The Wheels Down Politics Show – Attorney General Doug Peterson

(Click above to play in the browser or Direct download by clicking here, or by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.)

Peterson 03Jerry Kratochvil interviews Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson.

Kratochvil and Peterson take a deep dive into the issue of medicinal marijuana in Nebraska — particularly the point of cannabis oil used to combat epilepsy symptoms.

They discuss State Senator Tommy Garrett’s bill in the legislature and some of the competing discussion points — particularly in a letter from the American Epilepsy Society (linked below). They also hit the general marijuana laws in Colorado and Nebraska, as well as the status of Nebraska’s lawsuit against Colorado’s pot law.

A.G. Peterson also expands on his office’s crackdown on sex trafficking in the state and who they are focusing on in their awareness campaign.

They finish up by talking a little about the state of Peterson’s health, as well as how he got from Lincoln to Malibu and back to Lincoln.

On the web: Attorney General Doug Peterson
Twitter: @AGDougPeterson
Facebook: Doug Peterson

American Epilepsy Society letter on expansion of CBD in Nebraska


You can find this, and all of our podcasts at and by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.

Thanks for Liking us on Facebook, following us onTwitter and subscribing for our updates (up top on right)!


  1. If you’re going to comment on medical marijuana, do us all a favor and read the letter from the American Epilepsy Society. It fairly, IMO, summarizes the state of research into CBD, and why so called ‘medical marijuana’ is neither proven to be useful, is not produced to an adequate stadardized level of CBD, and is not proven in clinical trials. To adopt medical marijuana would be to abandon a hundred years of scientific expertise in evaluating medications.

    It’s also interesting the local media, such as they are, don’t seem even to have mentioned this letter. Surely the opinion of the leading professional organization in this field of treatment is of some weight. But maybe not, if you have a leftist pothead slant.

    • Sparkles says:

      Since when did Republicans let sound science stand in the way of an ideological quest?

      This is the party that has appointed Lamar Smith, self-avowed Christian Scientist, as the Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
      In case you’re not familiar with the cult, Christian Scientists believe reality is purely spiritual and the material world an illusion. This includes the view that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated not by medicine, but by prayer. These are the people who willingly let their children die of things such as pneumonia, because.. Jesus.
      Smith has received more than $600,000 in (disclosed) contributions from the fossil fuels industry. In return, as Chair of the Science & Technology committee, Smith has engaged the committee in witch hunts and harassment of the climate science community, issuing more subpoenas in his first three years than the committee had for its entire 54-year history.

      This is also the party that has appointed James Mountain Inhofe as Chairman of the Senate Environment Committee.
      The most vocal anti climate science buffoon on the planet, a tool of Big Oil who heartily embraces his roll, is the GOP’s point man in House on all things environment.

      The GOP is not only anti-science – but as the above appointments attest – it’s virulently, maliciously anti-science.
      Someone please tell me how the appointments of Smith and Inhofe are not a national embarrassment to the Republican party?

      • Typically asinine response. Some members of both parties are science deniers.

        The issue was medical marijuana, moron, not your personal jihad. I know it’s an effort for your addled mind, but stay on topic.

      • Sparkles says:

        The “issue” you’re bemoaning is that Garret and the ‘lamestream’ media are ignoring the science.
        Come on, Gerard, have you forgotten what you posited?

        Also, how f’ing lame is this:
        “Some members of both parties are science deniers.”

        What’s the tally, D vs R, on science deniers?
        2% of D’s and 83% of R’s??

        Aha! I got it!
        You’re also a Christian Scientist – “reality is purely spiritual and the material world an illusion.”

      • No, of course not. Democrats are deniers on GMOs, on the safety of chemicals, often on vaccines, certainly on the heritability of intelligence. They’re also inclined to climate change extremism (the opposite side of the coin from denial; blaming every weather event on climate change.)

        An acquaintance of mine, Roger Pielke Jr., was targeted by the same committee by that idiot Democrat Grijalva, for the effrontery of disagreeing with John Holdren about extreme weather events. Roger, unlike Holdren, has done tons of peer-reviewed research on the frequency of extreme events, and was a lead author on the IPCC report.

        This is still irrelevant.

