a few spins. It must be getting pretty boring in there otherwise.

  6. paulie

    Bit hard to argue for the FDA to “get out of the way” while simultaneously claiming that “government has a fundamental role to protect us against harm.”

    Varney opened with that. Johnson’s response was to deflect it. It’s that “dancing and coming from an unexpected direction” thing. Otherwise it would have been playing defense on Varney’s terms the whole time. Acknowledge his point (which most people aren’t prepared to think past anyway, and certainly not within the few seconds of controlled airtime you are given) without specifics in a nebulous way and effectively deflect it at the same time by challenging it from unexpected angles and putting questions in people’s heads.

  7. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Varney: “You libertarians exercise a great deal of influence, nowadays, within the Republican Party. . . .

    Johnson: “I would agree;”

    Be nice if he had thought to mention the existence of the Libertarian Party as competition for the RP and have corrected that misstatement rather than (at least seeming to) agree.

    What is influencing the RP, and has been (mis) branded as “libertarianism” by the major media (or “libertarian-republicanism;” or “Reagan -Libertarian,” is NOT what the Libertarian Party stands for, or exists for.

    If it was, we should fold up, concede Varney’s point and just work for change within the loving arms of the RNC.

    A missed opportunity here to make that vital distinction between what the LP stands for and what this distortion of our brand by media like Varney actually means . . .

  8. paulie

    What Gary wants is the ability to make claims that his product cures ebola, but not get sued when it doesn’t… why are people persecuting him?!?!?

    He didn’t make any such positive claims. Good luck with the lawsuit.

  9. paulie

    A missed opportunity here to make that vital distinction between what the LP stands for and what this distortion of our brand by media like Varney actually means . . .

    Yet another angle that could have eaten up a lot of time and not accomplished much. I think he made better use of the short amount of time given than taking it on that tangent would have presented.

  10. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Paulie,

    Maybe you should listen to the interview before commenting.

    Varney: “You’re going to have people making money off of . . .”

    Johnson: “No, no, no, no. This is not about money. . . .”

    Varney: “. . . They will make a profit . . .”

    Johnson: “That is not our intention . . .”

  11. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Varney: “not as a cure”

    Johnson: “No as an actual . . . potentially as an actual cure . . .”

    Just listen to 1:45 to 1:55 if you missed that part.

  12. paulie

    Maybe you should listen to the interview before commenting.

    I listened to it three times, thanks.

    Varney: “You’re going to have people making money off of . . .”

    Johnson: “No, no, no, no. This is not about money. . . .”

    Varney: “. . . They will make a profit . . .”

    Johnson: “That is not our intention . . .”

    Exactly. Keep it away from letting Varney paint it as greedy profiteers who only care about money and couldn’t care less about people’s suffering, which is what his questions are rope a doping at. While at the same time suggesting opening it up to more free market solutions and even giving a few possible examples.

    Well done.

  13. paulie

    Varney: “not as a cure”

    Johnson: “No as an actual . . . potentially as an actual cure . . .”

    Just listen to 1:45 to 1:55 if you missed that part.

    I didn’t miss anything. The word potential is in there for a good reason. That’s why he goes back and makes sure it’s there after he accidentally misses it the first time (live TV, not easy).

    Good luck with that lawsuit, like I said.

  14. George Phillies

    Is there actually any evidence at all of any sort beyond the broad use of potentially, which equally applies to effective antibodies and sacrifices of white bulls to Phoebus Apollo?

    “Varney: “You libertarians exercise a great deal of influence, nowadays, within the Republican Party. . . .

    Johnson: “I would agree;””

    The claim of influence appears to be total nonsense.

  15. Jed Ziggler

    Jed Ziggler: “Cannabis potentially an actual way to conjure dragons & ward off evil spirits. . . Hogwarts; Give us a shot!”

    Makes as much sense. Unless you have actual proof that your product does what you’re saying it can “potentially” do, and time to lay out said proof, why bring it up? Seems like a wild, unfounded claim.

  16. paulie

    Is there actually any evidence at all of any sort beyond the broad use of potentially, which equally applies to effective antibodies and sacrifices of white bulls to Phoebus Apollo?

    Dunno. Maybe he has information I don’t have or maybe he is talking out of his ass. I am in no position to evaluate.

    The claim of influence appears to be total nonsense.

    There are different kinds of influence.

    They certainly seem to be acting scared of us “stealing their votes.” It’s not because we have no impact, and sooner or later it will either force them to adjust their policies or relegate them to former major party status. That’s a traditional role of alternative parties in the US and there are signs the LP is getting to be more effective, so we may be in a better position to force some changes soon.

  17. paulie

    Unless you have actual proof that your product does what you’re saying it can “potentially” do, and time to lay out said proof, why bring it up?

