Reefer Madness with Dr. Staci Gruber

Does weed make you faster? Neil deGrasse Tyson and co-host Gary O’Reilly and Chuck Nice hash out the effects of cannabis with neuroscientist at Harvard Medical School and director of the MIND Program Dr. Staci Gruber. Is smoking dope really doping?

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Welcome to StarTalk. Your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide. StarTalk begins right now. This is StarTalk Sports Edition. Today, we're gonna talk about weed. Yeah, I said it. Marijuana. And what effect that has, does, should, shouldn't have in sports. And I got Gary O'Reilly with me. Gary? Hey Neil. Good to be here. All right, all right. Ex-footballer. Mm-hmm. Football, as in soccer, I guess. Yes, round ball. Round ball. And Chuck.

• 0:44Chuck Nice?

  Yes.

• 0:45Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Always good to have you, dude.

• 0:47Chuck Nice?

  Yeah, ex-weed smoker. Ex-weed smoker and, uh, and, uh, and current weed smoker. So there you have it.

• 0:56Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  And future.

• 0:57Chuck Nice?

  Just right, and future weed smoker. So, yeah, okay.

• 1:01Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  So, what we've got here today is, other than Chuck having been a former weed smoker, and possibly future one, we don't have particular expertise in what role any of this plays in athletic competition. So, we combed our, searched our Rolodex, and we came back to, uh, one of our previous guests, and, uh, this, it's Stacy Gruber. Stacy, welcome back to StarTalk.

• 1:30Speaker 02

  Thanks so much for having me.

• 1:31Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Yeah, you're one of the world's experts on what marijuana does to the brain, to our thoughts, to our decisions, to our abilities. And, let me just get your full title here. Director of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging. Ooh. At, at the McLean Hospital's Brain Imaging Center, and you're an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. So, that's, you sound, you got all the right stuff here. And your, your research includes neurocognitive models and multimodal brain imaging. Ooh. And the best part here is you're assessing risk factors of substance abuse, and farm, and the psychopathology of it all. Did I, did I get that right?

• 2:13Chuck Nice?

  Uh, you left, you left out one thing, Neil.

• 2:16Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  What?

• 2:17Chuck Nice?

  Uh, my hero.

• 2:18Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Oh, okay.

• 2:19Chuck Nice?

  You left that part out.

• 2:21Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Okay, Chuck. Uh.

• 2:23Speaker 02

  The only thing I would tell you is, we started the MIND program, Marijuana Investigations for Neuroscientific Discovery, or MIND.

• 2:30Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Oh, I see what you did there. Very good. Mm-hmm.

• 2:33Speaker 02

  Because there was really no data, um, up till very recently, on the long-term effects of cannabis when people use it for medical purposes, as opposed to recreational or values. Really important distinction and factors into our talk today, for sure.

• 2:47Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Very excellent. So we'll get right to it. I mean, I don't want to, I don't want to delay this any further. Many of us think about cannabis as a recreational drug, and with very little sort of side effects to it from what's intended. And also medicinal use has been around for millennia, as I understand it.

• 3:07Speaker 02

  Thousands of years.

• 3:08Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Yeah, thousands of years. And so, uh, let me ask you, let's get straight into this, because this is StarTalk Sports Edition. And Sha'Carri Richardson's Olympic ban, all right? She was the 100-meter sprinter that was tested positive for cannabis. And I have, and so she got booted from the Olympics. She's not in her key event in the Olympics because she tested positive cocaine. So I have to ask, and start off this, this segment. In what way does smoking weed increase your musculoskeletal reaction time and make you run faster?

• 3:49Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Is this, in what way does it enhance your performance in the 100-meter dash?

• 3:54Speaker 02

  It's a fantastic question. And I'll tell you, most people say things like, "Hey, if you can smoke weed or use cannabis and perform and win, you should get something for it because you're..."

• 4:04Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Two, two medals. Two medals. You should get two medals.

• 4:08Speaker 02

  And to your point, you know, cannabis has been around for thousands and thousands of years. First documented use was as medicine. You know, and it was part of our pharmacopeia since 1850. We prescribed it. Then it became illegal through a series of events that I know Chuck knows.

• 4:23Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  You know, talking well, I know it.

• 4:24Speaker 02

  Exactly right.

• 4:25Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  They just let Chuck out of, out of, out of jail. He, he just got out. Okay.

• 4:30Speaker 02

  The mid 90s saw us revisit this and California was the first state to legalize cannabis for medical purposes. But in terms of sports, you know, the WADA list, the, the World Anti-Doping Association um, has cannabis on, on the list of prohibited substances. And, you know, there's been a lot about this, especially with regard to Chitauri Richardson. And I think you have to meet two of three criteria to be on that list. It poses risks to your athletes. It provides a performance in.