        And no, I’m an atheist scientist. It’s always amusing to be lectured about science denial by some twit who knows nothing about it except what he read on think

      • repenting lawyer says:

        ProfGH, Given general science illiteracy of Americans, mine included, I suspect arguments about which party’s followers are more illiterate is fruitless. On these type of choice issues I suspect a lot of D’s ignore the science and their usual distrust of markets, while for a lot of Rs social conservatism trumps markets. Though I am not sure the results always scan, Rose Bird and Doug Ginsburg wound up on the same side in somewhat different cases on cancer treatments. You have been critical of result based practice standards under ACA, though it was largely based on criticism of life years are you being consistent. I am not sure, though quote from Emerson is ok.

      • Oracle says:

        Not defending Grijavla in any way, but GH’s acquaintances seem to share one of his notable characteristics. Google “Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand” for, as Paul Harvey would say: The rest of the story.

        One notable line is Pielke is known for taking a selective view of the peer-reviewed scientific literature..

      • bynd says:

        Sparkles: “These are the people who willingly let their children die of things such as pneumonia, because.. Jesus.” It has nothing to do with Jesus. Just bad theology.

        Just like that sentence of your’s is the product of bigotry and ignorance. A very weak foundation for one to build one’s belief system on.

        Or more likely, just a meanness based on fear of everything you don’t understand.

        Maybe you should just stay away from religion. You have not had one truthful statement on here that I have ever seen. Your bias’ and sycophant relationship with liberalism make such rational thought impossible.

        You could just quit going to such sites as, “religious right watch” or following Ernie who likes to sue God, someone who does not believe in, just make a point, which turned out to be, Ernie is a clown.

      • Of course, the left-wing nuts, mostly very junior people, journalists, and nobodies, on skepticalscience hate Pielke.

        Why don’t you go search for reviews of The Climate Fix online? Particularly concentrate on those by actual experts, not green activists. has one. Or you could check out The Economist’s review.

  2. bynd says:

    Medicinal use of marijuana aside. The 50 year war on drugs is an abject failure. More money spent than the last two wars put together. And whether the USA is responsible for use of all marijuana through Mexico, or just a majority, it is down right appalling that over 60,000 Mexicans, mainly innocents, have died because of the drug trade driven by our fellow Americans. It is time to end the war on drugs and come up with another answer. Rehab and education? If some one wants to fry their brain, you just can’t cure stupid. Tax it and use the tax for the rehab and education.

  3. Bluejay says:

    I can hardly believe the Village of Pender SCOTUS case isn’t top news everywhere.

    Omaha Tribe wants to tax people in Pender and they can’t vote in the Tribe’s elections because of their RACE.

    Read the transcript.

  4. Bluejay says:

    Waiting to hear Sparkles and RL’s take on the RACIST Omaha Tribe.

    Whites and blacks can’t vote in the Tribe’s elections due to their race. Sure sounds bad.

    • Anonymous says:

      Bluejay, The separate treatment of the Indian tribes is written into the Constitution. I suspect given the current composition of the SCOTUS Pender will win, but Indian law is not my field. The historic effort to preserve tribal government of tribal lands makes sense in the light of history and I would probably be on the Tribe’s side, but I have not read the briefs and share Thomas’s view on oral argument, which has become a way for Justices to argue with one another, while the rest of us try to predict Kennedy.
      I am not sure what the sound test is in Con Law, I am of the turning to the books school, as Brandeis told his clerks,”thumb the Reports.”

    • Sparkles says:

      Don’t have a take, but I thought I’d extend the courtesy of a reply.

      We should probably just ignore whatever has been promised in the past.
      As our lauded forefathers did, simply overwrite existing laws to whatever best serves’ our’ needs of the moment.
      Why mess with precedent?
      In accordance with that same precedence, maybe we could take the land from the Omaha Tribe and relocate them to a pretty little spot off the coast of NY state, a place called Plum Island. Better yet, give them option of Plum or Kiribati.
      Or – maybe after Hillary is elected, and Texas secedes from the Union, we can find them a home in the barren wastelands of the western realm of the newly anointed Independent Republic of TeaLandia.

    • Bluejay says:

      Racial and identity politics has infected SCOTUS.

      Case will be 5-4 in favor of Pender, but should be more like 7-2.
      Same deal with SSM.

      Read Tom Wolfe’s “Back to Blood” and Chris Buckley’s “Supreme Courtship” to see where we are. Very funny.

  5. Bluejay says:


    The Omaha Tribe’s constitution states only official members of the Tribe can vote in their elections. Looks like a racial test to me. Liberal must have written the Omaha Tribe’s constitution. Maybe the whites in Pender can get 3/5th’s of a vote in tax matters.

