It's Night Side with Dan Ray WBZ Constance Radio.
Well, we have been trying this fall to get some conversation going on all of the ballot questions here in Massachusetts, and there are five of them. We'd We talked last night with the state auditor here in Massachusetts, Diana Desauglio, who wants the specific authority and ballot question one to audit the state legislature. We've talked about the potential elimination
of mcast as a high high school graduation requirement. We have yet to talk about the unionization for transportation network drivers, and we have talked about minimum wage for tipped workers. We may get back to that, but tonight, for the first time, we're going to talk about what's called the limited legalization and regulation of certain natural psychedelic substances with us. We are honored to be joined by doctor Nasir me.
He's a professor of psychiatry at the Toughts Medical School and he knows a lot more about this than I do. We will have someone on from the other side. I believe the the the advocates for this situation, but we're gonna We're gonna focus on with doctor Gami, why he feels this is not something that should be approved in Massachusetts. And so, first of all, doctor Gami, welcome tonight'side. Thank you so much for joining us.
Hi Dan, thank you for having me.
So, how give us a little bit of your background.
You have a very impressive resume, both you know as a as a psychiatrist and also as an author. You the director of the mood Disorder Program and the psycho Pharmacological Consultation Clinic at Toughts Medical Center and as I said, at professor at Tufts University School of Medicine. You've done clinical work and research on depression, manic depressive illness, particularly in the in exploring the role of antidepressants in the
treatment of bipolar disorder. And you've published over one hundred scientific articles and has written or edited eight books. So you're you're a busy guy. Tell us what the subject that he end is.
You know, psychedelics.
Most of us of a certain age when you hear the word psychedelic, you think, oh LSD or something. These are psycho psychedelic mushrooms or psychic is it more than mushrooms? But it's called psychedelic substances. What are we talking about?
First?
Of all right, so thank you for having me as And let me just add the reason that I'm really part of this debate is because I'm currently president of the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society, which is the state branch of the American Psychiatric Association, and we've come out formally opposed to this ballot question, and so as the president of the Society this year it's a one year service, I'm
sort of the spokesperson for us on it. Besides what you said about my having this background in psychopharmacology meaning medication research in psychiatry, and thirty years of clinical experience treating psychiatric patients, especially with mood illnesses, depression, and bipolar illness. I'll estimate I've probably treated over ten thousand people, and
I'm actively clinically treating people now too. But in addition to those roles as a doctor and a researcher, the reason I'm really talking these days is because I'm president of the main psychiatric society. So what we're talking about. Your question was, what are we talking about in terms
of mushrooms. Mushrooms is a kind of a generic phrase to describe certain kinds of mushroom which come from a family that produces this drug which is called psilocybin PSI l o cybi n psilocybin, and that's actually the name of the mushroom family. It's called psilocyb. And these are culled psychedelics based on what got popularized in the nineteen
fifties by a British novelist, Alvis Huxley. But actually in the scientific world the class has always been called hallucinogens, which is the name implies they all cause hallucinations, that's their main effect.
Yeah, And some of the ads that I have seen on television, and i'd get to have someone on from the other side, they have some folks who say that they've used these and it helps them, and it's a very I guess it's a sympathetic if someone can use something and can help them, and I guess there's a real potential to harm people.
With this as well.
Correct, Absolutely so. The reason you're saying these ads on television only about the benefits or the pro side is and we can talk about this more in a while, is that they're highly funded by venture capitalists who have spent so far at least five million dollars to get this question on the ballot. If it wasn't for all the money they've spent on it, we wouldn't be sitting
here talking about it. And of course they're not doing that out of the goodness of their heart, even though that's what they say, and the advocates will say they're doing that because the majority of them also own investments in psychedelic companies and stand to make billions of dollars once people get used to using these or want to use them.
But the.