• 4:57Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  I mean, health risk, health risk.

• 4:58Speaker 02

  But I think the, I think that the language is pretty open and vague. That's part of the concern here, right?

• 5:03Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Risk. Okay. I risk winning the sport. Okay. There's a risk for you.

• 5:08Speaker 02

  There you go. And it violates the spirit of the sport, which is one of those casual caveats that anything can fall under. But to your point, most studies to date document that one does not have improved, let's say, or faster reaction time or improved or increased coordination. Quite the opposite when we're talking about what we think of as typical, conventional recreational or adult use cannabis. That's not what we see. Individual constituents might confer some benefit. But when we're talking about flower, whole plant products typically used for adult or recreational purposes to change one's current state of being, we don't see improvements in reaction time. That's not what we see from a research perspective. And most of the science that leads us back to where we are now in terms of it being prohibited

• 5:53Speaker 02

  is a little bit questionable. And I think a lot of people are now taking a much closer look at exactly uh, why it's on the list.

• 6:00Chuck Nice?

  Wow. Yeah. So, so does this have anything to do? I mean, I don't want to get into the whole history of weed, but you know, and Reefer Madness and why that happened and you know, being connected to jazz.

• 6:12Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Reefer Madness, the, the public service film.

• 6:15Chuck Nice?

  The public service film. And going up before that is the connection between black people and white people coming together. Believe it or not, that was the problem. Forget all that. 2020, I believe they removed it from schedule one or I, I, they, I don't know if they actually removed it or did they take a vote, but I read about it sometimes. So can you tell me about that? Is that?

• 6:37Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  And what is schedule one? Just put us on the same page there.

• 6:41Speaker 02

  So just a real quick history thing, again to your point, it was part of our pharmacopoeia. Reefer madness really refers to a period of time in which the nation really fell under this spell. And there are a lot of psychosocial reasons that this happened, we won't get into it, but it fell out of favor. The marijuana tax act made cannabis illegal. And it not only was removed from the pharmacopoeia, which doctors use to prescribe, not recommend or suggest, prescribe, it became illegal. In the 1970 Controlled Substance Act, it was placed in the most restrictive class, Schedule I. Schedule I, which by definition, gentlemen, no accepted medical value. Okay? That's where cannabis sits today. Chuck, to your point?

• 7:21Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Sitting right next to other drugs like what?

• 7:23Chuck Nice?

  Cocaine.

• 7:24Speaker 02

  Heroin. No, cocaine, Schedule II, sir.

• 7:26Chuck Nice?

  Okay.

• 7:27Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Chuck, did I ask you the question?

• 7:28Chuck Nice?

  I don't know, I was just thinking about cocaine.

• 7:31Speaker 02

  I'm not gonna go there, that's fine.

• 7:34Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Okay, so Schedule I, who's to its left and who's to its right in Schedule I?

• 7:39Speaker 02

  So cannabis sits in Schedule I alongside things like heroin, LSD. So no accepted medical value, which people have of course begun to question because individual constituents from the plant, this plant is complicated, there's over 400 compounds, 100 of these interact with our brain and body system of chemicals and receptors. The question is, if there's no accepted medical value, how is it that you have an FDA-approved medication like Epidiolex, a single extracted purified compound for kids with pediatric onset seizure disorders, that's not only FDA-approved, but you know, not in Schedule I? So Schedule I, by definition, most restrictive class, and to your point Chuck, cannabis remains illegal at the federal level. In 2018, you're thinking of the hemp act. 2018, the hemp act was passed, which basically said that all cultivars or chemovars, all

• 8:24Speaker 02

  plants basically of cannabis sativa L, that had less than 0.3% THC.

• 8:29Chuck Nice?

  THC, yeah.

• 8:30Speaker 02

  Primary intoxicating constituent of the plant, what gets you high, is what our recreational or adult users are typically looking for. Every plant that had less than 0.3% THC by weight was okay, it's industrial hemp. Interesting shift that we've had because... This is the proliferation that we've seen of CBD high products, products high in CBD that may or may not have THC up to a certain point.

• 8:54Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  The IOC, which banned Shaqari Richardson, where are they getting their information from? Are they getting it from, who's it, WADA? What is the acronym?

• 9:06Speaker 02

  I think it's the World Anti-Doping Association.

• 9:08Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  World Anti-Doping Agency. Are they getting their insights from the World Anti-Doping Association? And are they getting it from outdated federal legislation? I mean, who's mining the store here?

