They are going after Phelps b/c he destroys all Reefer Madness propaganda

The last thing Big Pharma wants is a 12 time gold medal winner lending his immense endorsement credibility to a medicinal drug that you can grow yourself, which replaces all their crappy, addictive drugs and treatments.

The last thing the prison labor industry wants is for people to realize that there is no natural link between marijuana use and criminally deviant behavior.

These industries have worked for 70+ years to make sure the public's opinion of marijuana users was that they were degenerates who at worst were committing violent crimes, and at best, paralyzed on the couch of their mothers' basement.

Phelps threatens the establishment in much the same way Pat Tillman did. He is the image of everything that is virtuous and good in this country, and he is endorsing something that The Man wants us to associate with all things harmful, deviant, and criminal.

If they didn't go after Phelps HARD, this debate could spin out of their control, as it already started to. They have to reinforce the circular argument that pot is bad and dangerous because it's illegal. They can't take the chance that Phelps starts to man up and say, "If I can win 12 gold medals on this stuff, then MAYBE IT SHOULDN'T BE ILLEGAL ANYMORE."

This is standard racist conservative old boy drug warrior stuff.

Please.

The pharmaceutical aspect of the discussion is most certainly relevant... and I think you already knew that.

As a health aide.

Except for being listed in CHinese publications dating back 5,000 years. The Chicnese saw it as a tonic for regulating women's hormonal levels and dealing with PMS and headaches.

Except for documented proof that marijuana shrinks certain types of cancer tumors.

And then there are those pesky articles in Journal of ... You name the journal -they've probably published at least one study showing the efficacy of marijuana

All that propaganda about pot being the evil weed. When you see someone as physically accomplished as Phelps smoking without any ill effects you get the feeling that you have been lied to by the anti-drug zealots. Even my 78-year-old mom thinks pot should be legal!

my fundie folks are for it if a doctor prescribes it.

because they trust doctors like they trust jesus.

and they trust govt less.

I highly doubt it, given the fact that smoking anything would decrease his lung capacity.

Also, understand that pot affects different people differently. For those who are Type A, it probably only mellows out their tendency towards extreme ambition. I have seen this. But if someone is like me (Type Z), lacks organization, time management, etc., it can be very detrimental. Also, it affects people in subtle ways that may not be very noticeable for quite a bit of time.

However, I do agree with you that this campaign is faulty because we live in a hypocritical society. Me? I didn't know he had a DUI. Why was he acceptable after that? DUIs can cause DEATH if someone happens to lose control of their car. Why are there parking lots behind taverns if drunk/buzzed driving is illegal?

Having said all this, I wish pot would become legalized, yet not available everywhere. I don't like the promotion of any intoxicant.

I'm not saying Phelps did it, I'm saying these arrests have the added effect of silencing Phelps, just in case he did want to defend the act of smoking mj.

He is 23 and was partying and smoked some weed. I don't think that one has to become intoxicated to enjoy life (I only am "on" caffeine at the moment), however, if someone is young and exploring life, I think it's pretty normal. Having said that, I also believe that responsible people do not use intoxicants whilst at work and this is his work. I also don't think they use them often (to me, that would mean more than once a week). I also think he should have owned up to the reality of what he is about. He probably works hard and plays hard. I doubt he parties whilst in training.

That's part of what Ricky Williams said he was using for. He said his choice of painkiller was better than what the NFL approved for team doctors to shoot him up with. He bragged that he went 11 weeks into a season without taking typical painkillers.

Remember, All American hero Brett Favre had a bout with painkiller addiction. But he was welcomed back into the fold, and Williams was a pariah.

I remember back in the day that I used it for my killer menstrual cramps. However, I also used it for listening to Pink Floyd records, LOL. Whatever. I just have a slight problem with Phelps' probable untruthful (and totally legalistic) response. I say, own up to it, but keep it real.

and not pretend that it was some 'mistake.' LOL- how do you put your mouth over a bong by 'accident?'

And I'm sure the only mistake he really made was letting someone get a picture of it.

:hi:

so as to not fail a drug test. You can do sports stoned though. I quite often smoke hash or grass before riding my mountain bike in the mountains near my house.

Hardly the image that sponsors were paying big big money for.

Even if you have endorsements---I'm not commenting so much on the lost endorsements as I am the criminal charges they're trying to bring. Especially against the fellow partygoers of a guy with a bong in a picture from 6 months ago. That part is unheard of.

Law and order you know.

as a movie clip of Fred Astair lighting up a tobacco reefer on its way to killing his lungs or swilling a martini, on its way to killing his liver. The only reason it is shocking is because drug, tobacco and alcohol propaganda have invested billions and written laws to make it so. In case you did not know it; tobacco controls SC. Besides nobody is suggesting that anyone (Kellog) plaster that picture on their cardboard products. I for one looked into my cupboard and found 14 boxes of various kellog cereals which have been somewhat of a staple. But they have been thrown out and will not be replaced.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are you saying pharmaceutical companies have never gone out of their way to discredit mj?

Why wouldn't big pharma want to discredit one of their biggest competitors? If mj was legal, which would you take for arthritis, cluster headaches, appetite stimulants, PMS, anxiety, chronic pain, etc.----something you could grow yourself, or something that cost you and your insurance company thousands of dollars a year?

I'm not attacking the scientists, here. That's one of many fallacies in your post.

Also, I don't smoke. Nice try, though.

possibly find out which chiralities are effective and which aren't, and then sell them at a profit, just as they do with everything else? I mean, they've convinced hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to take Lexapro, despite the fact that it only differs from generic citalopram in that it has had a non-biochemically-active chirality extracted. There's no difference in how they're processed by the body, but yet doctors blithely recommend the more expensive version and patients demand it instead of the generic.

There is always money to be made. Really, I have to believe the only people who would grow and smoke it if it were legalized already do. I don't see any room for a Big Evil Conspiracy.

Pharma wouldn't be making the big profits they expect by overcharging for "extracts" which removed the euphoric aspects. Frankly, that's the best part! And pharmacology has nothing to compare with it.