Question that you that you raised is, you know, why are we what do we think about the fact that people say that they benefit from it, And the fact is maybe they are helpful, But the fact that someone says they benefit them from something doesn't prove that they're helpful. You know, for two thousand years in medicine, people had leading with leeches and people thought that was helpful. And we learned over time that you have to take people's
opinions and test them with scientific research. And specifically, we do these studies where people get randomly assigned to two groups, the treatment group or not, and that's the only way you can really tell that treatment works. You have to have a comparison group, and it has to be random.
So that.
I think most of our audience understands that they're taking placebosh and usually.
They get a placebo, which means a sugar pill. It's nothing. And so until you do that, you can't tell that the treatment makes people better, because a lot of times people get better because of that placebo effect, because they're really happy to take something or they believe in it, and that's definitely a major factor here. So you want to control for that, you want to correct for it, and until we do that, we won't really know that
these things are effective. And there is some research along those lines, some of which suggests some benefit and some of which doesn't, which we can talk about.
Okay, we're going to take a quick break.
My guest is doctor Nassier Gami. As I mentioned, he is a professor of psychiatry at a tough medical school, a really impressive resume, and is dealing with has dealt
with these issues. I will admit this is something that I'm not particularly familiar with, but I remember how marijuana became legalized in this state several years ago, and the initial impact, the initial suggestion was that people, some people would have a medical benefit, and it's just going to become available for people who needed medical treatment that included marijuana, and now we have marijuana sold literally through the state.
So I wonder, and I'm going to ask doctor Gami if that's what one of his concerns is and how widespread this would be and how many people, once this stuff is out and about would say, well, I think I'm going to try that and could it could some harm be done? So we got a lot to talk about. If you know or if you have an opinion on this, you're more than welcome. If you have a question, you're more than welcome. It's one of the ballot questions, Question four.
A vote, a yes vote would make it legal, and we'll explain exactly what what legalization means. And no vote would say no, it's not going to be legal. We'll get to all of that. The number six, one, seven, two, five, four to ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. We'll get to calls as soon as we can. We'll fill up those lines and we'll get going back on night Side.
Run after this.
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World night Side Studios. I'm DOWNBZ News Radio.
We're talking about the legalization of psychedelic here in Massachusetts. My guest is doctor Nasser Gami, who is a professor doctor of Psychiatry at the Toughts Medical School, University of Toughs University Medical School. This is question number four from all of the polls that I have seen. This is probably at this point the closest poll of the five questions. Again, I think this is one that could go either way.
Which is more important for us to all pay attention to it and this I just want to read this a little bit of the summary. The proposed law would allow persons age twenty one and older to grow, possess, and use certain natural psychedelic substances in certain circumstances. The psychedelic substances allowed would be two substances found in mushrooms, psilocybin and citizen, and three substances found in plants. I can't even well mescaline is one of them. The other
two icon pronounced. These substances could be purchased at an approved location for use under the supervision of a license facilitator. That's interesting. What does that mean, doctor? We're not talking about marijuana. Where you go in and you purchase your marijuana and you take it home, right, you got There are going to be people who are licensed facilitators, so you're able to purchase this at an approved location for use under the supervision of a license facilitator.
I'm a lawyer.
I'm reading that and I'm seeing that word for use under the supervision.
Tell us what that means.
Yeah, So it's very misileating if you don't have it explained. So there's two aspects of the bill. The first is basically unregulated legalization. People can grow and distribute these five hallucinogens drugs and cost hallucinations which I prefer the psychedelics is a more sific name these five pollucinages. They can grow them in their spare bedroom twelve feet by twelve feet area or in a backyard, and they can distribute them to their friends and family and no one can
stop them from doing so. They can't sell them, but they can do anything short of that. In fact, in Colorado, where there has been passed, there's a so called gray market where these are being sold even though they're not supposed to. And we can talk about how obviously people under age twenty one are going to get them. Teenagers and college students. But that's half the bill is letting people basically have all the hallucinogens they want in a twelve foot by twelve foot area that it's not a
small amount. And in fact, one of them, mescaline has eighteen gram is how much you're allowed to have, which is thirty times more than the average dose. So these are not small amounts of some of these agents. At least, the other half of the bill sounds like it's more reasonable, like you have licensed facilitators in so call therapy centers.