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Bluejay, the separate treatment of slaves disappeared with 13th Amendment, I know of no similar Amendment with regard to Indian Tribes . Tribal membership is an obvious precondition to a vote in tribal elections That quasi governmental tribes seems odd in many modern circumstances, but it is a little hard to ignore unless you take a particular approach to these issues, one not usually associated with originalism
      Other than as a bee in your bonnet I am not sure I see relevance of modern identity politics.

      • Bluejay says:

        I was making a joke about 3/5th’s voting. But certainly certain race revenge pimps would like that idea. But that Hawaii case stands in the way.

        But certainly ever fair person would agree that if Pender is found to be part of the reservation, it certainly cannot be right that the Tribe can impose ruinous taxes on the white and black people who live in Pender and they can’t even vote on the people taxing them.

        I bet Pender native (and near Govenor) Bill Hoepner would agree with me.

        I may need to write a law review article on the Omaha Tribe: White Men Can’t Vote.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bluejay, I am not sure native Hawaiians can be equated to Indian tribes for regions history. If Pender is part of reservation, I agree that there are probably limits on how much tribe can stake taxes against non Indians. Took joke for snark, but either is ok.
        Good luck with law rev. article, even my mom would not read mine.

  6. And, of course, none of our pseudonymous leftist numbskulls have yet touch on the actual point of my comment. Instead, they’re obsessed with ‘you do it too’, an argument adult human beings abandoned in grade-school. That, and the usual search for leftist pvrity; i.e. if you don’t agree with the green fringe’s view of, and policy positions toward, climate change, you’re ritually unclean.

    Pielke does not deny climate change; he wrote an entire book about it. He favors a carbon tax. But because he maintains the evidence on extreme weather is unpersuasive (and in fact has shown very nicely it won’t be statistically persuasive for decades), he comes under political attack.

    You done well, lefties. Another intelligent voice with a slightly different (and less naive) perspective has been driven out of the field. Good job!

    • Sparkles says:

      “left numbskulls… obsessed with ‘you do it too’, an argument adult human beings abandoned in grade-school. ”

      And the exact argument you proffered at 10:38am this morning.

      • My 10:58 was in direct response to your

        “What’s the tally, D vs R, on science deniers?
        2% of D’s and 83% of R’s??”

        Not even remotely ‘the exact argument’ you made.

        Had I said in my initial comment “why don’t you ignore the post and my comment, Sparkles, and riff on about how all Republicans are science deniers”, then what you wrote in reply would have been pertinent.

        So you would prefer I didn’t answer your questions? Actually, I expect you would.

    • Oracle says:

      GH, why don’t you address the cherry-picking pointed out in the post I mentioned instead of just throwing insults? Similar to what people do when starting with 1997 to show there is no global warming, Pielke had global disaster economic loss data from 1980 – 2010 that did not prove his point. So he just included data from 1990, which then conveniently did. He also made statements that are patently false based on data: “When you read that the cost of disasters is increasing, it’s tempting to think that it must be because more storms are happening. They’re not.”

      • Ballocks, Horricle.

        New Paper on Global Disaster Losses

        In that blogpost (which references an actual, peer-reviewed paper) you’ll see the analysis of the 1980-2012 losses, after Pielke got full regional data from MunichRe. You’ll notice it agrees with analyses from other groups (referenced; all peer-reviewed). But of course, if a non-peer-reviewed, polemical website doesn’t like it, that means all of this work, by Pielke and others, all consistent, must be wrong.

        Here’s the conclusion:
        “We find that global losses increased at a rate of $3.1 billion/year (2008 USD) from 1980–2008 and losses from North American, Asian, European, and Australian storms and floods account for 97% of the increase. In particular, North American storms, of which U.S. hurricane losses compose the bulk, account for 57% of global economic losses. Longer-term loss trends in these regions can be explained entirely by socioeconomic factors in each region such as increasing wealth, population growth, and increasing development in vulnerable areas. The remaining 3% of the global increase 1980 to 2008 is the result of losses for which regionally based studies have not yet been completed. On climate time scales, societal change is sufficient to explain the increasing costs of disasters at the global level and claims to the contrary are not supported by aggregate loss data from the reinsurance industry.”

        Here’s what Barthel and Neumayer (2012) said about the availability of data.