    It’s extremely unlikely that there would be time to lay it out or a significant portion of the audience competent to evaluate the claims, and the research if there is any may be proprietary. It’s certainly not unheard of for pharmaceutical companies to tout potential benefits during trial phases and not release all the research data.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    I love Steve Kubby, but when he told me Johnson and Gray were coming on board his company’s board of directors and asked me to write the press release, I signed my 1% stake in the company back over to him instead rather than associating with them in any way.

    According to the media associated with subsequent events, that decision cost me $10k.

    Worth every dime.

  19. paulie

    Funny, I was going to say maybe Gary got fed some third or fourth hand BS, possibly from other sources in the company, and was passing it on. Or maybe there actually is something to it. We shall see.

  20. Joshua Katz

    I have no idea if marjiuana cures Ebola or not. I suspect not. Although I note that there have been no cases at UC Berkeley. It seems about as effective as the elephant repellent I use in my living room.

    What I do know is that the libertarian influence in the GOP is so strong that Republican politicians favor torture, indefinite detention, tight borders, abortion laws, and marriage inequality.

    Yes, often in interviews it’s valuable to get away from a corner the interviewer wants to paint you into. It’s a good tactic, and anyone who wants to run for office should develop it – even (especially) if you’re running for dog catcher. However, presented with (paraphrasing) “is it wrong to park a police car outside of a house and threaten to shoot anyone leaving, because they were on a plane with someone who may possible have a low coefficient of contagion disease – but one that’s so scary that many movies have been made about it?” I think a direct answer might be appreciated, at least briefly, before turning to your company and a claim that, perhaps, needs a bit of investigation before public presentation – although I have no problem with him making it, I just don’t blame people for not necessarily accepting it. The host was probably right to say that it’s not terribly convincing to say “hey, this may work.” The AIDS comparison was problematic in that, as Johnson said, there you were discussing a drug that actually was known to work.

    The host opened himself up, though, and gave an opportunity that wasn’t taken. He presented a false dichotomy – either government handles it or you ‘farm it out’ to private companies. Why not point out the possibility of a third option, or that society is capable of dealing with these things without police state measures?

    Johnson had a great point here. People (dying or not) should be allowed to put what they want into their own bodies. It’s a somewhat easier argument to make when a person is dying. But you weaken it when you tie it to an unproven claim that’s highly unlikely to be true.

    The host asks if we should let any ‘snake oil salesman’ market any cure they want for Ebola. Johnson says no. What does Johnson propose as the cut-off, then? There’s no reason to think pot cures Ebola, yet he wants to market it as such – and I agree entirely that there’s no harm in giving pot to people dying of Ebola. By the same logic, though, why not give them any product that claims to be able to cure Ebola? He never clarifies what distinction he wants to make, which the host jumps on, with a vengeance.

    That said, interviews are hard. The most seasoned politician can struggle at times. I think he did a good job against a tough host, in a tough environment, and with a rather hard argument to make.

    Here’s something I find unfortunate. Obama came out yesterday against those states that have imposed police-state quarantines. As in, Barack Obama. (Not that he’s going to do anything to stop them, of course.) Johnson, given an opening, didn’t.

  21. paulie

    I have no idea if marjiuana cures Ebola or not. I suspect not. Although I note that there have been no cases at UC Berkeley. It seems about as effective as the elephant repellent I use in my living room.

    It seems to have a lot of medical benefits. Dunno about ebola, but I wouldn’t rule it out, or the possibility that Johnson was not necessarily just talking out of his ass. I don’t have enough information to judge and doubt you do either.

  22. paulie

    What I do know is that the libertarian influence in the GOP is so strong that Republican politicians favor torture, indefinite detention, tight borders, abortion laws, and marriage inequality.

    More of them are dissenting from those stances than were a few years ago, while they are also getting more aggressive about trying to mangle, mutilate and dismember our LP votes. We must be having some effect.

  23. paulie

    Yes, often in interviews it’s valuable to get away from a corner the interviewer wants to paint you into. It’s a good tactic, and anyone who wants to run for office should develop it – even (especially) if you’re running for dog catcher. However, presented with (paraphrasing) “is it wrong to park a police car outside of a house and threaten to shoot anyone leaving, because they were on a plane with someone who may possible have a low coefficient of contagion disease – but one that’s so scary that many movies have been made about it?” I think a direct answer might be appreciated, at least briefly,

    In theory, yes, but remember

    1) Live TV ain’t easy and
    2) If you answer a question head on you get a different set of followup questions.

    So while it may be appreciated, it’s not necessarily the best way to go, and even if it is, I can understand why someone may go a different route at times. I look forward to seeing you in some interviews like this, for comparison among other reasons. Have you tried to book any yet? If you can’t get national shows see if you can start local. Even I managed to get local TV interviews back when I gave it a try, not that I was good or anything.

    before turning to your company and a claim that, perhaps, needs a bit of investigation before public presentation –

    Not necessarily. All he said was that there’s potential. Maybe it’s based on some studies somewhere, which may or may not be proprietary – I have no idea – or maybe he’s pumping and dumping stock. I honestly have no clue, but I do know that pharma companies talk publicly about promising cures that sometimes do and sometimes don’t pan out, including based on proprietary research, and no one faults them for it.

    although I have no problem with him making it, I just don’t blame people for not necessarily accepting it.