Them is these are going to be high school graduates who take a three month online course and then charge you one thousand dollars a session in these so called therapy centers. They are not medical doctors or medical professionals, and they are not mental health professionals because the way the law is written, it says that we cannot require that these people be medical professionals or mental health professionals, which means you have to let them be non professionals.
And the fact is the medical professionals, the doctors, and the mental health professionals are not going to sign up to be so called licensed facilitators because these substances are illegal federally, and we cannot legally prescribe them even if
the state passes this law. So it's going to be given by high school graduates who are not going to be sufficiently educated to figure out who should get these things and who shouldn't, nor can they handle the psychotic states of severe delusions and hallucinations which people call bad trips that are going to happen with these substances or
the medical applications. One of the five, which is called iba gain, actually has cardiac arrhythmias on the as its effect, and it can it causes cardiac arrests or heart attacks as a known side effect. And these people are not going to be doctors who will know how to handle any of this.
Yeah, that is one of the three substances listed, iyebill gain. I'm again, you didn't even want to try to pronounce the first one, din thy trip to mine or something.
Dimeso or you can just call a d MT, which is the active ingredient in this plant called ayahuasca, which almost killed one of my patients, which I can tell you about it if you like it.
Yo, that's some Let's grab a couple of phone phone calls here, we're going to keep going here. We've got some full lines. The only lines that are available is six one seven nine. I don't want Donna to have to hang on so long. Donna, you called early your thoughts on this and say hello to my guest here tonight.
With us, Dr.
Hi Hi, and thank you for inviting me back.
Dan.
So, yeah, So I know that Eliza Dushku was there was a Boston magazine article about her experience with this, and I know that hers was a positive one. She's from Watertown, by the way, which is where I'm from, Waham, Assachusetts. So my question is, I know that other people have taken them. You know, people I know personally have described their experiences, some good, some you know, maybe they were
scared by. And then you hear, you know, the the possible legalization aspect, which I thought was going to give the opportunity to tell how to fine tune the dosages, et cetera. So, doctor Nasa, with regard to what you just said, it almost sounds like.
There's this.
Ambiguity about what is actually going to happen if question four happens.
Yeah, I would say it's more than ambiguity. The question is really written in a way to exclude the medical community. But we were never consulted about this question.
You know.
We found out about it, you know, just a few months ago. And the attitude of a lot of the advocates is anti medical establishment. They say, the doctors aren't helping us, so let's all just get our hallucinogens on
our own and use them ourselves. And then again, these therapy centers, they set it up so that it's not going to be legal for any medical professional to participate, and it's going to be given by high school level graduates or college graduates, but not people with psychiatrical medical expertise. And let me just say, in terms of the positive experiences,
you know, as doctors, we see the negative experiences. We see a lot of patients who do badly, and they're not going out and talking about how badly they're doing in the media. And you know, they're not the people that the advocates will bring out because when you suffer, and you suffer tragically, usually you want to protect your privacy and your confidentiality. But we as the doctor see
this a lot, so we're sort of speaking. I'm speaking for my patients who do badly with the sollucinogens, and I have many experiences with that, So yes, there are positive experiences, that's what you usually hear about, but there are many negative experiences, and because of privacy and confidentiality,
you tend not to hear about that as much. And that's why, you know, we doctors are starting to talk about it a little more so that the public gets a full appreciation of the risks and the harms here and not just the possible benefits.
Donna, it sounds to me this, Dan Ray Donna, sounds to me like you're much kind of an advocate for this for legalization, am I reading you correctly?