I doubt there is a significant statistical overlap between those people and the people who will be taking cannabis-derived drugs for various health reasons.

Most people/doctors don't even take/prescribe older yet just-as-effective generic versions of drugs, preferring to pay more than spend any time researching clinical trials to see if the new drugs are actually significantly more effective. Heck, most people prefer to take the brand names over the chemically identical generics, because they feel like they're more effective.

In light of that, do you really think that a significant number of the people who have serious diseases would rather take some seeds for a plant they would then try to grow in their back yard (which would yield an only marginally-effective medicine), instead of simply taking the refined, higher-potency, clinically-tested, doctor-prescribed pill? Sure, some "natural medicine" fans would, but they're already taking extracts and essential oils instead of actual medicine; Big Pharma's long since lost them as customers.

plant are NOT as effective as either smoking or ingesting marijuana - and depending on the malady used for, sometimes smoking is more effective and sometimes eating or drinking is more effective. The active properties are VERY complex, and poorly understood. If you had a choice of paying $5 for a tab of THC extract that did a poor job of alleviating your glaucoma, or smoking a joint that does a good job of it, which would you choose? And if you choose to smoke, what's the difference between smoking pharmacy-approved joints or joints rolled from your own little pot patch out back?

The pharma companies CANNOT compete.

Right. Which is why Big Pharma would absolutely love to fully investigate it, allowing them to not only produce an even better drug, but to improve their understanding of complex biochemical interactions in general, perhaps improving their drug design process across the board.

Obviously the extracts aren't as good right now. Right now, however, is the uneducated past for people in the future.

Look a fish oil supplements..the BEST ONES ARE PHARMACEUTICAL GRADE. That tells you right there.

Euphoria must be eliminated at all costs.

"(E)uphoric aspects... Frankly, that's the best part!"

Exactly, the euphoric aspects are the whole selling point of bud.

It's not in competition with pharmaceuticals.

It makes more sense to imagine a conspiracy of Absolut Vodka, Big Tobacco, and Willy Wonka trying to keep marijuana supressed.

even if it's for the smaller, medicinal market. But you are right about the Liquor Lobby.

Pot--and industrial hemp--have many powerful enemies in the conventional economy. It's too simple to point the finger at one.

They don't have enough resources to block movement on legislation which would have no impact on their sales.

do not underestimate the power of big tobacco, big pharma and big alcohol. So far they have written and gotten enacted all the laws making products that theirs mimic illegal; Laws southern senators in particular and most pugs know instinctively to protect at all costs as therein lye's their power. If you think big pharma is powerless you are on something yourself, probably by prescription.

Not to the exclusion of other industries. I think that complicated the whole idea that if something is helpful and profitable, the market will make sure it is produced.

has a hand in keeping it illegal I have to think theirs is just a bit part compared to the alcohol/todacco/candy corporations and church's/morality police efforts.

Definitely a team effort. I did unintentionally narrow that scope with my OP.

Gee how can we screw people out of dope today? Good golly. Pharmas don't have that type of time or money. They are too busy competing with each other. But what do I know. I'm only in the field.

the lobbyists hired by your boss!

No cost cutting there, whether they're laying off workers or not. Half the ads I've seen lately have been for patent meds.

Anyone who thinks pharm would not see legalized cannabis as bad for pharm is trying to sell me a pig in a poke.

Not buying it.

munchies, you know.

how many billions of dollars of medical cannabis have been sold in California alone? How much less pills have been sold as a result?

Certainly billions for recreational purposes.

buy their grass in a medical distribution shop???? Do you really think that most people going there have no medical reason to be there? We are not talking about BC or Amsterdam after all.

In fact, I was under the impression that many were non-profit.

that you try to break even after "expences" hence the salary of the grower, the harvester, the guy that transports it, the lady selling it ect. They do not pass out grass for free. I, however, have friends that do!

the more trippy cannabinoids. So recreational users don't want medicinal and vice versa. Different strains and different times of harvest makes them genuinely different.

Not true in my experience. With names like O.G. Kush, AK-47, White Widow, Chronic, the weed at co-op is the same stuff you buy on the street though perhaps grown with more love and tenderness because it is grown by people who use it.

So my experience between the two is second hand. The street stuff made her a lot more stoned than the stuff grown strictly for medical purposes. Don't know if the medical marijuana helped fight her cancer any better or not, she died from it anyway. The research articles I read claimed it would but she was so far along when it was discovered there wasn't any chance. But it eased her last days that is for sure.
We stuck with the medical marijuana once we found a trusted source. It's harvested at different times in the plants development, according to the claims in order to enhance the anti-cancer cannabinoids. I forget the exact differences in harvesting times but there are some articles on the net that discuss the differences in concentrations of different cannabinoids depending on when you harvest.
Plus the medical marijuana smelled much fresher and more richer too, more like fresh herbs, not like skunk at all. The street stuff caused the house to reek of skunk, it was nasty.
But I admit, my recent experience is limited to that and what I read. YMMV.

buy their grass in a medical distribution shop???? Because the supply is constant, you can buy whenever you want during business hours, quality is high, cost comparable to street price, you won't get ripped off and you aren't likely to get nicked. Lots of rec users buy at co-op. Face it, most people above teenage years have some complaint that can be alleviated by smoking pot.

even if it is just used like asprin

It is when they use that for glaucoma/nausea rather than a scrip for a glaucoma or antinausea prescription drug. In those cases, they would be in direct competition, and since you can't compete with free....

folks take drugs of any kind for the most part to self medicate. Some are prescription raking in billions, some are not raking in nothing and are illegal for that reason.

tits on a nun. My partner (a 27-year survivor of HIV -- today's our 13th anniversary) has been prescribed marinol several times for wasting and for nausea against the hideous cocktails he's had to take. Marinol has none of the useful components of the real thing and it's about 100 times as expensive and about 100 times harder to get.

Fuck that. That's just Big Pharma's lame, boondooggle, money-making answer for politicians and folks who don't know any better.

No, I don't smoke (I don't really like it), but I've been around enough cancer survivors and HIV survivors in my own family to see the effects of both marinol (zero) and real cannibis (actually works for nausea, pain, and allows the patients to eat naturally when nothing else will).

The only difference is that it's ingested rather than inhaled.

It's a pot brownie, vs. a joint.

That can be a problem if you're suffering from nausea.

If you're not suffering from nausea, it's not an issue.

that there are over 100 other compounds within that alter the effects. The difference in highs between the two main 'types' of weed (sativa and indica) lies mostly within the ratio of THC to the other compounds.

Here is my quote in context:

Occam Bandage: Why wouldn't "Big Pharma" just extract the appropriate chemicals, refine them... and then sell them at a profit, just as they do with everything else?

Me: They already have, its called marinol.


I'm a proponent of legalization, so I don't care if people want to smoke pot for HIV, Cancer, or recreation. The point that I'm trying to make on this thread is that the pharmaceutical industry is not part of a conspiracy to keep marijuana illegal. I'm making this point because I'm a scientist, and I get annoyed with the way in which pharmaceutical companies are routinely demonized.

Incidentally, I've heard others say that marinol is not very effective, and I know a physician who insists that there are better options for most symptoms than either Marinol or Marijuana. I'm not really prepared to debate the efficacy of different treatments, because I don't have a medical degree myself or any first hand experience.

That said, I hope whatever regimen your partner is on now is helping him.

fuck isolating the effective parts, it is cheaper to grow you own and vaporize it.

Pleeze.

I smoked for YEARS and never once saw anything that wasn't there. And the only paranoia I ever felt was due to the fact that the shit was illegal.

Pot causes euphoria and giddiness, langour and relaxation. It does NOT cause hallucinations, and paranoia is only an incidental due to the very real threat of police interference - and if a threat is real, it is NOT paranoia.

EDIT:
Amd SERIOUSLY, comparing pot to thalidomide?

Tell me, did you toke up before reading my posts?

1. I used thalidomide as an example of the importance of stereoiomerism in pharmacology. Big words, I know, but no comparison was made to cannabis.

2. THC is a hallucinogen.

3. You never felt paranoia? Good for you. You're obviously superior in every way.

I have no idea what you just said, but welcome. :evilgrin: :hi:

And your post is IDIOTIC IN THE EXTREME. OMG!! BIG PHARMA SHILL IS TEH EVIL.

While I'm worrying about the health effects of patients in clinical trials for serious diseases like cancer I'm busy plotting how teh eliminate teh evul weed!
Dude get a clue. I'm a published scientist biologist. Your credentials? A tinfoil cap cutting off the blood circulation to your head. BTW, did you know that alot of academics research marijuanas medical effects. The SAME ACADEMICS that work with Pharmaceuticals on other research like experimental malaria vaccines. Yeah, sounds like suppression to me...:eyes:

Sometimes I wish I could hug you... :)


(word on the street is that A-Rod blew big pharma's cover plan/story/agenda and that's why he's going down. And I think you had a hand in it! :rofl: )

It's curious to see so many people on DU rush to Big Pharma's defense.

I see it less as a defense of Big Pharma and more an credulous mocking (at least on my part) of some really far-out-there theories about how Big Pharma runs the worlds and controls out lives, all unbeknown to the common man. But I do see how the two could be conflated.

Illuminati, the Rothschilds, 9-11, Big Pharma... it's all some big master plan... or so I'm told.

It's easy to defeat my argument when you take it to such ridiculous extremes. I never said anything like the words you put in my mouth.

I never said you've told me that. But the extremes are here, there and everywhere.

There's simply that general sense of conspiratorial, shadow figures out there in la-la land who's agenda is to keep us down and stupid and unhappy.

Sorry, but I myself perceive the hack-authored notion that Big Pharma is suppressing pot as nothing more than abject nonsense put out there by people who feel that they themselves cannot control their own lives.

Not saying that's your position-- as I didn't initially respond to you... :shrug:

I laugh at that nonsense-- and feel bad for our own member of DU who are researchers and scientists for the very same organizations which get demonized.

Different opinions-- we all laugh at them. In the words of Paul and John (The Beatles, not the Apostles) Nothing to hung about, right?



On edit: There's a specific and relevant difference between a Strawman argument and Reductio Ad Absurdum-- just an FYI is all...

although that agenda CAN be attributed to certain elements of the religious right, but an agenda to make profits.

It's really very simple. If anyone can grow their own pot, many, many people will. How can the pharma companies maintain their profits on marijuana extracts if every tom dick and harry has a backyard pot patch?

I think the pharma companies want pot to stay illegal because its very illegality would guarantee their profits. Their big problem is that so far, the extracts have proved to be less effective than the real thing, and that there are existent legal drugs for most things that pot would treat.

Meanwhile, though there are valid uses for medical marijuana, the overwhelming number of people that use pot do it recreationally, which is not a problem for the pharma industry but for the religious right. So to keep the potential of their profits, pharma plays into the puritan paranoia about having fun, and cooperates with or even guides the anti-pot programs of the religious right. (None of this touches on the non-religious right and the oppressive racist cultural aspects of suppression of pot - which are a parallel factor.)

As though there were a limit to the number of diseases medical science could find better treatments for.

Its kind of cool that they think we are that smart and powerful though.

...all those absurd suicide inducing SSRI's that they have been giving out like candy and advertising for every minute insecurity and worry?

You know the ones that they didn't even bother doing adequate double blind testing for? I mean if you really believe yourself to be a scientist you ought to be up in arms over something like that. But no, it is far easier to rage and bash your head against the wall over some short sighted deadheads.

And just for the record there have actually been corporate actions against Cannabis. Calling it a 'conspiracy' is dismissive.

This is a bunch of easily-offended old biddies upset that the Children are going to See A Bad Influence and calling Kelloggs to say they'll start buying General Mills Raisin Bran instead of Kelloggs Raisin Bran unless they stop giving money to that bad boy.

Why are your intuitive leaps any more valid than mine, "Occam"?

Does you putting Prison Labor Industry in quotes mean that it doesn't exist? Even with the news that judges in PA were imprisoning kids for cash?

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline do not care whether a teenager is thrown in jail or not because of marijuana. They care whether they can sell boner pills and blood pressure medicine to that teenager's dad, and antidepressants and osteoporosis preventatives to that teenager's mom.

I'm sure that the particular prisons that receive drug arrests are always quite pleased to have extra tenants. I don't see what Phelps has to do with anything. Heck, you might as well claim that they were happy to see the Phelps photo and are secretly behind the NORML pro-Phelps push, because they want to see more kids using pot, since that'll be more arrests later. A claim of an incentive is not proof of a relationship.

That's my whole argument here.

Because marijuana is not a competitor for erectile dysfunction medicine, hypertension medicine, anti-depression medicine, or osteoperosis.

You could make a good argument that marijuana would be effective as an anti-nausea medicine.

But most pharma companies don't make anti-nausea medicine. And since you admit the pharmaceutical industry is competitive, that would mean that most pharma companies would have a vested interest in legalizing marijuana, since it would harm the profit margin of those few pharma companies which do make anti-nausea medicine.

If one of the side effects is mild euphoria...how could it not?

There's a difference between making people happy, and clinically treating depression.

Alcohol makes people happy. You don't prescribe it to people suffering from depression.

not good for bumed out people. With grass you have sunshine in a bag! Plus marinol does not get you high proper because it is basically TCH without any CBD

cannabis is EXCELLENT anti depression medicine. works for glaucoma, cramps, arthritis, MS, and it helps cancer and aids patients eat.

then the drug companies which don't make glaucoma, arthritis, and anti-nausea medicine would support legalization.

that is how they make profits. Cannabis relieve eye pressure for glaucoma paitents. I know someone with aids who could not keep taking anti nausea medicine because as he described it he still felt like puking but could not. Now he smokes a few hits and voila he gets hungry and eats. Ask many aging boomers about arthritis and weed.

instead of putting out a couple hundred dollars on pills - and Mom toking up instead of taking Xanax and Ambien?

Legal pot WOULD affect their bottom line.

As for the prisons, the threat there is that Phelps' pot use might lead to more rational views and eventual legalization, which would mean a 25% drop in inmates, thus less revenue for the for-profit prison industry.

Not that hard to figure out.

Seems like Big Pharma would welcome legalization and start growing their own weed, or buying from growers and repackaging it with the Johnson and Johnson seal of approval or whatever.

It always seemed to me like the people who fought against this were the same social conservatives who fight against anything different or anything considered 'urban'. Ie alot of racism and ignorant social conservatism.

your premise is REALLY far fetched.

People aren't that naive to buy into some wild ass propaganda about MJ-they make up their own minds about MJ from whatever life experiences they have.

I don't like MJ for many reasons and only want to see it legalized for medicinal purposes.



So I won't be donning my :tinfoilhat: for your post even though I agree that Big Pharma sucks.



Btw, I think Phelps really tarnished those gold medals. Big Time.

MJ and hemp threaten the profits of a lot of people in this country. Why is it tin-foilish to think a business would want to thwart competition that would drastically reduce their profits?

and I am entirely in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. If people were actually concerned about the medical benefits of various extracts and chemicals found in cannabis (which I do not deny), they'd be calling for allowing drug companies to do any time they find potential sources of medicine in a plant: to extract, refine, and tinker until they have a safe, potent, maximally effective form of what the plant has produced. With no other pharmaceutical do people call for rushing a nonprocessed form into the market; when scientists find an Amazonian flower might be effective in the treatment of migraine, nobody suggests we start importing that flower and growing it in hothouses for people to buy and then smoke. We have scientists turn it into an effective drug.

"Medical marijuana" is a clear and dishonest attempt to backdoor cannabis into society. I think that's obvious bullshit; smoke of any sort is never healthful nor is it ever safe for habitual use. Just call for its legalization and be done with it.

There's no reason for it to be illegal--or, at any rate, no reason any greater than there is for alcohol to be illegal. That's a good argument by itself; it doesn't need the "medical marijuana" foot-in-the-door.

Do you think there could be other industries who profit so much from the things those things would replace, that they would use their muscle to make sure they never saw the market?

Your proving that most people's version of Occam's Razor is that THEIR simplest explanation of events is the most likely.

medicinal traits. Plants yield everything from aspirin to HIV drugs. Marijuana is exceptional only in that many people enjoy smoking it for its euphoric effects, and therefore it has both a political support and political opposition base. If THC did not produce euphoria, pharmaceutical companies would be allowed to use marijuana, and it would simply join the ranks of the thousands of plants that have been investigated, had chemicals extracted, and had drugs refined from their extracts.

There's no reason to believe they would "ensure it never saw the market," because they would be the ones bringing it to market, and in a refined and concentrated form no different from any other pill in the pharmacy section of a Walgreens or CVS. They would make their profits, as they always do. Nobody strips willow bark to make their own aspirin, and few would grow marijuana for their own glaucoma medicine.

The argument that Big Pharma is holding back marijuana for fear of losing their jobs is not much different from the argument that biologists are holding back intelligent design for fear of losing their jobs. Both reveal a lack of understanding of the way their targets work; in reality, rather than being a cause for fear and loathing, innovation of any sort is always a cause for profit and career advancement respectively.

I'm not saying I have the smoking gun proof in my hand, but I think it's worth exploring.

has a vested interest in keeping hemp pulp off the market.

But this big pharma business is just nuts.

That seems pretty basic to me.

I'm curious to hear your reasoning here.

Plenty of people already laid out good reasons why.

Did you ignore their arguments? Or did you just not understand them?

How is a plant with specific medicinal properties, not in direct conflict with companies that sell medicines with similar properties for profit?

Your best attempt was, "well, I'm not saying it's only big pharma..."

"You missed me"

"Nu-uh, I shot you. You're supposed to play dead"

"Nu-uh, I was wearing my magic armor"

etc.

And actually form counterarguments.

I'd probably get you to change your handle a lot, just to keep people off your trail, but I'd definitely hire you. You're tenacious, and have a real sense of how to dilute an argument with noise.

Maybe you should have thought it through better.

:thumbsup:

You have totally got this hooligan's number.

1. There are thousands of plants with medicinal properties. Thousands. Almost every drug ever made by man comes ultimately from a plant. For instance, it is possible to take a bit of willow and brew a tea that has much the same effect as aspirin. For free. Heck, with equipment found in any kitchen, plants which may be grown for free, and some cheap reagents, you could actually refine crude versions of many drugs at home.

2. In order to maximize the effect of these plants, drug companies engage in extraordinarily expensive research and development, finding the most effective chemicals possible, using the heavily-refined version of chemicals found in those plants as starting points. This process produces more potent, safer, more targeted, more convenient forms of the original plant-based chemicals.

3. People almost invariably choose to use the most powerful, safest, most convenient drugs possible, with little regard to cost. They do not even require actual evidence that a drug is safer or more powerful; they will make their decisions on the slightest suggestion that a drug is in any way better. This is demonstrable.

4. By #1 and #2, if marijuana were legalized, drug companies would extract the chemicals with medicinal properties and sell them in a more potent, targeted pill form with an advertising campaign attached.

5. By #3, people would generally choose to purchase pills created through #4, rather than attempt to make their own medicine. Just as most people do not brew their own moonshine or drink their own willow tea for headaches, they will buy actual medicine when they fall sick rather than attempt to grow their own.

Therefore, there is no reason for pharmaceutical companies to fear marijuana.

You're saying that people wouldn't prefer a plant they could grow and regrow for free, over spending thousands on meds? Just because some study you refer to offhand shows that people usually value effectiveness over cost?

I don't buy this at all. You say it's demonstrable---but what is your method of demonstrating this? How MUCH more will people spend to insure their medicine is the best? Enough to prefer going to CVS and shelling out copays and insurance premiums that cover the cost of meds, over growing a few plants themselves?

As for #1--I think you have to take potency, severity of the symptoms that it treats, and the "cost" of cultivation into account. Is it worth it for most people to brew their own tea rather than pay a few bucks for over the counter aspirin? No, too much trouble for not enough payoff.

Now replace your model with this one---would a person rather grow their own pot plant to treat chronic back pain, side effects of chemo, burn pain, cluster headaches ("suicide headaches"), post surgical pain, instead of spending thousands on ineffective, and what can be even more dangerous and addictive painkillers?

In those cases, the effort and money saved by growing one's own medicine is often TOTALLY worth the trouble. You're changing the paramaters by comparing aspirin to heavy duty pain killers, and brewing tea to growing a plant.

As for the rest, it would only be valid if Big Pharma were the ONLY industry that was profiting from the criminalization of MJ. I unintentionally narrowed my scope by pointing out big pharma, but I believe it's a team effort.

I find the most hardcore "Occam" preachers tend to substitute stilted, poorly set up logic for holistic, critical thinking. I think this is where your arguments suffer, particularly this one. Not trying to snark, but being constructively critical.

"As for #1--I think you have to take potency, severity of the symptoms that it treats, and the "cost" of cultivation into account. Is it worth it for most people to brew their own tea rather than pay a few bucks for over the counter aspirin? No, too much trouble for not enough payoff.

Now replace your model with this one---would a person rather grow their own pot plant to treat chronic back pain, side effects of chemo, burn pain, cluster headaches ("suicide headaches"), post surgical pain, instead of spending thousands on ineffective, and what can be even more dangerous and addictive painkillers?"

I'd argue that buying aspirin at the corner store is considerably easier than growing marijuana.

And it's a much more effective analgesic.

chronic back pain often leads people to opiates, legally, because asprin does not work. Also you can OD and die from asprin. I know a guy here in France that nearly did so and he did not believe me when I told him to smoke some hash for his back, he thought the hash was more dangerous than asprin!

So are ibuprofen, acetominophen, and naproxen.

you cannot with cannabis, but yes, asprin etc is more analgesic, but not as cool!

and you are in pain, why not knock off two birds with one stone?

I said that growing your medicine is cheaper than buying prescription painkillers. I pointed out how that is nothing like the cost/benefit ratio for brewing your own tea vs. over the counter aspirin.

Celexa, or citalopram, is an SSRI. The pill has two chiralities of the same drug. The right-turning chirality is absolutely useless and does not affect anything in the body whatsoever. The left-turning chirality is the active one. Celexa makes over $16,000,000.00 per year for Forest Laboratories. It costs about $3/pill. It can be had generically for thirteen cents per pill.

Lexapro, or escitalopram, is an SSRI, and on the back of a strong advertising and awareness campaign directed at doctors, produces over $1,900,000,000.00 in yearly revenue for Forest Laboratories. It costs about $3/pill. Lexapro is actually just the left-turning chirality of Celexa. It has absolutely no clinically-demonstrable advantages over Celexa, either in principal effects or in side effects. If everyone were to use the generics, which are equally effective, they would save one point eight one seven billion dollars per year.

One point eight billion dollars per year, only because of a name and an ad. And that is only one drug. One unexceptional drug, by an unexceptional manufacturer, which I picked not for its special merits, but because I happen to take it. And it is one drug for which the difference in quality between the expensive big pharma version and the cheap generic version is zero, and the difference in convenience is zero, and the difference in effort is zero. Sure, many people do take the generic, but enough do not that there is still a huge amount of money to be made.

Even going off the assumption that marijuana in plant form would be exactly as convenient, easy to get/take, and potent as whatever pills the drug industry could produce, you'd still be at an enormous disadvantage. In reality, plants are invariably less convenient, potent, and pure than their pharmaceutical counterparts, and more labor-intensive to boot. There is not one other plant on Earth that people grow for medicinal purposes rather than purchase extracts of. Not one.

...but I said molecule. Need me to define that fer ya?

And before you go for Hydrogen, you might think about how you're making my argument for me with this chemical silliness.

In all I've written, all you could find was the mention that one chirality of citalopram did nothing whatsoever. "Surely it might possibly interact with something on a level that is not observable in any clinical level," you say. And it may well, except that there is as of yet no suggestion of any statistical difference despite both Celexa and Lexapro having existed for some years now, so I think it's pretty safe to generalize that one will not arise, and certainly safer still to discount such a possibility when making health-care decisions.

But you are right, neon has but one atom, and a molecule, strictly speaking, requires two. You are also correct that hydrogen gas would be a decent answer, though when you speak disparagingly of "chemical silliness," I really have to wonder why you decided that would be an appropriate line of argument for a discussion about the health-care choices people make.

Your 320 word post was hardly a mere mention, and your clinical pharmacology was simply incorrect. There is "statistical" (and biochemical, and toxicological) evidence to the contrary. By your criteria, Thalidomide was "pretty safe." On the market for years, hundreds of thousands of safe doses...

Drug-drug interactions are a serious issue. Maybe not for you in the case of lexapro, but for people on multiple meds it can mean life or death. The issue you chose to highlight is simply the wrong one for the argument you appear to be making.

I believe we largely agree on the cannabis issue. It's impractical and uneconomic to try to extract, formulate, and deliver an optimal mixture of alkaloids from the plant. I think it's worthwhile for some gov't or NGO to make it happen, though. Inhaling burning plant material is one thing for a terminal patient, and entirely another for someone facing another couple of decades of life with only one set of lungs.

But its legal and I haven't received a cease and desist notice yet.

Big pharma isn't any more concerned about marijuana curbing their market share than they are about people growing poppies and collecting the opium, which by the way would be a more effective herbal remedy for most pain than marijuana.

There are plenty of people with irrational axes to grind trying to keep pot illegal, but I can tell you the pharmaceutical companies have better things to worry about than that.

also it is more of a pain in the ass than putting seeds in the ground and then harvesting the plants in the fall. Outside you can easily get several pounds from one good plant. A heavy smoker will do about a quarter pound a month. How much beer do you get from home brew? How much beer does a heavy drinker drink per month?

Utah and Alabama prohibit homebrewing, and some states have ambiguous laws (http://www.fermentarium.com/content/view/171/56/).

I make 5 gallons per batch which ends up being about 28 - 32 pints depending on my efficiency and a number of other factors. Brewing isn't a pain in the ass because it is a hobby, and I find it enjoyable. I like writing my own recipes, and making stuff you can't find in stores. I imagine the same rules would apply for growing the sort of pot that most people would enjoy smoking.

If I was interested in getting drunk on the cheap I could make some pretty horrible brew very cheaply and easily, but I'd probably just go buy PBR or colt 45.

There are laws in place preventing you or anyone else from brewing the amount liquor companies are allowed to brew specifically to protect those very companies, at least in MI. You just can't legally brew that much beer on your own, even if you do it right and have strict quality standards, meet all FDA regulations, etc.

To underscore that, Bell's Brewing Co in MI was, a few years back, actually in danger of having to suspend brewing operations because they were selling too much of the beer they brewed- and that company started out as a small, home operation.

Finally, with all the industry protectionism that has taken place in the last few decades, I don't think we can completely count out pharma lobbyists. They may be suffering losses in this economic downturn, but I bet their lobbyists are still out in force.

And if they're not actively working to keep MJ illegal, I think we should take steps to consider what they might try so we're ahead of the game, yes? Because it just isn't all that implausible....

1. Yes there are thousands of plants with medicinal properties. Try growing them quickly enough to use for medicine in your closet, on your balcony or even in your back yard. (Last time I looked cannabis grows in many places willow CANT! Also willow trees have to be pretty big or the bark will be hard to get off the tree or just kill it. I personally have no place to grow a willow in my condo.

2. I grant you that for many plants this process works, but there is one problem. Cannabis is the safest therputically active substance in the world. you cannot make a more safe version. Also more convenient is hard to argue as well as cannabis will grow easily outside in most any climate if you have the proper seeds. As it is cheaper than pills and the USA still has no national health care program it would be easier to grow ones own.


3. It must be nice to be all middle class and all but damn dude, lots of folks are limited in their medical treatment by COST! So yes, refined drugs made from chemicals found in cannabis may become more effective, but if the cannabis works OK and is A LOT cheaper people will go with the free homegrown. Now were the pills to be cheap, that would be another story.


4. there are indeed possibilites to make pills which would be more effective, you carry point 4.


5. I think we have a disagreement about what kind of medicine we are talking about here. For the most part, except for glaucoma and the newly discovered anti cancer properties cannabis just lessens pain, or makes people hungry to combat wasting syndrome. Of couse most people take traditional medicine when they have a medical need to BE CURED. To lessen symptoms cannabis in its natural form works pretty well so the medicine made from it would have to be damn effective, with the little to no side effects found with natural cannabis as well as cheap enough to not push people to grown their own. It is also much easier to grow a weed in the sunshine than it is to make moonshine.

Therefore, I assume you don't understand the arguments.

There are thousands of plants with medicinal properties.

Willow trees.

Nightshade.

Hops.

Grapes.

etc.

None of them threaten big pharma. So why would marijuana?

This is a qualitative argument that hinges on the potency of cannabis, ease of cultivation, and symptoms which it counters/suppresses.

None of what you listed is as easy to cultivate, or has the immediate painkilling properties as mj.

That's just one facet of this argument.

In fact, it's got demonstrably better analgesic properties than marijuana, and it's been traditionally used for thousands of years.

:shrug:

I'm open to hearing this argument.

Keep in mind that analgesic qualities are not the only ones on the table with mj.

you strip off the inner bark and chew on it.

Or you could brew a tea.

"Keep in mind that analgesic qualities are not the only ones on the table with mj."

It's the one you keep bringing up.

Hell it is too dry for willows where I live, but put a few seeds from some Moroccan weed in the ground and the stuff does well with minimal if any watering.

I didn't even have to set up growing lights.

But you're ignoring the point.

Big pharma hasn't conspired to outlaw my willow tree.

It is in your lawn, where cannabis would grow without a lamp. I grow in the woods man, no lamps!

Also I live in the south of France now, and there are no willow trees.

I am over here laughing my ass off. You have made my night!

Here is one poster who always poo poos any mention of herbs and plants as healing agents, who calls anyone who uses them woo woo freaks and proles, now telling us the history of willow's use as an analgesic?

But, but, I thought those primitive people were just ANIMALS with no reasoning skills, using some aboriginal Doctrine of Signatures? OMG!!!!!

Yeah, you know the natives in the US watched Eurodude starve because he didn't know he had all sorts of food at his feet. He was just too damned proud and ignorant to ask for help or to touch any foodstuff he hadn't simulated in a lab somewhere.... :rofl:


And, no, aspirin is not an effective analgesic if you have stomach issues, bleeding issues or if you are a young adult. Just in case you never read the precautions...

Dry mouth, bloating, vision impairment, fever, chronic fatigue, ulcers, headaches, dizziness, vomiting, etc?

Those few side effects are enough reason not take the pills if you have some alternative. I personally would like to have that choice.

Willow bark causes ulcers.

Nightshade causes vision impairment, to name the least of the side effects.

asprin?

I smoke 2 hits of good reefer, the good stuff I keep stocked just for when I am sick, good sativa that gets you up and going high while dulling the pain.

What do you do when you cannot sleep??? do you ever take pills? Some people do. I smoke a hit or 2 of indica so that I get a glued to the chair kind of stone and go to sleep pretty easy.

What about when your arthritis flares up and hurts? or your back hurts??? I have family members that smoke a joint and take no pills.

It's both an anti-pyretic and an analgesic. Perfect for self-medicating for the flu.

Marijuana is a piss poor analgesic, and it's not an anti-pyretic whatsoever.

I'm not going to waste perfectly good pot when I've got the flu. I'll save it for recreational purposes.

And I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

My wife, daughter and myself all got the flu the same weekend. My wife took ibuprofen, I smoked grass. She was so bad off she could not get out of bed to take care of our kid. My sativa high got me up and going and took an edge off the aches. Hell I smoke almost every day anyway so it is not like it was a waste.

cannabis is in competition with lots of pills

:)

W. R. Hearst was a bigger player in those early days than DuPont.

He was wood pulp.

Plus publisher of anti-marijuana propaganda.

Plus compatriot of Anslinger.

but were the dudes at DUPONT friends with Hearst????? I know hearst was a bastard, yellow journalism, Spanish American war etc....

I don't. But I know how to grow, dry and smoke pot. It ain't that hard. It's a hell of a lot easier than brewing moonshine. Any moron can do it. If it is legalized and brought to the market as a pill, people will grow it themselves, or know someone who does. It is too simple a process to be controlled.

It contains salicylic acid, which is an analgesic.

You can just chew the bark.

salicylic acid is acetylated for a reason. ADME mcharacteristics and side effect reduction being two. Read up on Bayer...

Sure, it's not aspirin proper, but it'll get the job done better than pot will.

you can get medicine and a recreational drug from the flowers, very nutritious flour from the milled seeds, paper or fuel from the cellulose in the stalks, and textiles from the fibers in the stalks ALL AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE THESE THINGS COME FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE PLANT! Why do you think hemp is legal in most developed countries? well because it has so many damned enviornmentally friendly economically profitiable uses.

Your statements, while true to the word, have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have written, nor with the argument in which it was made.

the other medicinal plants cannot be used for other profitable uses like hemp can. With hemp you can get lobbying from muptiple industries against the same plant.

It is cheaper, you get to enjoy a buzz that does not inhibit you from functioning while you take your medicine, and you do not get any smoke in your lungs.

it makes dealing with republicans and their bullshit that much easier.

but it is damn schedule 1 with no medical value according to the feds. Change the laws and let real research happen. Also if the plant works why should people not grow and VAPORIZE their own. Stop with the smoke is bad bullshit. Most everyone that smokes has also vaporized. Vaporizers are not some secret.

The point being "There's no reason for it to be illegal--or, at any rate, no reason any greater than there is for alcohol to be illegal. That's a good argument by itself; it doesn't need the "medical marijuana" foot-in-the-door."

The "good argument" is not working -- the "medical marijuana foot-in-the-door" is.

Is marijuana a performance enhancing drug? :rofl: How the hell are his medals any less impressive now? Are they less impressive because he drinks alcohol?

He certainly ignored the law, and I wouldn't want kids emulating that behavior, but it really has nothing to do with his athletic accomplishments.

Spain, Belgium, Italy, the state of Berlin, or in the Netherlands you would have no problem as there are no laws against doing so in those places. What is wrong with kids smoking grass? You can smoke and win 12 gold medals, become president, or be a lazy piece of shit. Clearly the cannabis has no causation linked to these life choices.

me should be treated either as a criminal or someone who deserves a fine because I possess and sometimes grow a plant! Phelps tarnished nothing, you are just jealous of his gold. About half of us 20 to 30 year olds smoke in a given month. Deal with it. Leave us alone, and change the laws so we are no longer criminals.

why should I be a criminal or get fined for using, possessing, and growing a plant? do you grow rhubarb??? that is deadly shit you know.

Former presidents of Colombia, Mexico and Brazil--a quite surprising development, since the first two countries are BIG recipients of US/Bushwhack "war on drugs" billions. However, the trend in South America has been away from the corrupt, failed, murderous US "war on drugs"--especially in the countries with the most democratic governments (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador).

See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3735121

This is a classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill.

but Subway's not.

You got it Rudy

:thumbsup:

Big Pharma has been trying to replicate the medicinal properties of marijuana for years now. Every heard of Marinol? There is also a throat spray but I can't remember the name of it.

Anyone who thinks big pharma doesn't care about medical mj really needs to do some research.

2. Marinol isn't exactly a cure-all.

3. Legalized pot would be a competitive advantage for those drug companies that don't make marinol.

and have already been doing research in Europe for over a decade.

Despite being the center of some of the biggest pharmaceutical companies.

here in Europe there was never a moral war on drugs, and that the general public does not support being tough on pot smokers, hence decriminalization. In the USA there was a hysterical war on drugs, people there are more easily manipulated about pot as a result so the many lobbies that do not like pot have a greater say. I think NAHAS is the name of the french guy who worked for big pharma here and pushed the drug testing idea around the world a few decades ago, but here in France we do not drug test to get jobs because it is considered an invasion of medical privacy.

that we've got the war on drugs here over "moral" issues and hysteria and drug companies don't enter into it.

but if they see a window where they can use lobbying to keep profits up they may just jump on through that window, like people from most any industry do.

Despite the presence of Big Pharma.

Netherlands decriminalized possession, cultivation use and sale in the mid 70's. Denmark did the same thing in Christiana. Spain decriminalized use,possession, and cultivation after Franco was no longer in power, back in the 70's. Other countries did nothing. Then in the 90's there was a new push to decriminalize as the hippies in the left wing parties in Italy depenalized, Berlusconi repenalized, then the left depenalized drugs again. In Germany a German supreme court decision in the 90's decriminalized and let each Lander decide about the penalty if any, this was decentralized decriminalization. Later on Belgium and Luxembourg were pushed by their people to stop wasting money on possession and personal cultivation as they saw it was no big deal just north of them in the Netherlands. France has the largest pharma industry in Europe and still has the world pot laws. They threaten you with 10 years for one joint, of a plane full of heroin. Luckily judges have refused to send people to jail for cannabis since the 90's. It is considered a health issue now, and so long as the psychiatrist says you are ok you get no penalty so the cops genearlly try to give you a ticket or do nothing. As the general population of Europe has not been brain washed by drug war propaganda they are much more likely to support and call for depenalization despite the best lobbying of the wine or medicine industries. PS it is midnight here so I gotta go, but I will happily continue the debate tomorrow, so post away and try to refute what I say and then I will try to logically defend my positions tomorrow, have a good evening.

n/t

Pot isn't going to be effective against the kind of pain you'd use dilaudid or fentanyl to treat.

You are right that they are going to destroy Phelps for proving that you don't turn into a steotypical looser from smoking pot. But "they" are the DEA prohibition assholes, not the pharmaceutical industry.

how come people often take it with them and find any excuse necessary to keep using it while claiming they can quit it whenever they wish?

(Except for medicinal use, which is legal in some states.)

1. People quit marijuana all the time. Something like half the country has used marijuana at one time, most of those no longer do so.

2. What are these "any excuses" you're talking about? Most people smoke pot because they enjoy it, and will admit as much.

B/c painkilling is addictive! Some methods moreso than others.

Morphine, hydrocodone, oxycontin, etc. are addicitive in and of themselves.

Painkilling is not addictive.

Otherwise aspirin would be addictive. And it's not.

Huh?

anyone knows that opiates are addictive, physically and mentally.

because I have absolutely no desire to quit;

Should that be illegal, too?

then came bush

still better then drinking

Phelps busted his ass, worked harder than most individuals could even fathom. Then he wants to smoke pot and everybody got their shorts knotted up.

There is nothing wrong with a good buzz on occasion. Because I am a parent raising teens, my bong days are very few and far between. But they are not over and on occasion, a Bong hit, a good Shiraz and a summer breeze can't be beat.

Best post of this thread! :thumbsup:

Drink responsibly, smoke responsibly, take aspirin responsibly, and take strong pharmaceuticals responsibly.

The legalization of herbs gives responsibility to the individual. The authoritative model of medicine, and of our society is that individuals cannot be given license because they do not know how to take care of themselves. The assumption is that the risks of legalization outweigh the benefits to society as a whole. As a society, we would have to decide how to make sure people operating heavy machinery, surgeons, pilots ect would not be high on the job. The burden would be on us to prove that we can do it, because if enough nightmarish events happen, public outrage would demand recriminalization again.

If people were informed as to the effects of plants and drugs, if this were part of education, then certainly a portion of the population would choose to live in balance. But other safeguards will have to be in place to assure public safety, including clear consequences for people that abuse this privilege, like DWI, or this would not last.

The same standards and consequences for herbal use should apply to pharmaceuticals even with a prescription. There are certainly countless people on strong pharmaceuticals who now drive, do surgery and operate heavy equipment (My Gods we just had a president who seemed to be medicated most of the time & look what happened!! Elephant in the room anyone?). We have to apply equal standards across the board, and be realistic about the effects of all substances. No guilt or shame, just cause and effect.

These are just my thoughts on the current debate about herbs and drugs, use and abuse.

Pot is less dangerous then most if not all perscription drugs apporved by the FDA, it has never caused a death. As long as drinking liquor is not illegal the DEA and all law enforcement lose any credibility with those in the know. We are laughed at by countries like Holland. In this criticial economic times the $ we could raise by legalizing pot and taxing it would solve so many probs . I wish all of those politicians (Obama included ) would stop worrring about being politicially correct and instead worry about doing some corections !

I don't think the pharmaceutical industry has anything to do with this.

I wish I had an easy source for smoke so I could flush my damn Ritalin. For the sake of a good job and the well-being of my family I had to take the legal, but much more inferior, method for treating ADD.

enabling press, and mass destruction---and now there is faux outrage about a photo of an athlete taking a bong hit. Okeeee I just wanted to post this one more time...... It is LEGAL for the leader of the free world to be f*cked up on most likely pills and booze WHILE ON THE JOB, and NOT ONE person called him on it.

This county needs a sane drug policy, and I believe the massive collective denial of Bush's behavior needs to be named and made example of. It is one of the most crazy dysfunctional symptoms in a family who is dealing with an addict. NO ONE talks directly about it. Was Bush medicated on top of being drunk?

This has to stop now. (And yes it is obvious I have personal experience dealing with this, as many of you here do....) :hi:

That's a bit of a reach...

get help!

as far as putting together rational arguments. Look at this entire thread and ask yourself who are the ones stonewalling and namecalling, and who are the ones talking reason?