    I don’t either. I neither accept nor reject it until I have some reason to do one or the other, and at this time I do not.

    The host was probably right to say that it’s not terribly convincing to say “hey, this may work.”

    Maybe so. But again, I have no basis to judge on either way.

    The AIDS comparison was problematic in that, as Johnson said, there you were discussing a drug that actually was known to work.

    At one time it was not known whether it would or wouldn’t.

  24. paulie

    The host opened himself up, though, and gave an opportunity that wasn’t taken. He presented a false dichotomy – either government handles it or you ‘farm it out’ to private companies. Why not point out the possibility of a third option, or that society is capable of dealing with these things without police state measures?

    Johnson had a great point here. People (dying or not) should be allowed to put what they want into their own bodies. It’s a somewhat easier argument to make when a person is dying. But you weaken it when you tie it to an unproven claim that’s highly unlikely to be true.

    How do you know how likely or unlikely it is?

  25. paulie

    The host asks if we should let any ‘snake oil salesman’ market any cure they want for Ebola. Johnson says no. What does Johnson propose as the cut-off, then?

    I actually do think any snake oil salesman should be allowed to market any cure they want, but that is probably not a good answer to a mass audience, as they would quickly almost all conclude that I am nuts; one of the many reasons why I would not be a good candidate. So Gary’s answer was probably a better answer than my honest answer could have been, although yes, for the minority of people who are highly logical thinkers it’s important to determine what the cutoff would be, there really wasn’t any time in the interview to explore that in depth (perhaps fortunately and perhaps not). Chances are, however, that most of the audience didn’t think about it too deeply, and even of the few who did, most will forget it long before the election rolls around, and at best will rememebr that they have heard of this Gary Johnson guy somewhere before and maybe what party he is with.

    There’s no reason to think pot cures Ebola,

    Again, I’m not prepared to conclude that there is or isn’t a reason. Maybe Gary knows something we don’t. Maybe he thinks he knows, or hopes, or something. Maybe he made it up on the spot or repeated something he heard which may or may not be based on something real. I don’t know, and you probably don’t either.

    yet he wants to market it as such –

    Well, by his own standard he shouldn’t be allowed to market it as such unless he comes up with evidence. But I didn’t hear him say he should be allowed to market it before he comes up with evidence; maybe he believes he can come up with that evidence or at least hopes so. Or maybe he’s being a bit hypocritical, like most people. I don’t know.

    Perhaps all he meant was that the rules for coming up with that proof, and allowing people to try potential cures that are not proven on an experimental basis, should be relaxed to some extent. For example, companies could be allowed to market potential cures only while making clear that they are not proven. I don’t know if that is what he meant, but maybe it could have been.

    and I agree entirely that there’s no harm in giving pot to people dying of Ebola. By the same logic, though, why not give them any product that claims to be able to cure Ebola? He never clarifies what distinction he wants to make, which the host jumps on, with a vengeance.

    Well, he may not have had time to clarify it. Maybe he isn’t even entirely clear on it himself. I don’t actually know.

  26. paulie

    That said, interviews are hard. The most seasoned politician can struggle at times. I think he did a good job against a tough host, in a tough environment, and with a rather hard argument to make.

    I agree.

  27. paulie

    Here’s something I find unfortunate. Obama came out yesterday against those states that have imposed police-state quarantines. As in, Barack Obama. (Not that he’s going to do anything to stop them, of course.) Johnson, given an opening, didn’t.

    I agree that is unfortunate. That is another reason I hope to see you on some of these shows. Hopefully sooner rather than later and more of them rather than fewer.

  28. Joshua Katz

    Well, I consider it unlikely, among other reasons, because Ebola is a virus. The most common approach to the development of anti-virals is to use types of interferon to, as the name suggests, interfere with cellular reproduction at the DNA level. I see no possible mechanism for THC to serve in this capacity. That’s not an argument that it’s impossible, just that it’s unlikely. But we shouldn’t accept a claim just because it’s possible – we also haven’t proven that cheese won’t cure Ebola.

    I agree that “yes, anyone should be able to market anything” wouldn’t sell well on tv and isn’t a successful political tactic. The host suggested speeding up the process, and although there wasn’t a ton of time, Johnson didn’t seem to agree – he seemed to suggest that his product should be tested immediately, but not other claimed treatments. It’s possible he has some proprietary testing he’s not revealing that would justify disparate treatment, I suppose, but I suspect it’s not the case.