Me personally, I can't do most drugs because I have weird autoimmune type issues that make it so that you can't even tell what would happen to me if I just took a sleeping pill and I was up for days. So I know people who could bafit from this. Now, having worked in a pharmacy at fifteen years old, I saw how a lot of people suffered with the mental illness aspect. You know, people on those you know drugs
where they feel like zombies, et cetera. And what I read in the article that was written in Boston Magazine. Was essentially that she got this benefit that she wasn't able to get using any of the other avenues, including her own self medication aspects. So the one thing I liked about the article is that it appeared to be I don't It didn't seem like she was doing it on a regular basis. It almost like a one and done, like a reset. Maybe, Doctor Nassa, is that what can happen is.
A reset order?
Yeah, it's possibly. When you hear about benefits, it's often with PTSD post traumatic stress disorder. And what usually people say is that they take one dose or two doses and then they get psychotherapy with it, and they get a whole lot more benefit than they got with other medications or therapies. And it's true that the medications that we have are pretty limited in their benefit with PTSD.
But it's also true that the psychedelics have not been proven, have not been studied compared to the treatments that we have to prove that they're better. They may be, they're just not proven. The one thing that's been studied is MDMA ecstasy, and it was better than placebo in a study that was we got a lot of attention a few months ago because it went to the FDA, but that's not one of the five substances that's going to be in this bill, so even if that works, that
won't be helping people. And the FDA actually rejected it because of ethical problems where the psychedelic advocates who did the study were being even actually inappropriate with the patients at least one person. And also there was some data problems where some patients said that they did worse, but in the study they were claimed to have responded. So I think the jury is out on whether these things work for PTSD. But that's the one place where people
have talked about it the most. I just want to add. The other place is depression, and there it's been studied more and some studies find that there's some benefit, but they always see and to be the same as our current antidepressants, which are much safer. So in depression at least, it's not the case that these drugs are a whole lot better than what we have. And you know, the claim that's made that this will solve the mental health crisis is not supported by that science and is really
more like science fiction. Fantasy in my opinion.
All right, doctor, thank you, Donna. I've got a news break at the bottom of the hour here which I have to take. I appreciate you calling in, and we'll be dealing with this subject again next week.
I think it's Tuesday.
Night, but I'll have to get you more information and maybe you can join us Tuesday night as well.
Okay, I appreciate it.
Take care of me, Thank you.
We'll take quick news break, be back with my guest, doctor Nassir Gomi. He is a psychiatrist. He is a professor of psychiatry at Tufts Medical School, a great medical school, and we're talking about the legalization of psychedelics here in Massachusetts, as the ballot question reflects. Doctor Gami likes to refer to them as the as hallucinations, so I'll use both
of those terms interchangeably. We'll be back on Nightside with more comments and questions and information on ballot question number four. Here on Nightside.
You're on Nightside with Dan Ray on w b Z Boston's news radio.
Thank you, Nicole.
We're talking about question number four in the Massachusetts ballot this year. It deals with the potential legalization of psychedelics as the language that is used.
In the question.
My guest, doctor Nasaagami, refers them to more likes to use the phrase as a hallucigens. You know, when you think back to the nineteen sixties and things like that. It's a very close. According to the polls, this is one of those that's going to be probably the closest of all the questions on the ballot, at least that's what the Poles say. Let's see what the questions are as we continue with my guest, who again is a doctor, a professor at the Tough Medical School. He is a
professor of psychiatry. There, let me go next to Steven Cambridge.
Steve, you were.
Next time Nightside. Thanks for calling in, doctor Gami. This is one of my best callers.
Dan says that he sets me up. Thank you, Dan, You're very kind.
What I believe, by the way, go right ahead.
They were hallucinogens known as hallucinogens to a psychiatrist in Canada named Humphrey Osmond, who is the man who introduced them to Aldis Suxley coined the term psychedelic, right okay, and I have two points. I guess I would say one is you really would never be able to do a randomized test with these because it certainly wouldn't be a blind test because this subject would immediately know he was given, So you couldn't really do a good randomized test with these.