        “Poor availability of data during the 1980s on insurance premia needed for normalization in terms of insurance penetration means that our statistical tests are restricted to the period 1990 to 2008 for all analyses but those for the United States and Germany, for which we have data from 1973 and 1980, respectively, onwards…
        There is no statistically significant trend if we adjust insured losses for the changes in potentially destroyable insured losses, i.e. if we normalize insured disaster loss (Figure 2). Losses before 1990 are not shown since we have data on insurance premia only for few countries before 1990. The analysis still covers 11,988 disasters, with 1,636 of them resulting in a known damage claim to insurance companies. “

  7. charles says:

    Shame on that not so subtle reference to Ben Sasse homeschooling his kids. Most parents are good parents and he is too. But you have to admit he does hypocritically home school his kids.

    83% of parents have kids in public school. Most say public schools stink in the same way they say congress stinks. Yet 75% of parents are satisfied with their own kids’ education in public schools. The hypocrisy is that the Senate votes on education bills that effect most parent’s kids but not Sasse’s.

    Just leave it at hypocrite. That is bad enough.

  8. D. Gillen says:

    First of all, you should invite Senator Garrett on for equal time so that he can refute some of the misinformation that the AG gave. 40 states have some sort of medical cannabis law on the books. Nebraska is one of 10 that have nothing. Senator Crawford’s bill was a feel good piece of legislation. It is for a pharmaceutical trial for maybe 25 people. It’s being run by GW pharma one of the biggest contributors to the American Epilepsy Society of which the AG puts so much stock in. In fact GW pharma pretty much foot the bill for the AES’s last convention. Tell me they don’t have a vested interest. I could literally give you 16 pages of medical organizations and associations that support the use of medical cannabis, including the Lennox Gasault Syndome group (patients having 3 or more seizure types) and The Epilepsy Foundation; which happens to have over a million members. Both of these national organizations also sent letters to the capitol..the AG conveniently forgot to mention that.

    • Yeah. Maybe the 4 courses I taught last year, the new research grant, and the 3 papers in top-ranked journals ought to be considered too, though.

      Maybe, cretin, you should look at why you can’t seem to get as much done.

  9. bon appetitty says:

    Its either that or cooking crack for supplemental income.

    I have a idea. Let’s pay RWP to develop a new strain of Pot that chemically castrates Pot users.

    That will improve the gene pool and at the same time eliminate the root vegetables who are the voting base of the Democratic Party. Its a win-win.

  10. Kiki says:

    Maybe, just maybe, if you had a child or loved one that could be helped by a plant you could see beyond the $$$ you are sucking up with civil forfeiture. You sir, are deliberately standing in the way of saving lives and should be ashamed of your cold hearted constructionism. God is good….you are not.

  11. Teresa says:

    It’s very unfortunate the only information the AG is taking into consideration are from those opposing medical marijuana, who are doing so for financial gain. If he would read and study information given him by the supporters group, he could see there is stark contrasts. If he lived or followed the lives of these critically ill, he’d understand being put into an induced coma is part of what happens quite often. This is NOT from medical marijuana use, but from uncontrolled seizures and from pharmaceuticals. If he would listen to real patients, he’d find none have been harmed by it and numerous ones are thriving and being able to come off dangerous pharmaceuticals that have deteriorated their bodies. It is true that CBD alone does not control some peoples seizures, which is why I advocate for whole plant and for being able to add in additional thc. Thc is not an evil, it calms the brain. Calming the brain is what benzodiazepines do, but with high addiction rates, respiratory distress risk and many other adverse risks. Many seizure patients are started on benzodiazepines as infants and by a couple years of age, they have become resistant to them and they are no longer effective. Now you have used all your “big guns” in the first years of life and are stuck with nothing to stop those seizures for the remainder. I Find it ironic that certain opponents are fighting so hard against this, putting so much money into the fight, only to fuel and pad the pockets of the real criminals. I believe the blinders will eventually come off their eyes to reveal the truth of what they are doing, behind the camouflage of so called compassion.

      • Shelley Gillen says:

        Because AGAIN Gerard, AES is completely PHYSICIAN and PHARMACEUTICAL driven!! They make a very heavy profit from our kids’ suffering.

      • I see, so it’s your opinion that US physicians will willingly make a profit at the cost of their patient’s health. Ever hear of the Hippocratic oath?

        But in any case, the solution is obvious. Emigrate to a country where the physicians are simply paid a salary. The United Kingdom is one such. No profit, so they’ll readily prescribe CBD for epilepsy. Oh wait, no they won’t. I wonder what devious motive they have, eh?