    As I said, redirecting a question to an area where you’re stronger is a good tactic. But he was brought on as a libertarian, presumably to talk about big-government response. To basically say “well, I’m fine with big government response, but I think the government should let me sell pot as a cure but continue to block other claimed cures…” seems to take it to a bit of an extreme. It’s a judgment call, and yes, when you’re live it’s a hard decision. I don’t fault him for it – I just would have liked to see the libertarian standard bearer say something about police state tactics when he had a chance. What’s the point of looking good and not putting off the crowd if it means not speaking out against one of the more basic forms of rights violations?

  29. Jill Pyeatt

    I will point out to everyone that as of today, there are four–f-o-u-r, 4– people who have been diagnosed with ebola in this country.

  30. paulie

    But we shouldn’t accept a claim just because it’s possible – we also haven’t proven that cheese won’t cure Ebola.

    I don’t, and thought I clearly said I agree we shouldn’t accept a claim just because it’s possible. I also proposed a possibility that Johnson may know something we don’t and that he is not just suggesting we should accept a claim just because it’s possible either. Again I am not saying that he knows something, or that this is what he meant, but it may have been. Just because he did not have time to present any evidence doesn’t mean he has none, and just because he may have some doesn’t mean he actually does, nor that it is ready to be presented even if does exist.

    I agree that “yes, anyone should be able to market anything” wouldn’t sell well on tv and isn’t a successful political tactic. The host suggested speeding up the process, and although there wasn’t a ton of time, Johnson didn’t seem to agree – he seemed to suggest that his product should be tested immediately, but not other claimed treatments.

    I didn’t hear him say that. I’ll have to listen yet again, some time when I can play sound (it would wake people up if I did it now).

    To basically say “well, I’m fine with big government response, but I think the government should let me sell pot as a cure but continue to block other claimed cures…” seems to take it to a bit of an extreme.

    If that was actually what he said, I agree. But I think he left plenty of wiggle room for other interpretations.

    It’s possible he has some proprietary testing he’s not revealing that would justify disparate treatment, I suppose, but I suspect it’s not the case.

    I don’t know either way, and will refrain from guessing. It could also be that he is referring to some speculation that is based on publicly available research as well, but that he did not have the particulars at his immediate disposal and/or did not have time to explain them. Again, I do not know.

    I just would have liked to see the libertarian standard bearer say something about police state tactics when he had a chance.

    So would I.

    Luckily, you’re in a position to do more than just wish – you can start trying to get booked on shows and posting clips of your appearances, as a possible candidate for our nomination. I hope to see some of those soon.

    What’s the point of looking good and not putting off the crowd if it means not speaking out against one of the more basic forms of rights violations?

    You have a point there. But the again, I have seen Gary speak out against many kinds of rights violations in many different TV appearances. At times he hasn’t does as well as I wish he had, but another side of the coin is … what’s the point of knowing the answers if almost no one gets to hear you give them?

    Yes, a big chunk of these kinds of opportunities is how well you handle the questions. Another part is getting these opportunities in the first place, getting invited back, and getting new ones on the basis of your “people click to the next channel or not” factor when you do get them.

    Hey, look on the bright side: at least he didn’t say that the “fair” tax will cure ebola 🙂

    But seriously, let’s get you some media appearances too, ASAP.

    Good competition for our nomination will make whoever is the eventual nominee a better one. And good competition includes having lots of basis for comparison, including in large part in media interviews.

    So, any progress or attempts yet on that front? That’s not a rhetorical question.

  31. paulie

    I will point out to everyone that as of today, there are four–f-o-u-r, 4– people who have been diagnosed with ebola in this country.

    Yes, but that doesn’t mean there might not be a lot more soon. The numbers could grow very quickly, too.

  32. Joshua Katz

    Paulie, just getting organized. I’llkkeep you updated on appearances. I agree that it’s largely a balance. You need to maintain credibility while also hittingkey ppoints.

  33. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Paulie,

    “Hey, look on the bright side: at least he didn’t say that the “fair” tax will cure ebola :-)”

    Thanks for the laugh.

    IMO it was a terrible performance for a former LP POTUS candidate. How was it different than anything Bob Barr or Wayne Root might have said?

    He did not mention the LP.

    He backed away (to understate it) from the superiority of the chaos of the free market and profit seeking as the path to the most good for the most people over centralized government planning and control (something he actually called for in terms of the role of government in keeping us from harm). (Not that “doing good” is the moral basis for free market capitalism.)

    He was clearly more interested in promoting his company than clearly articulating libertarian values or promoting either the party or its candidates. Instead appearing (at least) to agree that the libertarian influence is limited to (or primarily within) the Republican Party.

    As CEO of his company he did what he did. I’m not attempting to critique how good or bad that might have been, or what benefit may derive to his company or ebola suffers.