Yeah, that's a good point, and I think that's one of the problems that so those of us we are concerned about these agents feel is that the studies overestimate the benefit because people can tell you have visual hallucinations and distortions, and you hear voices, you can tell you're on this, and the placebo obviously doesn't do that. So when you don't when you can tell, then that always
overestimates the benefit of the thing you're studying. So the real effects are lower than what people say in these studies. There is one analysis of a study where they tried to an analysis where they tried to correct for this by using the placebo effect for antidepressant trials and using that in the in the as a comparison in the hallucinogen trials. And when you do that, the supposed benefits of the flucinogens decreases a lot.
They have been studying these drugs for about sixty years. I mean, since Timothy Leary and Richard Albert got national attention in this matter. Of course, the studies have been kind of sideline studies. But if they really had benefits, wouldn't we know about them by now?
Yeah? I mean I think we would to some extent. The fact is that they, you know, went underground for a while, the advocates will say, and they weren't studied as much. But at least we know a lot about their harms from those sixty years. And one of the researchers was a big advocate for psychedelics at Johns Hopkins. Doctor Matthew Johnson has wroten this long substance abuse review that a lot of people cite in support of the hallucinogens.
But even there, he says that with sixty years of evidence, we can confirm that these drugs are prone to abuse and that they should be controlled. The only question is how much control they should have. But we shouldn't fool ourselves to think that they're just completely safe, non addictive, and have no risk of abuse at all.
Doctor I was around in the sixties to hear Timothy Leary and Albert and other people advocate for them, and I don't know. I don't think I've ever met anybody who I really thought benefited from taking them, and I have met people who, certainly, if they took too many of them, really men never recovered entirely.
Yeah, you know, I agree with you. You know, there's research on now intensive use has increased in the last decade or two. When you look at there's a nationwide study about ten percent of the country has tried hallucinogens, and in those people, there's a fivefold higher rate of heroin abuse, and seventy percent of those folks have tried heroin,
fifty percent have tried cocaine and opiates. In other words, the people that use these solucinogens are not just people who take a little bit and then don't do anything else. They tend to abuse other drugs. And that's why, you know, some people say they're not addictive, and they're wrong, I think, based on that kind of evidence. And they also mistake the question of not having physical withdrawal symptoms as a meaning you can't have addiction. But cocaine doesn't have physical
withdrawal symptoms, but it's highly addictive. And then people say, well it's natural. Well, opium is natural, but it's highly addictive. So these are drugs. They can be abused and are abused by some people. And if we legalize it to the whole population, it won't be just ten percent, it will be thirty forty percent of the population using it, and we'll see that a good chunk of them will abuse it and become addicted to it, and it will harm them.
What do you think with Michael Poland's advocacy in this regard, You know, I think that.
I haven't followed it super carefully, to be honest, but I think that the claim that there's something super special about these hallucinogens that's going to change the world is a religion. It's not science, in my opinion. And when you look at the research, even all the research we've talked about is just short term benefit. You take the
drug for a few weeks and you feel better. There's nothing that shows that in a year or longer, you've treated an underlying disease and you've cured somebody of anything. This is just I feel terrible now. This makes me feel better, you know. In some ways, that's like taking steroids, you know, which work for various psych medical conditions. Per short term, but they don't solve anything long term, and
that could be different for pths. I'm open to someone doing the research for a year and showing me that if you took some of these agents for PTSD at one a year, they were a whole lot better than placebo. But no one's ever done that study, and no one's even just planning to do that study now. So I think it's way too premature to say let's grow this in all of our spare bedrooms now based on what we know.
Now, Well, thank you ask a very quick question. I can jump INFC just a one question.
You mentioned that that there's a few states with this stuff is actually currently legal.
Correct, Yes, they're legal in Oregon and in Colorado last year. Basically, the same political action committee and the same venture capital millionaires who own investments in the biotech companies have paid for these other states for their ballot questions and for the advertising, and they're trying to buy the votes of the people of Massachusetts.