• 9:22Speaker 02

  Another really great question. So the question is, where does this science, where does the sort of evidence for this come from? And most people are turning back to some studies that happened in a review paper that was published in 2011, I think, and they lean into it pretty hard, and that was enough evidence to sort of maintain its current status. Whether or not it should remain there is something different. Again, I would say this, if we know that people who, let's just think of people who smoke or vape cannabis for fun or recreational purposes, is their reaction time faster? No.

• 9:54Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Do they even want to run in the race? No.

• 9:58Chuck Nice?

  Is there a competition where you can sit on the couch and eat doughnuts?

• 10:02Speaker 02

  But not everybody, not everybody uses the same types of products, right? And so here's the, here's the big distinction. So when people think of things like that, and they ask the question, should this or should this not be prohibited? Is it performance enhancing? Actually, from that perspective, no. But some people have raised the following question. Well, it relaxes people. It allows you to let things go. It's great for anxiety. Again, very low doses of THC, good for anxiety. Higher doses, not so much, don't go there. Other constituents are great for that, too. But if that's the case, if it's an indirect effect that we're seeing, it's not the same as a steroid, which allows you to build muscle significantly faster and with less effort, right?

• 10:41Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  We're an elite athlete, and we kind of bounce back into the Shaqari Richardson scenario here.

• 10:45Gary O'Reilly?

  What difference would there be for them to consume THC as opposed to CBD? I know, I know each individual athletes will react differently, I appreciate that much. But in a broad stroke, could you explain that to us, Doctor?

• 10:58Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  And just to be clear, THC is tetrahydrocannabinol, is that what that stands for?

• 11:03Speaker 02

  It stands for delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, and it is

• 11:06Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Cannabinol.

• 11:06Speaker 02

  primary intoxicating constituent of the plant. Again, lots of players here. The other big player, yeah. The other big player here, that people have spent a lot of time and attention on, is cannabidiol or CBD. A primary, non-intoxicating constituent of the plant, often touted for its therapeutic potential. So when we think about what could happen if you are exposed to large amounts of THC versus CBD. What you typically find is CBD, again, is not intoxicating. People use it for all sorts of reasons. There is very scant evidence here. From a scientific perspective, you know, as a neuroscientist, we like to have empirically sound data.

• 11:43Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Evidence matters.

• 11:44Speaker 02

  Evidence matters, man. Exactly. And here, policy is outpaced science. So we want to be very clear about what these constituents do and don't do. And we don't know the whole thing yet. We really don't. It's a complex story, especially when we start thinking about multi-compound products, not just THC or just CBD. But the ways in which people typically use, right? Like Shaqari Richardson. So to your point, Gary, what do we expect? Again, products that are higher in THC typically are used for those who are looking for, from a recreational perspective, looking to change their current state of being, or sort of take themselves out of something. CBD is not intoxicating. Would you find that somebody has any physiologic change after using CBD? There have been some pre-clinical studies suggesting that.

• 12:27Speaker 02

  And there are some human studies suggesting it, but the evidence is pretty, pretty sparse. We have to do a lot more work in this area.

• 12:34Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  All right, listen, when we come back after this break, this short break, what we really want to get to the bottom of is, how is it that these chemicals that are all extracted from weed? can be banned or not banned, yet there's all manner of other chemicals that we take that do influence us physiologically that just get completely overlooked, like for example, ibuprofen to get rid of pain, or even coffee. So, when we come back, we're gonna see how does everything else we do and ingest measure up to cannabis? We'll start talking.

• 13:34Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  We're back, StarTalk, Sports Edition. We're talking about cannabis, marijuana, and what role it can play, has played, should or shouldn't play in athletic competition. And we've got Dr. Stacy Gruber. Not her first rodeo with us here on StarTalk. This time, we're just really trying to find out what's going on in the Olympics, how is it that Sha'Carri Richardson got banned, but more importantly, for this segment, Stacy, I want to know, how is it that I can take sort of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug?

• 14:11Speaker 02

  NSAID, yep.

• 14:13Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  NSAID, okay, you've got an acronym for that, non-steroid anti-inflammatory, NSAID.

• 14:18Speaker 02

  NSAID, yep.

• 14:19Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  NSAID, and the Olympics, and they'll find that in my pee, or however they measure it, and all is fine, okay? But if I took a cannabinoid, that's bad. Don't they have similar effects on our bodies? And what's going on there?

• 14:36Speaker 02

  So, you know, they really, again, these rules, these regulations, these guidelines, I think are set in place sometimes in the absence of clear evidence. And in the case of an NSAID, which is very clearly used as an analgesic or a pain reliever, which also helps with inflammation, these are actually two things that people often use cannabis for. You happen to raise a really good point. NSAIDs are legal, and they are not, again, you know, sort of on the illicit substance, they're not in the controlled substance group, and they're not in the CSA at all. So... Could someone make an argument that NSAIDs could themselves be performance enhancing because they help reduce inflammation or help with pain? Sure. Cannabis or marijuana, I think, is prohibited for a number of reasons.