    As a former LP POTUS candidate, or as a current LIBERTARIAN spokesperson, or as someone seeking the 2016 POTUS nomination, it was a clear F, IMO.

  34. paulie

    Joe: I disagree, for reasons already stated above. I thought he did pretty well at deflecting the questions. But we’ve been over all that and I don’t have anything to add to what I already said. I don’t see how repeating myself would help. I am sure that if you pick through Gary’s many media appearances and try to put the worst spin on what he says you’ll find plenty more material between now and Orlando, or even all the way into November 2016 if he is the nominee. Have fun, I guess.

  35. Robert Capozzi

    A gentleman’s C- performance.

    First, he kept saying “ee-bala,” which is understandable once as a mispeak.

    I’m OK with saying that certain crisis might sometimes be best handled by government to protect us from things like Ebola, but it was not at all crisply put.

    Second, his pivot to the AIDS example was also awkward. He never said why cannabis might be a cure, nor did he really even make the case that cannabis has proven medical benefits in some circumstances.

    He didn’t address the “snake oil salesman” point at all. He needed to.

    I didn’t have the sense he was prepared for this interview at all. He winged it, is my sense.

    I’m not sure if he got off message, or whether he even had one.

    Third, saying they are not in it for profit was at best inartful. Contemporary business theory suggests that company’s first look to develop things customers want or need. Once a market need is identified, THEN business people develop and manage the means to maximize profit. For more on this, look into how John Mackey runs Whole Foods. Profits are a residue of good, effective, efficient management of products and services, etc etc.

  36. George Phillies

    ” We actually believe that we have efficacy with regard to treating Ebola.”” It will be interesting to hear if there is evidence of this, or if there is an effect on the value of the stock.

  37. Robert Capozzi

    JP, thanks. Similar story on Slate:

    “Cannabis Sativa, which acquired a marijuana research company called Kush back in July, was originally a tanning salon business and is now run by libertarian former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson. Johnson recently suggested that marijuana should be explored as a potential Ebola treatment in an interview with Fox News.”

    If true, Cannibas Sativa bought a former tanning salon business that now does weed research…in July 2014?

    Sorry, this starts to feel kinda icky, shadowy, and marginal. Ever open-minded, though….

  38. Jill Pyeatt

    Well, if we ever have an ebola crisis in this country, we can try treating it with cannabis. In the meantime, we have real problems to deal with.

  39. George Phillies

    Perhaps cannabis is also effective against Martian war machines. After all, it hasn’t failed yet. No Martian invasion has yet succeeded when attacked with clouds of smoke.

    I am very strongly in favor of legal changes to allow large-scale testing to identify pharmaceutically active components and ideal means of administration. but the Governor’s remarks do not pass a smell test.

  40. Matt Cholko

    I’m basically with Pablo on this one. While the interview wasn’t spectacular, GJ was fine.

    But, the ebola/pot claim does not pass my smell test either, George.

  41. paulie

    I am very strongly in favor of legal changes to allow large-scale testing to identify pharmaceutically active components and ideal means of administration. but the Governor’s remarks do not pass a smell test.

    You must be psychic, since you know a lot more about the basis or lack thereof on which he based his remarks than I am. Hypothetically, if there is any evidence, an officer of the company would be in a better position to know than other people. Of course, you may be right, and there may be no evidence, but I have no basis on which to jump to that conclusion.

  42. paulie

    If true, Cannibas Sativa bought a former tanning salon business that now does weed research…in July 2014?

    Sorry, this starts to feel kinda icky, shadowy, and marginal.

    Dunno how that has anything to do with anything. Apparently they have had some kind of corporate reorganization, and were bought (at least on paper) by a company that was previously in the tanning salon business. This has nothing to do with what researchers they are dealing with or how long the research has been going on.

    Also, it seems you are misreading that. Assuming you are quoting Slate correctly and they have their facts right: Cannabis Sativa acquired an existing marijuana research company called Kush, which existed before July 2014 and was not a tanning salon company, in July 2014. Cannabis Sativa, not the research company, was once a tanning salon company. I am guessing what that means is that the tanning salon company restructured/bought whatever Kubby’s company was some time before July 2014, and later bought a research company in July. What’s weird about that?

  43. paulie

    Perhaps cannabis is also effective against Martian war machines. After all, it hasn’t failed yet. No Martian invasion has yet succeeded when attacked with clouds of smoke.

    Yes, that would be an accurate comparison if you assume that Johnson, as the president of the company, has no evidence behind his claims. It seems logical that he could have such evidence, even though he did not present it in this interview. However, I don’t know that he does, and wouldn’t assume that he does unless and until he or someone else does present it, either.

  44. paulie

    ” We actually believe that we have efficacy with regard to treating Ebola.”” It will be interesting to hear if there is evidence of this, or if there is an effect on the value of the stock.

    Yes, it will.