Now, is there much statistically available?
I don't know if how long these have been available or legalized in those two states. They talks that is there anything?
What the advocates often will say is, oh, we haven't heard any bad problems from those two states. Well, the reason is that in Oregon they've set it up that they're not going to report any data until twenty twenty five, so we basically Colorado is even later than Oregon. So we basically have no official data from either state, and
that's why you're not hearing much. But we do have research, you know, studies done on solutionogens all over the country and other states, you know, that show things like fifty percent increase in emergency room visits and people on hallucinogens in California, which is a double the rate that you see with alcohol and with other substances you see in Massachusetts.
We've well in the country, there's another study which showed that ten percent of people that use hallucinogens at all drive with on them, and one third of people who use them regularly drive on So these are the kinds of things that put the public health at risk with car accidents and further overcrowding of our emergency rooms and hospitals.
All right, thank you for a very interesting discussion.
You never disappoint me, Steve. Thank you very much, great questions, great questions.
Thank you to night. Good night.
We're going to take a break, be back with a final segment. Doctor Now's here Gomi of Tough Medical School. I just think it's an interesting subject. We probably do a lot more of this between November fifth, because information needs to get out. Back on Night's side, we're going to try to get John, Rachel and Manny all in between now and ten o'clock.
Be right back.
Now, back to Dan ray Line from the Window World Night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Okay, back we go, Folks are going to ask you to formulate a question and try to be as concise as possible because we're limited in time here and I want to basically maximize the information we can get from doctor Gomi.
Let me go to Rachel.
Rachel joins us from Quincy, Massachusetts. Rachel, welcome, your next go right ahead.
Rachel, Hey, Dan, thank you. So I keep hearing if you take the psychedelics in this conversation, Oh, it makes you feel better, It makes you feel better. But when you have somebody that's a psychosis, that's already hallucinating, and I know for a fact you can get this stuff, you know, online whatever, and they've been told that it's going to make you feel better. How is that going to make you feel better if you're already hallucinating?
Yes, good point, Absolutely not these There are many people have bipolar illness, schizophrenia, or some versions of depression where they can have psychosis naturally, but also they may not have it naturally, but they're susceptible to it, And when they get these solutions gens, they get a whole lot worse. They get more psychotic, more delusions, hallucinations, they have mania, or they have more severe depression. Let me give you an example of a patient, one of my patients. She
was in her early twenties. She got ayahuasca, which has the DMT that's one of the substances in the bill. She had a mild depression when she took it, and she developed a very severe, worse depression with a full blown psychotic state, delusions, hallucinations. She was hospitalized for six months, got catatonic, which means she couldn't eat, drink, sleep, or move,
and she had to get a feeding tube. She almost died, and eventually, with electroshock treatments, which are obviously very serious treatments, she gradually got better. This is one of my patients, so that's an example of how someone with psychiatric illnesses, with mental illnesses can get worse on these medications. And it's funny because the advocates called for mental health options, but they're really ignoring people with mental illnesses.
Right then trying to thank you, I know, I just want to add something. So what's happening is in whatever I do know somebody that bought something online and they started acting a lot different, but they think that it was you know, houpingly depression. But then they acted odd and almost high. And how do you take that away from them and say, no, it's not helping you.
This is why we're going to have a bunch of psychiatric crises and emergency rooms filling up our hospitals and making it hard for people to get prompt medical care. That's another way it harms the public. But again, even these people, that's people with these conditions I described, it's five percent at least of the population. That's hundreds of thousands of people in the state that are going to be at high risk of being harmed by if these things are legalized.
Great questions.
Rachel, I got three other callers and want to try to get to thank you, so much, great job.
Thanks job, good night. Let me go to Manny and Glouston.
Man, you gotta be quick for me, go right ahead.