• 15:20Speaker 02

  And they did change the amount of cannabis, quote, it's actually a metabolite of THC that's detected in the urine. They raised the limit of detection from, I think, 15 nanograms to 150, but you may still test positive for THC.

• 15:33Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Wait, nanogram? That's a billionth of a gram. Nanogram. Did I hear that right? That's, oh my gosh. Okay. That means they're really getting into your pee. I'm just saying. If they know nanogram contents in my pee.

• 15:51Gary O'Reilly?

  I hope it's in a bottle first, Neil.

• 15:53Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Okay.

• 15:54Gary O'Reilly?

  Okay. So, doctor, right. So here I am, I've gone into the lab and I'm being creative and I come up with a drug that's A, a stimulant, B, if I tested on mice, could be proven to improve muscle growth. And if I mix it with water, it's rich in antioxidants. Would WADA ban this drug?

• 16:19Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  WADA, again, the...

• 16:21Gary O'Reilly?

  World Anti-Doping Agency.

• 16:23Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's a great question. I'm not sure what criteria they use.

• 16:25Gary O'Reilly?

  Okay, what if I called it coffee?

• 16:27Speaker 02

  Right. Exactly. You know, I could make the same argument for so many things. It's, again, I have a feeling, and I could be wrong because I don't live in the WADA sort of bubble or at the International Olympic Committee, but I have a feeling this has a lot to do with the fact that cannabis remains Schedule I at the federal level.

• 16:46Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  That's what I was wondering. Because if somebody thinks it's bad, then you don't want to be the one who says it's not bad, right? Maybe that they're afraid to be the first out of the gate on that.

• 16:56Speaker 02

  And I think that there have been some studies that have perhaps prematurely or perhaps without a huge amount of evidence behind it, decided that it can in fact help people with their performance. So therefore it must be a performance enhancing substance. That has really come under a fair amount of scrutiny these days. And again, when you do a comparison between cannabis and other substances like alcohol, alcohol's not on the banned list.

• 17:19Chuck Nice?

  So it sounds to me like WADA really should be, what are you talking about?

• 17:26Chuck Nice?

  Or what are you, what are you out of your mind? Like that's, that kind of is what water is. That's not.

• 17:34Gary O'Reilly?

  So, so doctor, we, we kind of immediately default to an impairment of cognitive skills on, on using cannabis or, or marijuana. But are there, and I do believe the term that you use is downstream effects of cannabis use that could be seen as an aid to performance? Performance not being I run faster, jump higher, but in recovery, I maybe aid sleep. Do we have those downstream effects from this drug?

• 18:06Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Yeah, and why not ban sleep? Because getting sleep enhances your performance.

• 18:10Chuck Nice?

  It's the best thing you can do for your performance.

• 18:12Speaker 02

  It's the best thing you actually across the board almost for anything, you know?

• 18:15Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Right, right. So we should ban it because it enhances performance, I think.

• 18:19Speaker 02

  I think to your point, again, there's a difference between direct and indirect effects. And how do you start to measure what will or won't have an effect, uh, you know, downstream? So some of these constituents have certainly been shown to be anti-inflammatory and help promote sleep, help reduce anxiety. Could those, you know, at some level help someone function day to day? Remember that athletic performance is also an extension of how that individual is in a given day. This young lady was quite brave and quite, quite open and honest and told the world why she used it. And I think most people had a rather visceral response like, ah, I get that. She also knew what the stated sort of guidelines were and did it anyway. The point is, um, who's to say what is and isn't going to have a downstream effect?

• 19:01Speaker 02

  We know that exposure to cannabis or, or certain cannabinoids when an individual is very young can result in some detriment. Absolutely true. Sure. That's not necessarily the case for individuals as they get older. And we've had some evidence to, to sort of contradict what we've seen in the recreational consumers. But again, the story is pretty, um, is pretty unclear here.

• 19:21Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Well, how about, how about this? There's some people, as we know, who have sort of genetic

• 19:27Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  inability to process alcohol.

• 19:29Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 19:30Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  In ways that others do. Is there, are there genetic variations in people's reactions to the cannabinoid?

• 19:36Speaker 02

  Cannabinoids, yes, absolutely.

• 19:38Chuck Nice?

  And can I, can I just dovetail on Neil's question? Can you, as you answered that, tell us about cannabinoid receptors in our brain? Because I've read somewhere that it's the only so-called drug, the THC being the psychoactive constituent, it's the only drug that actually our brain is already designed to latch on to.