    It seems a lot of people here know something I don’t, or assume they do – perhaps correctly and perhaps not.

  45. paulie

    From a link Jill posted earlier in this thread:

    Chris Hood and Jon Schultz paid $13,500 for the rights to Ebola.com back in 2008 and have just sold it to a company called Weed Growth Fund.

    The terms of sale call for Hood and Schultz to get $50,000 in cash and 19,192 shares of Cannabis Sativa, Inc., a company run by former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson that hopes to market legal cannabis products throughout the world.

    That would tend to reinforce the conjecture that Cannabis Sativa Inc. thinks they have something that may be useful in treating ebola, otherwise why would they spend a bunch of money and give away a bunch of stock to acquire ebola.com?

  46. paulie

    He never said why cannabis might be a cure,

    Most likely too complicated to explain in the context of an interview like this, most of the audience would not understand it even if he had a lot more time to explain it, he may not be able to explain it (he’s the president of the company, not a research scientist himself), and the research may be proprietary. Also, it may not even exist (as many people here are assuming, although it seems to me they would have no basis to do), but it may exist, which would be true (or not) regardless whether Johnson was prepared to explain why or had time to.

  47. paulie

    Third, saying they are not in it for profit was at best inartful. Contemporary business theory suggests that company’s first look to develop things customers want or need. Once a market need is identified, THEN business people develop and manage the means to maximize profit. For more on this, look into how John Mackey runs Whole Foods. Profits are a residue of good, effective, efficient management of products and services, etc etc.

    All true. It would have been better to say that they are not in it only for a profit, since anyone with any lick of sense already knows that at least one of the reasons why businesses exist is to make a profit, although it doesn’t have to be the only or even the primary reason any given business exists or does what it does.

    In the context of the interview, he needed to get the interviewer off the path of saying he was trying to profiteer off people’s misery and death, and move on to something else. There could have been a better way to wordsmith it, but live TV isn’t easy.

  48. George Phillies

    “That would tend to reinforce the conjecture that Cannabis Sativa Inc. thinks they have something that may be useful in treating ebola, otherwise why would they spend a bunch of money and give away a bunch of stock to acquire ebola.com?”

    Ummh, to reinforce the impression that the have something useful to treat a really rare disease? Surely their investors will be happy to read this excellent news?

  49. Joe

    Paulie @ October 31, 2014 at 11:54 am

    “I disagree, for reasons already stated above. I thought he did pretty well at deflecting the questions. But we’ve been over all that and I don’t have anything to add to what I already said. I don’t see how repeating myself would help.”

    I wish you’d follow your own advice!

    And I wish Gary, or you, or the Libertarian Party generally, or SOME political party could/would own as vital and articulate clearly the following message.

    Gary blew it in this interview, IMO; so have you above, so has most of the planet — but here’s what could have been said:

    “For the sake of our lives and our future, we must defend free enterprise.”

    http://www.cityam.com/1414690326/free-enterprise-will-crumble-if-we-fail-make-moral-case-capitalism

  50. paulie

    No. Why does it matter that a tanning salon company bought what started as CS Inc. and CS inc then bought a research lab? The tanning company had money to invest and CS inc needed it. What’s the problem?

  51. Joe

    Paulie @ October 31, 2014 at 11:54 am

    “I am sure that if you pick through Gary’s many media appearances and try to put the worst spin on what he says. . . . Have fun, I guess.”

    You sound like Joe Hunter, is he writing your material now?

    I have ONE article about ONE media appearance, and you’re concluding my idea of fun is to pick through Gary’s “many media appearances” and then put the “worst spin on it?”

    Where is THAT coming from?

    But, hey, if you want to link to his many media appearances over the last month or two, go for it. I’m sure there are others here who can provide the objective analysis IPR is known for.

    🙂

    Joe

  52. paulie

    Also, I am a bit stuck at the moment.

    I went up to Bham with somewhat uncertain plans that included hanging out on Halloween, staying at a friend’s house for a number of nights that was not agreed on at the time (turned out to be one), putting up signs for the LP and its candidates, working the polls on Tuesday (if I had found places to stay the whole time in between, although I still might), etc, etc. Long story short, after putting out the signs today no one has offered me a place to stay here and my back up plan was to take Greyhound back to Tuscaloosa, but it turned out they were sold out.

    So now I am stuck, and will have to shell out money I had not planned to spend for a motel. At the moment I am sitting at a cafe, trying to avoid thinking about the consequence of my poor planning and don’t have much better to do than repeat myself, since other people keep repeating what I have already addressed.

    My fault for not planning better, but really, I will have to scale back my coming up to Bham to volunteer when I have no money coming in, or plan better. Not sure why I am telling anyone about it, but that’s another of my problems.

  53. paulie

    You sound like Joe Hunter, is he writing your material now?

    Nope, speaking only for myself. I have had very little contact with Joe Hunter and I’m sure you know him better than I do.