Hi, thanks uh. I was calling about the strain that they call it. Like back in the I'm one of the old guys. In the seventies they sprayed Mexico with tarva quatt and a lot of us jumped off the bustin and then they started growing it and Patrick Ditches called hydriponn it. Now, in the old days, the magic mushrooms were done from Kyle chips, uh so whatever out in the field. What are they made out of nowadays?
Yeah, that's a good question. I don't really know, to be honest.
Fair enough, fair enough, Thanks Manny, good question, appreciate it. Let's keep rolling. You're going to go to John and Brainfick.
John, Hi, Doc, Captain Heinsteight. How are you, folks. I'll try to make it quick. Two things. Number One, it seems like you guys came onto the scene late. I was wondering if you could. And that's my first question. Do you know why you guys came onto this late and didn't know about this? And the second question I have is.
That John, John, what I sound like earlier.
You said you didn't even know this was on the ballot or something.
Right, you know this is true.
A few months ago, the medical profession seems absent from the whole thing, and now they're trying to catch up. Am I right or wrong about that?
It's totally true. So I became president of the Master's Psychicatidy in May, and that's when we first announced that that we were opposed to it, and the Massachusetts Medical Society agreed with us around then and they also reposed it. They represent twenty five thousand physicians, the majority in the state. By the way, the Masters of SAP State Troopers Association just recently came out finally opposed to it because of
the high car accident risk. So you know what happens is that these these advocates, these political action committees that they have have been active for a decade. They gave you medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. Now they're moving on to hallucinogens. After this, they'll probably want recreational hallucinogens even more broadly. So they've been organized for over a decade. This is all they do. But we medical societies, well,
we're just doctors. We're treating patients. We're all volunteers. We don't make get any money for any of this work, and so we just react when things happen. And we didn't know until a few months ago, and the fact that we're all volunteers is important. I think the.
Other point I wanted to make was that they were on YouTube, I watching an how Along show about some very credible people, actresses, singers, talking about their experiences with them. Do you have any plans to counter something like that with an owl worth of all the nightmas that it happened, because I think those are the type things that could. And by the way, I want to thank you because I knew there was something up with this bill that I didn't want to vote for, but you guys made
it clear. It's basically going to be a free for all.
And uh, first of all, great great perspective. Thank you very much for pointing that out. I got to tell you the fact that the group would come on with a bunch of actors or actresses or singers or sword swallowers or clowns or whatever I'm going with the doctors.
To be honest, I gotta tell you, we don't have any of that because we don't have you know, the mass like society doesn't have any money to spend on any of this. We're all just dues paying members and everything's volunteer. I mean, I think with there there's a larger group that's a coalition that's opposed to the question, that did not have any fundraising until recently, but I think they've raised a little bit now and you might see a commercial or two coming out soon.
Well, thank you again, and John, thank you. Just get the message out. It's a free for all now.
Captain Hindsight stop buy more often. It was a good call. Thank you very much. To the callers in the line, I apologize, but we're flat out of time. Uh.
Doctor Gamy, Uh, you've.
Been an extraordinary guest and you've helped me prep for next week. And when we hit the other side on we may invite you back at some point.
Yeah, Dan, can I say one more thing before you go out? Right ahead, you're going to hear about decriminalization, and we support that, but you don't have to legalize it for everybody in the state to grow it in their spare bedroom, to not have laws that treated as a crime, So that that's really not necessary either, And I hope people get the message that there are a lot of harms here and very limited benefits and it's much better handled in the medical system with doctors prescribing
it with careful supervision. And that's not what this ballot question is about. It harms the public health. It's actually about private wealth and recreational use. And that's why the majority of physicians oppose it.
Private wealth over a private wealth over a public health. That's an interesting that could be a bumper strip doctor.
We'll have you back. You were extraordinary. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
You're very welcome.
We get back when we talk about the successes but the Israeli Army, the IDF has had in the last few weeks with Jeff Robbins, I believe this these successes might might pave the way for peace in the Middle East.
We'll discuss it right after the ten o'clock news