• 20:01Speaker 02

  I've heard that.

• 20:01Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  I, I heard that too.

• 20:02Speaker 02

  I've heard that a lot. People say I'm wired for weed. Look, quick primer, you have CB1 and CB2 receptors. They're part of the endocannabinoid system, a system of chemicals receptors throughout the brain and the body. THC binds pretty effectively to CB1 receptors, for example. We also have things like mu and kappa receptors that are, again, are endogenous, but they are the targets for opioids. So, you know, it's not just cannabis. But.

• 20:25Chuck Nice?

  Okay.

• 20:25Speaker 02

  But to your point, the cytochrome P450 enzyme system in your liver basically dictates how you process things. And, and again, really great point. Genetically, we are not all created equally. We're just not. And there are some groups that don't process alcohol, right? Some cultures, Ashkenazi Jews, for example, we don't have a ton of alcohol dehydrogenase, thing that breaks down alcohol and allows us to process it effectively. So there are many people who are poor metabolizers of THC. And as a result, they are often very, very high for a very long time. These are the people here that say things like, oh my God, I was, you know, I, I was out of my mind for, for 12 to 14 hours. There are other people who metabolize so effectively and so efficiently, they can have 30, 40, 50

• 21:10Speaker 02

  milligrams of, of a product and these edibles, and they don't show an effect. So we are not all created equally. And your genetic profile, your makeup actually really will dictate how you process these products.

• 21:23Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  But I look at your, your list of three criteria, right? Does it, or was it the IOC's criteria? Does it have the potential to enhance, or what? In New York City, W A T E R is pronounced water. So that's, I can't, it's hard for me to have this conversation.

• 21:38Speaker 02

  W A T A, water.

• 21:39Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  With water. Give me a, I need a cup of water.

• 21:42Speaker 02

  Yeah, give me water. Glass of water.

• 21:45Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  It's a very New York City accent. But, so these, these three criteria, does it have the potential to enhance performance? Is there a health risk? And does it violate the spirit of the sport? And I think coffee, you can put a check in all three of those boxes for coffee. And so, so marijuana and other drugs, also apparently, but they're outlawed.

• 22:08Speaker 02

  Yeah, it, it's a huge disparity and, and one that people are really looking at much more closely now. And again, I think, you know, the other things, you have to have two of the three criteria. One is it violates the spirit of the sport. One is it poses risk to the athlete and three, I mean, not in this order, it enhances athletic performance.

• 22:25Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  So. The spirit of the sport is, I want to be as best as I possibly can be. That's the spirit of the, faster, higher, stronger. That's the whole fricking point. It's the mantra. That, get me started on this, damn.

• 22:38Chuck Nice?

  I thought the spirit of the sport was, I don't care if I want to lose if I smoke this weed.

• 22:44Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  That's a new thing.

• 22:46Chuck Nice?

  That's the new Olympic motto. I'm gonna smoke this weed and not give a damn.

• 22:51Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  No, here's what you do, no, you put a couch instead of that, that flying, that rolling camera along the hundred meters.

• 22:58Chuck Nice?

  Right.

• 22:58Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  And you just sit on the couch and watch other people race while you smoke.

• 23:01Speaker 02

  Different kind of Olympics.

• 23:04Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  The Couch Olympics. Stacy, before we take a break, what about the sports where you can't be excited and pent up for it? Because you need the stability of precision, such as in the pistol shooting or in archery. Can, can we say that cannabis enhances your performance? Because it settles your physiology in a way that doesn't make you nervous and then miss your target.

• 23:30Speaker 02

  I would take the opposite first factor, which is that cannabis isn't one thing and it doesn't have one effect for all people. Right? Some chemovars or cultivars or products are actually in some ways stimulating for people and they feel more energized. They feel you, the term is euphorogenic, I, you know, I want to make, I want to do, I want to. I think we talked about this once before. So that wouldn't necessarily, you know, sort of support the point of settling. It would actually sort of go against when people feel really blah or down. They often use a little cannabis that might be a product or a strain or a chemical that influences or increases their energy. So that would argue against that. Not all products are the same, not all people are the same, and the ways that you use these products absolutely dictates the outcome.

• 24:14Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Okay, so the takeaway is weed is highly chemically complex and you can't generalize its effects as a product without thinking more precisely about the biochemistry of each of the molecules.

• 24:31Speaker 02

  That's exactly right. It's not one thing and it shouldn't be. One size does not fit all here.

• 24:35Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Yeah, but, but, but to my point, if there's some sports where you need to be calm relative to other sports where you need to be up, the same drug could help you in one and harm you in another, your performance.

• 24:50Speaker 02

  I think that would be true across multiple classes, yes.

• 24:53Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Okay, okay. So enhanced performance doesn't always mean faster, higher, stronger. It can mean more laid back.

• 25:03Speaker 02

  Right, and again, direct versus indirect effects, right? So, yeah.

• 25:06Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Exactly. We got to take a quick break, but when we come back, more with Stacy Gruber, our marijuana expert up at the Harvard Medical School. And we're going to see what the future of sports legislation looks like in the face of new science or not on StarTalk.

• 25:38Chuck Nice?

  Time now for a Patreon shout out to the following Patreon patrons. That's Casey Bailey, Sahil Gupta, and Boris McGonagall. Hey, guys, thanks so much for your support. You know, without you, we couldn't make this trek across the cosmos. And anyone listening who would like their very own Patreon shout out, please go to patreon.com/stargtloradio and support us.

• 26:14Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  We're back. Third and final segment for StarTalk Sports Edition, all about marijuana in sports. And of course, we can't do this without the singular expert out there who thinks about this, who measures people's brains, who has all the fluency necessary to settle these arguments, Dr. Stacy Gruber. Again, welcome back Stacy. And continuing our deep dive into this, what is going to happen with the future of sports legislation in the face of your research, or more broadly, research into the chemistry that might help us perform, but if not, it might help us recover from injury for having attempted to perform?

• 26:58Speaker 02

  Great question. I wish I knew more about how these agencies made their decisions. In terms of the scientific literature, it is constantly evolving. Every day, we have new reports, right? On different constituents or different approaches to addressing different symptoms or conditions using cannabis for medical purposes. How does that dovetail with our elite athletes and what they may or may not be using it for? Should there be a distinction in terms of what they're using and how? I think a lot of people are very interested in this, and for good reason. It's important to be up to date and to let science guide the policies, to allow people to live the way that they live and to understand if certain things are very comparable. It's really difficult for people to understand why one thing would be banned and another would not.

• 27:42Chuck Nice?

  Is there a comprehensive study that's done or being done that lets us know exactly how cannabis will affect us?

• 27:49Speaker 02

  I think there are lots of different studies that are currently underway that look at different aspects, but part of the problem is that cannabis remains illegal at the federal level. So doing research, depending on the type of research questions you want to ask, is not as easy as you think. And when we're talking about anything that is a cannabis, chemo, or cultivar, and its effect on whether it's athletic performance or all sorts of things, there's stuff that we know, and there's an awful lot that we don't know. The question will be, where does the intersection of some kind of benefit versus some kind of performance enhancement get made?

• 28:23Gary O'Reilly?

  So in 2020, Neil, the NFL, the NBA, Major League Baseball, and hockey all said no suspension if you test positive for cannabis out of season. Now, in season, they said you get a fine. Now, they obviously have moved away from the WADA cannabino- cannabinoids, bad, not happening, you're banned. So, they must be using some kind of research, some kind of proven data.

• 28:51Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Somebody plugged into them.

• 28:52Gary O'Reilly?

  Yes.

• 28:52Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Yeah, yeah, somebody.

• 28:53Gary O'Reilly?

  So, we are at an elite professional level saying, that's cool, but, you know, if you're gonna stick you on the naughty step with a big fine, but with WADA, it's an outright ban. So, there seems to be a lag between what's happening here in the US and globally for WADA. And I think there might be a reason, but I'd like to hear what the doctor's thinking is.

• 29:17Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  And if it's NFL, NBA, MLB, and NFL, that's the whole kit and caboodle right there. Especially the caboodle, it's all in there.

• 29:25Speaker 02

  Highly technical term, the caboodle. Don't forget the caboodle. You know, I think it's a great point. And I think that, again, there is a, um, sort of a philosophy and an approach to this. Remember that cannabidiol, our CBD, is not prohibited, but they changed the lower limit of detection from, I think it was 15 nanograms per mill to 150 for exactly this reason, I believe, to make sure that they were only looking for what they've considered current use, as in right before competition. How that gets determined, uh, you know, is a pretty slippery slope, I think. Um, and to your point, Gary, it's a very, very important distinction when we talk about global versus more local decisions that are being made here in the United States.

• 30:05Chuck Nice?

  But, and, and, and so I would say, though, no, I might, I might, um, conjecture that part of this is due to the fact that we have decriminalized marijuana on a state level pretty much everywhere, not to mention the however many teen, I don't know if it's 13 or 19, the last I checked, states that say, yo, man, you can go ahead and do this. So, I think the removing, uh, removing.

• 30:33Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Is that what the legislation says?

• 30:35Chuck Nice?

  Yo, man. That's the way I read it. I read it as, hey, Chuck, go ahead.