        Wrap the tinfoil a little tighter, dear.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        ProfGH, there have been enough instances of unfortunate physician drug company relations to cause skepticism, unfortunately alternate info from web is so much worse. Doubt most people do notice ceremonial steps like absence of free ballpoints and limits on lunch at doctor’s office . The influence of detail men has been greatly diminished in prescribing, remember stories of dog stores having to restock every time a different detail person came through. Oddly things were actually not as good when we had blind trust as they are in this age of doubt.

      • Shelley Gillen says:

        Yes, that is my opinion, and exactly my point, GH. They take an oath, and should PRACTICE that oath. The AES is composed of neurologists and epileptologists who are solely in the field for $$$ rather than the best interests of the epilepsy patient, or their families Their letter is a slap in the face to families like ours. They are supposed to SUPPORT us, not go against a proven treatment that we are trying to have legal and safe access to by advocating for sensible legislation to pass. A much more renowned organization than AES is the Epilepsy Foundation of America (EFA). They have a 4 page letter that DOES support and encourage states to pass medical cannabis laws for those who are suffering from treatment resistant epilepsy. They have much more credibility than AES as they have four times the following that AES does, as well as more than 60 chapters located throughout our country, AND international partnerships. AES has none of that. EFA is doing their due diligence as a SUPPORT SYSTEM for epilepsy families by truly SUPPORTING THEM, instead of going into states to try and kill bills that would help relieve those who suffer from epilepsy.

  12. dr. Bryan says:

    Doug Peterson is uneducated on this issue he admitted it from the beginning of this interview. Bill LB643 the Nebraska cannabis compassion and care act was (never) modeled after Colorado’s medical bill. It was modeled after Senate bill 9 from Kansas which got amended to Minnesota bill and passed out of committee 7-1 i believe. Doug is in a tough spot he has sided with the opposition on this issue and will not look any further in the medical benefits of this plant. It has been used for over 10,000 years by all cultures and civilizations around the world medicinally it works there is ( no denying ) this. This is a issue for patients and doctors not a uneducated AG who surfs the internet on High times to learn about the issue that is embarrassing.

    • Ah, the old “thousands of uneducated potheads can’t be wrong” argument.

      Ginseng has also been used for thousands of years. It’s quack medicine too.

      From the Epilepsy Foundation:

      “For example, in 2012, a literature review of clinical studies on cannabinoids for epilepsy could not give a reliable conclusion about the effectiveness of four randomized controlled trials of cannabidiol. “

  13. Folks,

    As this discussion, and others, continue, please observe the rules of no lengthy quoting of other sources.

    If you have a point to make, make it yourself and continue the discussion. There are plenty of other places to go if your goal is to quote back and forth at each other.

    And thanks for reading.

  14. Maggie Graham says:

    I heard Doug mention a multi-million dollar business was behind the legalization of Medical Cannabis and was wondering if he had all the facts? There are at least two multi-million dollar businesses making money by keeping Medical Cannabis illegal and they are the DEA and the Pharmaceutical Companies. Also as an interviewer you were biased.

  15. Reader says:

    Looking back over these comments I see nobody had anything important to say, except Sweeps, who admonished Gerard for his 11:06am, Feb. 5th, cut and paste rebuttal. Maggie and Shelley and Teresa and Kiki argue for compassionate care and get ridiculed instead. Such is life at L. St.

  16. NotAsBigOrSmartAsGerard says:

    So many issues:

    The AG admits to getting his research from High Times and mentions the Cannabis Cup. Clearly they market to recreational, casual, social use; not regulated, monitored, controlled medical usage. I would expect Nebraska’s implementation of LB643 will use GMPs (Good Manufacturing Processes), identifiable QC tested concentrates, as opposed to artisanally(sp) manufactured winners of the 2016 SoCal Cannabis Cup such as Purple Tangie and Lucky 13. Why are you comparing LB643 to Colorado and California as opposed the more than 30 other medical only states? Apples to oranges I say!

    AG mentions a multi-million dollar industry campaign poised to make multi-billion dollar revenues and we should not trust. Isn’t that what pharmaceutical companies do? As the AG stated, the industry (marijuana) will market it as safe, when it’s not and how many people are dying from opioids daily? Didn’t the FDA just put a warning out a couple days ago about all the “safe” heartburn protein pump inhibitors that are causing decreased kidney functioning?

    Lastly, I must ask the resident chemist if Cannabis, in it various types (sativa, indica) is a “gateway” drug?

    P.S.-I do research at places like the National Cancer Institute ( that has a nice white paper (they refer to it as a PDQ) on Cannabis & Cannabinoids where they discuss the history of it’s medical use and how it can be used as CAM (Complimentary and Alternative Medicine),

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.