    I have ONE article about ONE media appearance, and you’re concluding my idea of fun is to pick through Gary’s “many media appearances” and then put the “worst spin on it?”

    Where is THAT coming from?

    My general impression from your IPR comments and emails.

    But, hey, if you want to link to his many media appearances over the last month or two, go for it.

    No, not that I have any problem doing that, but I don’t feel like it.

  54. paulie

    Ummh, to reinforce the impression that the have something useful to treat a really rare disease?

    Why, yes. That would the conjecture I was referring to. Of course, another possibility could be that it’s a stock pump and dump, but I don’t know that, and as far as I know neither do you.

    Surely their investors will be happy to read this excellent news?

    Surely they would. Why the ummhs and question marks? Clearly they are staking some money on this. That doesn’t prove that they have any fire behind their smoke, but it does reinforce the conjecture that they possibly might.

  55. paulie

    a really rare disease?

    It’s highly contagious and the numbers of infected are growing rapidly. It may not be very rare for very long.

  56. Jill Pyeatt

    Four cases diagnosed in this country. It’s now been more than a week since a new diagnosis. Really, so far we’ve dodged this bullet.

  57. Joshua Katz

    Question: Why do people call us “pot smoking Republicans?”

    Answer: I don’t know, but our last Presidential candidate is a Republican who appeared on television claiming that pot cures ebola, and who is President of a pot company.

  58. paulie

    our last Presidential candidate is a Republican

    I am not aware of him currently being a Republican. Are you?

    Yes, he was elected as a Republican, and yes, he did start out running for the Republican nomination.

    But he was a dues paying LP member even before he was Governor, people have been calling him a libertarian and trying to get him to run for the LP nomination since at least when he was governor…and he has many other issues where he is a libertarian, and out of step with the establishment Republicans, besides just pot.

    claiming that pot cures ebola

    There was no such positive claim.

    and who is President of a pot company.

    Good for him, and we support both entrepreneurship and marijuana legalization so I don’t have a problem with him being president of a pot company.

    As for pot smoking, I’m pretty sure he’s told me he doesn’t anymore, although it’s no secret that he has. I’ve hung out with him a bunch of times, including two road trips of several days each, and never seen him smoke, although to be fair I did not follow him around for every minute of those days.

    Does it reinforce some such superficial stereotypes that he is a former Republican and president of a pot company? Yeah, I guess it does, although in the larger scheme I don’t find that to be a huge knock…the “fair” tax is a far bigger stumbling block, IMO.

  59. Robert Capozzi

    PF, yes, I misread…missed the comma.

    Regardless, if the corporation and its structure are let’s call it unconventional, a good communicator has a crisp, true answer to basic type questions. Yes, being on TV can be a challenge, so it’s also good to have prepared deflections if it goes in directions one is unprepared to go.

    Speculating here, but GJ might have said something like, “My company recently acquired a medical-marijuana research company that we are VERY excited about. It’s too soon to announce anything, but we have some evidence that active ingredients in the marijuana plant have more healing properties beyond those that have already been established, such as anti-nausea. In fact, our researchers believe that it may even be helpful in countering Ebola.”

    More broadly, he might have said about the FDA process: “Of course there have been instances where drug and vitamin manufacturers have made overblown claims about their products. But it’s also the case that the FDA is a POLITICAL entity, and it has stymied some of the most effective cures, causing untold pain and suffering on those who needed palliatives or outright cures. The better health and safety model is a private one. UL — Underwriters Laboratories — has for decades been enhancing public safety by certifying electrical products for use in homes and businesses. Electrical fires are EXTREMELY rare, so the UL approach is done without government meddling.”

    Or something.

  60. Jill Pyeatt

    ‘I’d say that is a very premature conclusion”, said Paulie in response to my pointing out that there are still only 4 people who have been diagnosed with ebola in this country and we may just have dodged this bullet in our country.

    You might certainly be right, but I might be as well. This has always appeared to me to be simply an enormous distraction created by mass hysteria. I’ve been saying that from the beginning. Happily, so far I’ve been right and we haven’t been overtaken by suffering and death as predicted. I’m crossing my fingers and praying for this to continue.

  61. NewFederalist

    When the Swine Flu and later the Avian Flu pandemics were going to make the black plague of the middle ages look like a runny nose my wife and I considered starting a business called “Body Bags R Us” since there would be so few people left to bury anyone. If we had started it up we would be totally ready for the horrible disaster that is to come. Perhaps my Chinese supplier can still fill my order!

  62. paulie

    When the Swine Flu and later the Avian Flu pandemics were going to make the black plague of the middle ages look like a runny nose my wife and I considered starting a business called “Body Bags R Us” since there would be so few people left to bury anyone. If we had started it up we would be totally ready for the horrible disaster that is to come. Perhaps my Chinese supplier can still fill my order!