• 30:42Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Go ahead.

• 30:43Chuck Nice?

  I, I think when you strip it from the penal code, that, um, you, you allow, you know, people to say, okay, and, and you allow sports, um, organizations to say, hey, you know, i- i- if this is not illegal, if it is not like a class felony or whatever it was, it's not criminal, then why, who are we to say, like, you can't do it?

• 31:06Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Well, so what really should be happening here, at the risk of being Captain Obvious, is governmental legislation should actually lead the scientific enlightenment on this, and then let the official sports organizations follow. If you're gonna have sports organizations allowing it, but in principle, they could have allowed it decades ago.

• 31:28Speaker 02

  Right.

• 31:29Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  If the science was there. Stacy, if municipal, federal legislation is at the core of this, that everyone then reacts to, what access do you have to the writing of laws and members of Congress? And shouldn't you be, shouldn't you have a seat at the table there?

• 31:46Speaker 02

  You know, I think a lot of us are trying to have a seat. And I don't know that that's really the only pivotal point here. I think there are multiple points that are critical. You know, I think when you are involved in the conversation, you have a better chance of seeing things done comprehensively, in a way that is centrist, that makes sense, that isn't motivated by other, you know, let's just say, agenda items. I think it's very, very important. It's important to have...

• 32:10Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Emphasis on centrist, right? I mean, there's a point where you can land that is scientifically reasonable and sensible.

• 32:15Speaker 02

  You know, let science be your guide. There is truth in science, right? We know that. And not everybody believes that, but I think there is truth in science. And if you allow science and...

• 32:25Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  You don't think there is, you know there is, and we all know there is. Yeah. You don't have to have soft vocabulary on this show, okay?

• 32:31Speaker 02

  You allow the science to take its place and to, and allow decisions to be based on evidence, and not rhetoric or other things. It's, I think it's a different, it's a different landscape. It's a terribly difficult landscape to navigate with regard to cannabis in this country, and across the globe, but especially in this country, the discord between federal and state regulations, and it's created a lot of confusion.

• 32:54Gary O'Reilly?

  So, if we think the problem lies with WADA...

• 32:59Gary O'Reilly?

  Not water, water. World Anti-Doping Agency. The clue may be in the first of those words, world. Because as Chuck's highlighted, cannabis is pretty legal in just about every state. But world hasn't all come to that conclusion yet. There are countries around the world where marijuana is illegal. And so they have a problem that is so multifaceted, they are not probably able to solve it in one simple move.

• 33:30Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Because they are international, they need some sensitive, international sensitivities. They can't all be in Stacy's lab.

• 33:38Chuck Nice?

  Well, that's a very good point, Gary. I didn't even consider that. So I have the answer. We must get the leaders of that country high.

• 33:49Gary O'Reilly?

  Why didn't I think of that?

• 33:51Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Diplomatic solution. I love it, Chuck.

• 33:54Chuck Nice?

  The next UN general, the next UN General Counsel, I will be there. What's up, y'all?

• 34:00Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Handing out the...

• 34:02Gary O'Reilly?

  Oh, man, the next UN, the next UN General Meeting is going to be held in a park across the street.

• 34:08Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Wait, wait, if you got them all high, that would end all war. It'd be more solved by that.

• 34:13Speaker 02

  Instead of things like a G20 summit, you could ask for an OG20 summit, right?

• 34:17Chuck Nice?

  Yo, nice. And it wouldn't be OG20, it'd be OG420. What?

• 34:25Speaker 02

  That's right, that's right.

• 34:26Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  We just solved world peace.

• 34:32Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Dang.

• 34:33Speaker 02

  People need to get on board for sure. And come together and review what we know, what we don't know. And then whatever we don't know, we should address specific empirically sound research studies to help clarify.

• 34:44Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Because Stacy, I say this because I've been invited to various committees and commissions that serve Washington interests. And because I have expertise that they value. And so it's not a weird thing for someone with expertise to be brought in to the, into the room. And so I'm going to vote, I'm going to vote you into Congress. How about that? And it'll be on the weed ticket.

• 35:08Speaker 02

  It's a green, it's a green ballot. Um, I have, I have testified, uh, um, at Congress previously and I very often contributed. And I continue to do that in lots of different ways. I'm happy to continue that.

• 35:19Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Oh, so forgive me for even thinking that had not already happened.

• 35:23Speaker 02

  To your point, to your point, we really need a little bit more science and a little less... Rhetoric to help guide the discussions both in this country and across the globe.

• 35:31Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Well, I think Chuck solved that.

• 35:39Chuck Nice?

  That's right.

• 35:39Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  So I think part of the problem is regardless of what Congress does, there are influential politicians who might think one way or another about it, and they have their followers who just do what they say.

• 35:48Chuck Nice?

  Even our president, actually, even our president, who I think has done a great job in shepherding us through this COVID crisis.

• 35:55Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Thinking about the science.

• 35:57Chuck Nice?

  Thinking about the science, let the science lead him. He is adamantly opposed to marijuana being decriminalized on a federal.

• 36:06Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Because he's the reefer madness generation. That's why. That's why.

• 36:12Chuck Nice?

  I just love the term reefer madness.

• 36:15Gary O'Reilly?

  So are we, are we still in the wake of the war on drugs? And we're waiting, we're waiting to get out of that wash to find a.

• 36:23Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Because that has, that spills into sports, into sports committees. Yes.

• 36:29Speaker 02

  And I think there, I think a lot of folks, again, are taking a much closer look these days. But again, there is the Office of National Drug Control Policy. And, you know, the ideas and sort of scientific evidence that allow people to make good, sound decisions needs to be up to date and it needs to be read and understood.

• 36:51Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  So what a concept.

• 36:52Chuck Nice?

  Yeah, tell me about it.

• 36:55Chuck Nice?

  Can we just extend that?

• 36:56Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  What a novel idea.

• 36:57Chuck Nice?

  Can we just extend that to everything that we do? It's just everything that we do. Let me, let me ask this though, because I know we're running short on time. I just.

• 37:05Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Yeah, we're running really short.

• 37:08Chuck Nice?

  I have seen people get very upset and heated in this debate, and they talk about the fact that marijuana is indeed addictive. And the reason why it should not be allowed for use.

• 37:20Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Or it's a gateway, as a gateway drug as well.

• 37:21Chuck Nice?

  Because that you can, you can become addicted to it and, and that it is indeed a gateway and all of those things, those tropes that we've heard, can you just talk about it? I don't, I don't care if it's true or not, just what he, from a scientific.

• 37:35Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  What does that mean Chuck? Give me an answer whether or not it's true. What the hell kind of?

• 37:39Speaker 02

  Here's a giant essay type question. I don't care whether it's true or not, but can you talk about?

• 37:43Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Yeah. Exactly. Compare and contrast.

• 37:47Speaker 02

  Really quickly, two schools of thought is cannabis or marijuana addictive. There are certainly people who wind up with what we call cannabis use disorder. In the old days, we would call it abuse versus dependence. Now we have a new term cannabis use disorder. And the numbers of individuals who use cannabis who wind up with cannabis use disorder vary depending on the study that you're looking at. And it's really important to keep in mind that you have to actually meet the people who are using the cannabis and talk to them about their use as opposed to just assuming that because they use daily, they must have a use disorder first and foremost. Number two, gateway phenomenon, gateway hypothesis, gateway theory. The use of cannabis will obviously lead to the use of harder drugs because people who use cannabis or people who use heroin often use cannabis first. That doesn't mean that the use of cannabis led to heroin use.

• 38:32Speaker 02

  In terms of the receptors in your brain, again, these things get turned on in terms of exposure to certain substances like drugs or sugar or sex or all sorts of things. So the gateway hypothesis is one that I think most people have sort of let go of at this point. There's not really great evidence suggesting that one leads to another. Is there an overlap in those who use, let's say, quote harder drugs who have used cannabis? Sure. And why is that? Usually that's more a factor of their sort of psychosocial experiences and people who are.

• 39:03Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Or just practicality. You know, if my first drug is probably not going to be heroin. Okay. It's going to be some other drug. So, so B implies A, but A does not give you B. Right? In that case.

• 39:15Speaker 02

  Transitive property A equals B, B equals C, so A equals C, but not in this case.

• 39:19Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Not in this case.

• 39:20Speaker 02

  I don't think that there's a huge amount of support for it. Absolutely clear cannabis leads to the use of harder drugs. I don't think that that's really been well.

• 39:29Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Mm hmm. All right, guys, we got to end it there. This has been wonderful, Stacy, to have you back on. And, and this conversation is not going to end here. You know it. Marijuana is with us to stay and it's going to show up in all kinds of ways and you don't just have insights on sports, you have insights into all facets of society where marijuana could manifest and all of its chemical derivatives. So anyhow, I just want to thank you for being on StarTalk again.

• 39:54Chuck Nice?

  Thank you for having me.

• 39:55Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  And Gary, Chuck, always good to have you here. Pleasure Neil, thank you.

• 39:58Chuck Nice?

  Always a pleasure.

• 39:58Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  All right, this has been StarTalk, Sports Edition, all about cannabis in sports. I'm Neil deGrasse Tyson, as always, bidding you to keep looking up.