Show a 5-year-old girl about to eat food sprinkled with oil drops of marijuana on cable TV, and you're bound to get the nation talking.
The topic of weed buzzed across the country this week, not because of the usual debate surrounding medical marijuana laws, but as a result of a one hour-long documentary featuring this little girl and one medical reporter's change in opinion.
CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta shocked many when he publicly admitted he was wrong about his previous stance on the medicinal benefits of weed and retracted views he expressed in his 2009 Time magazine article, "Why I Would Vote No on Pot."
"I am here to apologize," Gupta wrote in a CNN op-ed published Aug. 8. "I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now."
On Sunday, CNN aired an accompanying documentary, "Weed," which Gupta spent a year investigating by traveling to pot farms in Colorado and hospitals in Israel, where he studied the medicinal benefits for cancer patients. The program emphasized the underresearched healing effects of marijuana and had viewers glued to their TVs as they watched 5-year-old Charlotte Figi, now age 6, consume the drug to treat her seizures.
While marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 substance – which the Drug Enforcement Agency defines as "drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse" – it's the only one that has reduced Charlotte's seizures from 300 a month to two or three.
As Gupta notes in his CNN editorial, Roger Egeberg, the Department of Health's assistant secretary of health and scientific affairs in 1970, recommended at that time for marijuana to be classified as a schedule 1 substance "until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue." Forty-five years later, the majority of those studies were never completed, Gupta says, and the status hasn't changed. He points out that only 6 percent of marijuana studies in the United States have investigated the healing qualities of the drug, while the rest have focused on the harmful impact.
U.S. News talked with Gupta to get his reaction to the chatter surrounding the documentary and find out what made him change his mind about marijuana. His responses have been edited.
It's been less than a week since the documentary aired. What kind of reaction and feedback have you received?
It's been pretty robust. The reaction certainly with the online communities and the viewership was really good. I knew it was going to be something that people would want to see, and it's been bigger than that. It's tapped into a provocative issue in this country that a lot of people know about, but maybe haven't thought that much about, and I think that's probably caused a lot of people to really look at the science and the facts around this.
Are you surprised by how much the public has been talking about this?
I don't think I was surprised about the amount as much as some people. I've been getting emails from lots of doctors, members of clergy, judges even, who were thankful because they had been waiting for some science to be shed on this topic. I think that both sides of this issue have had a lot of conjecture, and a lot of anecdotal stories as evidence and a little bit of hyperbole. But I think when you actually lay down all the facts and tell the science behind it – both inside and outside the United States – and also tell the stories of patients who are not just anecdotal stories, but are emblematic of so many patients, I think it makes people think about this.
You shocked a lot of people when you changed your stance on medical marijuana. What was the turning point that caused you to change your mind?
I don't think it was a single point. I've been reporting about this periodically throughout the years, and as I wrote in that op-ed, I've been pretty critical of marijuana – mainly, I've not been impressed with the data coming out of the United States. While I thought it may have some benefit, I wasn't sure that it would have more benefit than what was already out there. When I started to look at the studies in the United States very, very carefully and realized the mass majority of them were designed to find harm, I realized that was sort of painting a distorted picture. And when I started to look at laboratories outside the country, and smaller labs and smaller journals, but very well done studies, that really started the process for me.