    Perhaps. Although I think FEMA has already cornered the market and they prefer plastic coffins, not black body bags.

    You might certainly be right, but I might be as well. This has always appeared to me to be simply an enormous distraction created by mass hysteria. I’ve been saying that from the beginning. Happily, so far I’ve been right and we haven’t been overtaken by suffering and death as predicted. I’m crossing my fingers and praying for this to continue.

    All I said is that it is a very premature conclusion. I am not saying I know what will happen. It does have the potential to get really bad, but we don’t know at this point.

    Speculating here, but GJ might have said something like, “My company recently acquired a medical-marijuana research company that we are VERY excited about. It’s too soon to announce anything, but we have some evidence that active ingredients in the marijuana plant have more healing properties beyond those that have already been established, such as anti-nausea. In fact, our researchers believe that it may even be helpful in countering Ebola.”

    Speculating here too, but I think it may be what he may have meant to say, although the above would have been more eloquent.

    More broadly, he might have said about the FDA process: “Of course there have been instances where drug and vitamin manufacturers have made overblown claims about their products. But it’s also the case that the FDA is a POLITICAL entity, and it has stymied some of the most effective cures, causing untold pain and suffering on those who needed palliatives or outright cures. The better health and safety model is a private one. UL — Underwriters Laboratories — has for decades been enhancing public safety by certifying electrical products for use in homes and businesses. Electrical fires are EXTREMELY rare, so the UL approach is done without government meddling.”

    Or something.

    Yep, that would have been good.

  63. Mike Kane

    How does “being influential in the Republican Party” and “government should protect people” represent being good as a former Libertarian presidential candidate?

    Gary Johnson got ripped up in this interview. This is almost as bad as when he tried to discredit the ABCT.

    Could have easily made a Libertarian case for companies and incentives to create drugs that heal people.

  64. Robert Capozzi

    mk, the “influential” line was the interviewer’s, iirc.

    But, I’d think that being influential is a good thing, no?

    As for protection, the current platform says: “The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.”

    It uses the word “protect.” Whether addressing the risk of Ebola fits the specific cases for the proper role of government according to the platform is hazy, though if there’s a risk of epidemic death, I would suggest that property rights and a legal framework might under threat.

  65. Joe

    Mike Kane @ November 3, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    “Could have easily made a Libertarian case for companies and incentives to create drugs that heal people.”

    Only if he knew the case to be made.

    Mary Ruwart could have made it easily. Lee Wrights could have made it easily. Nick Sarwark, Geoff Neale, Bill Redpath, even Alicia Mattson and Aaron Starr could have made it easily. Wes Wagner would have burned the studio down, but not before explicating the case so that everyone was repeating it the next morning, in verse, with melody. Paulie could have made the case if he wasn’t so concerned about making Gary look bad. Sadly I think even Wayne Allyn Root would have done better in this interview — or at least he wouldn’t have missed the expectations of him by so wide a mark.

  66. paulie

    represent being good as a former Libertarian presidential candidate?

    See above, I already explained.

    Only if he knew the case to be made.

    You’re assuming he doesn’t?

    Mary Ruwart could have made it easily. Lee Wrights could have made it easily. Nick Sarwark, Geoff Neale, Bill Redpath, even Alicia Mattson and Aaron Starr could have made it easily. Wes Wagner would have burned the studio down, but not before explicating the case so that everyone was repeating it the next morning, in verse, with melody.

    Could =/= necessarily mean they would. Any one of them could have gone off message. Some of them may have said that this is a case where government intervention is justified. More importantly, most of them would have never been invited to do the show at all. You can be a brilliant thinker, know all the right things to say, and even be a great orator and excellent at staying on message, and it won’t matter much if your audience is much more limited.

    Paulie could have made the case if he wasn’t so concerned about making Gary look bad.

    I’m not too concerned about it. I don’t shy away from criticizing Gary where we don’t agree or saying when I think he did a crappy job. For example, I don’t think he did very well debating Jill Stein one on one; he rolled his eyes visibly and acted condescendingly too much IMO. I’m very much not a fan of the “fair” tax, as regular readers here know. In this case I honestly don’t think he did as bad as most of y’all seem too but I also don’t think it would be a huge deal if he had, since there have been and will be many other media appearances and it won’t be remembered much at al, but will just add a little bit to boosting name recognition.

    I’ll also be more circumspect about what I could or couldn’t have done. I’ve had local reporters and talk radio hosts make mince meat of me. I have a face for radio and a voice for print. But hey, I’m way more cooler online…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6iAjEv9dQ

    Sadly I think even Wayne Allyn Root would have done better in this interview

    Well, yeah, he would be memorable I am sure. He would most likely have talked about how we need to stop all flights and immigration from Africa, and how it’s all Obama’s fault, and did you know none of his classmates ever saw Obama at Columbia? ….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *