Legal marijuana - good or bad? Any personal experience?

[Gameface]

Read an article yesterday talking about how teen use went down in Oregon ever since it was legalized. Not surprised by that at all. I figured that is what would happen and always touted that as one of the reasons it should be legalized.

I posted some links earlier in this thread that showed similar results in Colorado.

 

[Getting Traded]

I'm nor much of an online video watcher
I have a strong preference for reading information.

There are numerous written materials related to this, and some of this was cited in the doc. I actually only watched a couple, but like I said, the information was quite surprising to me, who has long been an advocate of legalization. It's kind of like all the religious prohibitions of sex before marriage that you're brought up with, and then you read the book, The Brain in Love, by Amen, and learn, based on many clinical studies, that celibacy is actually harmful to your health.

 

[infection]

Infection, you're a pretty smart guy but you're brainwashed and totally oblivious to the truth about marijuana: https://thesacredplant.com/

Thanks, but I’m decently versed with marijuana, and specifically within my specialty of medicine. I haven’t read much of the thread since I last posted and I’ll have to take some time to come back to it, but the problem we’re running into here is a false dichotomy that has been reinforced heavily in society. This has been turned in to a black and white issue of “marijuana good — opposition bad.” In reality, it’s a hell of a lot more nuanced than that, but because it’s been overcome with such a pop-culture truism, any statements that appear a shade of grey are forced to fit into a black and white perspective, hence why anyone hearing people may have different angles on the issue creates a knee-jerk reaction with assumptions that one must be an ignorant rube, and hasn’t been exposed to enough google search.

 

[Getting Traded]

Thanks, but I’m decently versed with marijuana, and specifically within my specialty of medicine. I haven’t read much of the thread since I last posted and I’ll have to take some time to come back to it, but the problem we’re running into here is a false dichotomy that has been reinforced heavily in society. This has been turned in to a black and white issue of “marijuana good — opposition bad.” In reality, it’s a hell of a lot more nuanced than that, but because it’s been overcome with such a pop-culture truism, any statements that appear a shade of grey are forced to fit into a black and white perspective, hence why anyone hearing people may have different angles on the issue creates a knee-jerk reaction with assumptions that one must be an ignorant rube, and hasn’t been exposed to enough google search.

I know it's not a black and white issue, but the public conception of "marijuana" is totally false because of the politics involved. To be honest, I always thought that marijuana was simply a harmless drug, so long as it wasn't abused, i.e., used on a social basis, and much less harmful than alcohol abuse. Now I've learned that is not the case, that it is actually very beneficial for a number of health problems, and in some cases, as an antidote to pain, problem the best medicine. The doc series was enlightening for me.

 

[Gameface]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/02/health/medical-cannabis-law-opioid-prescription-study/index.html

Marijuana legalization could help offset opioid epidemic, studies find

The studies, published Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, compared opioid prescription patterns in states that have enacted medical cannabis laws with those that have not. One of the studies looked at opioid prescriptions covered by Medicare Part D between 2010 and 2015, while the other looked at opioid prescriptions covered by Medicaid between 2011 and 2016.
The researchers found that states that allow the use of cannabis for medical purposes had 2.21 million fewer daily doses of opioids prescribed per year under Medicare Part D, compared with those states without medical cannabis laws. Opioid prescriptions under Medicaid also dropped by 5.88% in states with medical cannabis laws compared with states without such laws, according to the studies.

 

[infection]

I know it's not a black and white issue, but the public conception of "marijuana" is totally false because of the politics involved. To be honest, I always thought that marijuana was simply a harmless drug, so long as it wasn't abused, i.e., used on a social basis, and much less harmful than alcohol abuse. Now I've learned that is not the case, that it is actually very beneficial for a number of health problems, and in some cases, as an antidote to pain, problem the best medicine. The doc series was enlightening for me.

You're still approaching this from an expectation that I'm taking a political or moral stance on it. There's no meaningful discussion on marijuana because it's quickly hijacked by people taking a moral stance against it or people (who aren't otherwise familiar with medical literature) taking a medical stance on it. You literally can't have a discussion because everyone brings societal baggage to the conversation.

e.g. when was the last time you heard someone extolling the healing properties of ginkgo biloba?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/02/health/medical-cannabis-law-opioid-prescription-study/index.html

Marijuana legalization could help offset opioid epidemic, studies find

Thanks for the link. To my knowledge it's the only thing addressing the issue we discussed earlier. Some challenges inherent in the methodology, however, as there's been a huge push over the past few years regarding opioids and most physicians have looked for reasons to reduce these. If anyone is using marijuana, it's a pretty easy way to start reducing/stopping their controlled substances. Overall, they're showing that there was an 8% reduction (in Medicare, 6% in Medicaid) in opioid prescriptions filled from states that have any medical marijuana legislation, and how that translates into individuals is unclear.

 

[Gameface]

You're still approaching this from an expectation that I'm taking a political or moral stance on it. There's no meaningful discussion on marijuana because it's quickly hijacked by people taking a moral stance against it or people (who aren't otherwise familiar with medical literature) taking a medical stance on it. You literally can't have a discussion because everyone brings societal baggage to the conversation.

e.g. when was the last time you heard someone extolling the healing properties of ginkgo biloba?


Thanks for the link. To my knowledge it's the only thing addressing the issue we discussed earlier. Some challenges inherent in the methodology, however, as there's been a huge push over the past few years regarding opioids and most physicians have looked for reasons to reduce these. If anyone is using marijuana, it's a pretty easy way to start reducing/stopping their controlled substances. Overall, they're showing that there was an 8% reduction (in Medicare, 6% in Medicaid) in opioid prescriptions filled from states that have any medical marijuana legislation, and how that translates into individuals is unclear.

Was it not you who questioned the possibility that "medical" marijuana could reduce opioid use. That's a single question that seems to have an objective answer.

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves calling it "medical marijuana" but don't mind that doing so helps get people access to legal marijuana. To be medical I think it needs to go through the process that all medicine in the U.S. goes through. I hope that happens.

 

[Getting Traded]

Was it not you who questioned the possibility that "medical" marijuana could reduce opioid use. That's a single question that seems to have an objective answer.

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves calling it "medical marijuana" but don't mind that doing so helps get people access to legal marijuana. To be medical I think it needs to go through the process that all medicine in the U.S. goes through. I hope that happens.

There have been many studies showing its efficacy, but as Infection says, the politics of it has prevented acceptance by the medical community.

 

[Gameface]

There have been many studies showing its efficacy, but as Infection says, the politics of it has prevented acceptance by the medical community.

It has not gone through the process used to approve drugs for medical use. Therefore legalizing it as a medicine is dubious.

 

[Getting Traded]

It has not gone through the process used to approve drugs for medical use. Therefore legalizing it as a medicine is dubious.

And that's because Big Pharma controls that process. They don't want it to infringe on their billion-dollar opoid industry that is currently killing so many people.

 

[Gameface]

And that's because Big Pharma controls that process. They don't want it to infringe on their billion-dollar opoid industry that is currently killing so many people.

This is what I imagine infection was talking about.

You can go down that road, but it is irrelevant to the fact the marijuana HAS NOT gone through the standard process to be considered a medicine. You can talk about why, but even if your reason is correct it doesn't mean marijuana gets to skip the standard process.

There are questions as to dosage, efficacy, drug interactions, etc..

 

[One Brow]

And that's because Big Pharma controls that process. They don't want it to infringe on their billion-dollar opoid industry that is currently killing so many people.

No industry wants to curtail the drug approval process more than "Big Pharma", and if cannabis were approved for medical use only, no industry would make more from it than "Big Pharma". Tobacco and alcohol makers have much stronger opposition to legal cannabis.

 

[infection]

Was it not you who questioned the possibility that "medical" marijuana could reduce opioid use. That's a single question that seems to have an objective answer.

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves calling it "medical marijuana" but don't mind that doing so helps get people access to legal marijuana. To be medical I think it needs to go through the process that all medicine in the U.S. goes through. I hope that happens.

Yes, that’s my skepticism. The JAMA article is actually fairly broad, and doesn’t specifically answer the question, as it’s hard to truly isolate marijuana as the independent variable, among many others, and it includes everyone on opioids, but also can’t measure how many people are on both. There’s clearly a selection bias in populations I see, but my clinical experience tells me a completely different story.

But your second paragraph hits my points: if you want marijuana to be legal, fine, fight for legislation. But the idea that this is a miracle plant being suppressed by “big pharma” and the FDA is a fantasy because, by their same standards, the FDA would be “suppressing” thousands of other beneficial compounds that nobody GAF about because they’re not used recreationally.

There have been many studies showing its efficacy, but as Infection says, the politics of it has prevented acceptance by the medical community.

Actually, I’m emphasizing more of the opposite — people with no familiarity in medical literature are looking at the results and being fed the narrative that the only reason this isn’t recommended by your PCP is because of the moral police (hyperbole but you get the point). What the marijuana folk are promoting is like what the pharmaceutical reps are promoting, except with an anti-moral bend (meaning they’re crusading against what they believe is moral opposition to marijuana). You should be skeptical of both pharmaceutical reps and the marijuana boosters as both of them are exposed to a small amount of data and make sweeping conclusions. There’s the idea of “you don’t know what you don’t know,” and without being able to perceive good research methodology, it makes one susceptible to almost anything. Most pharmaceuticals out there provide such minimal benefit, but if you sat through a pharmaceutical presentation without knowing how to read data, you’ll probably want to walk out of there turning it in to a multilevel marketing scheme.

It has not gone through the process used to approve drugs for medical use. Therefore legalizing it as a medicine is dubious.

This. I’m not a huge fan of the FDA or “big pharma” but among the thousands of things not currently approved on the market for treating problems, it’s funny that marijuana gets singled out as a huge travesty and failure of the medical system.

And that's because Big Pharma controls that process. They don't want it to infringe on their billion-dollar opoid industry that is currently killing so many people.

There are already cannibinoids out there on the market. Nobody GAF about them because, again, they don’t have recreational use. All opioids are generic and the big money is on medications with a patent. If marijuana cut in to the generic opioid market, it wouldn’t be a huge deal.

No industry wants to curtail the drug approval process more than "Big Pharma", and if cannabis were approved for medical use only, no industry would make more from it than "Big Pharma". Tobacco and alcohol makers have much stronger opposition to legal cannabis.

Agreeing with OB.

 

[fishonjazz]

This is what I imagine infection was talking about.

You can go down that road, but it is irrelevant to the fact the marijuana HAS NOT gone through the standard process to be considered a medicine. You can talk about why, but even if your reason is correct it doesn't mean marijuana gets to skip the standard process.

There are questions as to dosage, efficacy, drug interactions, etc..

Why don’t opioids have to go through the standard process to be considered a medicine? Or do they? If so then you would think that one of the standard should probably be that the drug isn’t addictive. Probably be a good idea if the drug doesn’t kill *****oads of people too. I guess being addictive as **** and being really effective at causing the deaths of tons of people helps a drug pass the “process”. If that’s the case then marijuana has no chance. Simply not addictive or deadly enough. Darn it.

@infection what do you think about this post?

 

[fishonjazz]

No industry wants to curtail the drug approval process more than "Big Pharma", and if cannabis were approved for medical use only, no industry would make more from it than "Big Pharma". Tobacco and alcohol makers have much stronger opposition to legal cannabis.

Ummm. Many people, myself included, would grow it themselves. Big pharma would hate that and not make money off it.
I can’t grow my own Percocet on the other hand. They would also hate that marijuana isn’t addictive enough. Gotta keep your customers reliant on your product to maximize profits.

 

[infection]

Why don’t opioids have to go through the standard process to be considered a medicine? Or do they? If so then you would think that one of the standard should probably be that the drug isn’t addictive. Probably be a good idea if the drug doesn’t kill *****oads of people too. I guess being addictive as **** and being really effective at causing the deaths of tons of people helps a drug pass the “process”. If that’s the case then marijuana has no chance. Simply not addictive or deadly enough. Darn it.

@infection what do you think about this post?

It takes ~15 years to bring a drug to market and costs about $3 billion. There are pros and cons to that regulation. That funding is provided by the drug manufacturer with the promise of being able to obtain a patent where they can recoup the costs and make a profit.

Drug companies won’t fund that process because they can’t make money on that specifically, unless they isolate some compound within marijuana with medicinal value (which has already been done). You can’t patent marijuana. Sure, they can always make money of dispensing it, but without a patent and exclusive right, you’re not making the kind of dollars they’re going after.

Lithium, for instance, was not patentable as it was “natural” (more than natural, it’s an element on the periodic table). Because of that, no big money in a patent, unless you do something stupid with it like make an extended release. And the fact that it’s natural doesn’t quite make it a good idea for everyone to take (many on it long term get significant kidney damage and a lot more will have thyroid problems). I’m not exactly making that analogy to marijuana but the idea stands. In any case, despite lack of lots of pharmaceutical reason to push that product, it remains one of the most clinically effective treatments for bipolar disorder and depression, and until the past couple decades, was a first line treatment, so “big pharma” doesn’t exactly have the all-powerful oppressive hand many believe, though they do wield a lot of societal influence.

But yes, opioids have “been through” that process. Again, I don’t make any argument for that process as it certainly has pros and cons, but is far from flawless. But that’s the current standard. Plenty of drugs (most?) that have made it through that suck and are ineffective. Plenty are dangerous and lethal in certain circumstances. Many over the counter meds such as aspirin and Tylenol are much more dangerous than many medications that need a prescription, but they’re available by historical precedent.

Marijuana has medicinal value. But so does St. John’s Wort and Ginseng. Many trade-name medications also have medicinal value. But that doesn’t really make them useful, even in a minority of circumstances. Wesley Johnson is useful and has value. Not to us. Not to most teams. But he’s useful.

Regarding opioids, they are fantastically effective for acute pain and in emergency circumstances. They are absolutely terrible for long-term use. I don’t have numbers and I’m shooting from the hip, but I’d wager high money that >97% of all opioid prescriptions are for chronic pain. This is terrible. Treatments for chronic pain really shouldn’t be medicinal, whether that’s opioids or NSAIDs or marijuana.

Marijuana is singled out for its medicinal benefits because everyone knows what it is. It’s like the Jimmer of the NBA. Many people can do what Jimmer does, but we aren’t familiar with them. We’re familiar with Jimmer so we assume he’s the only big shot not getting a fair shake.

 

[fishonjazz]

It takes ~15 years to bring a drug to market and costs about $3 billion. There are pros and cons to that regulation. That funding is provided by the drug manufacturer with the promise of being able to obtain a patent where they can recoup the costs and make a profit.

Drug companies won’t fund that process because they can’t make money on that specifically, unless they isolate some compound within marijuana with medicinal value (which has already been done). You can’t patent marijuana. Sure, they can always make money of dispensing it, but without a patent and exclusive right, you’re not making the kind of dollars they’re going after.

Lithium, for instance, was not patentable as it was “natural” (more than natural, it’s an element on the periodic table). Because of that, no big money in a patent, unless you do something stupid with it like make an extended release. And the fact that it’s natural doesn’t quite make it a good idea for everyone to take (many on it long term get significant kidney damage and a lot more will have thyroid problems). I’m not exactly making that analogy to marijuana but the idea stands. In any case, despite lack of lots of pharmaceutical reason to push that product, it remains one of the most clinically effective treatments for bipolar disorder and depression, and until the past couple decades, was a first line treatment, so “big pharma” doesn’t exactly have the all-powerful oppressive hand many believe, though they do wield a lot of societal influence.

But yes, opioids have “been through” that process. Again, I don’t make any argument for that process as it certainly has pros and cons, but is far from flawless. But that’s the current standard. Plenty of drugs (most?) that have made it through that suck and are ineffective. Plenty are dangerous and lethal in certain circumstances. Many over the counter meds such as aspirin and Tylenol are much more dangerous than many medications that need a prescription, but they’re available by historical precedent.

Marijuana has medicinal value. But so does St. John’s Wort and Ginseng. Many trade-name medications also have medicinal value. But that doesn’t really make them useful, even in a minority of circumstances. Wesley Johnson is useful and has value. Not to us. Not to most teams. But he’s useful.

Regarding opioids, they are fantastically effective for acute pain and in emergency circumstances. They are absolutely terrible for long-term use. I don’t have numbers and I’m shooting from the hip, but I’d wager high money that >97% of all opioid prescriptions are for chronic pain. This is terrible. Treatments for chronic pain really shouldn’t be medicinal, whether that’s opioids or NSAIDs or marijuana.

Marijuana is singled out for its medicinal benefits because everyone knows what it is. It’s like the Jimmer of the NBA. Many people can do what Jimmer does, but we aren’t familiar with them. We’re familiar with Jimmer so we assume he’s the only big shot not getting a fair shake.

You did a great job not addressing my post.

Do you think part of the process for a drug passing the process should be that it isn’t insanely addictive and insanely deadly?
Shouldn’t those 2 things maybe be the most important part of the process?

 

[infection]

You did a great job not addressing my post.

Do you think part of the process for a drug passing the process should be that it isn’t insanely addictive and insanely deadly?
Shouldn’t those 2 things maybe be the most important part of the process?

Addictive medications have plenty of use. Me acknowledging that, however, is not an endorsement or how those medications are prescribed in society. If you have colon surgery, you need opioids. If you have catatonia you need benzodiazepines, if you’re a terminal cancer patient with signicant fatigue then Adderall can be a huge game changer in quality of life. All of those can be addictive. Being addictive or not doesn’t preclude medical use as the assumption is that the substance is regulated by the DEA and to be prescribed judiciously by a license practitioner. That system fails plenty, though. In fact, it’s failing frequently, but there’s nothing precluding medical marijuana from going through the same process and getting approved. One snag it would hit would be if you were approving smoking it, as the FDA has never approved a medication that’s route is being smoked.

Does that answer the question?

 

[infection]

Here’s perhaps a different way to answer that question: I wouldn’t think causing COPD or lung cancer, or people driving under the influence, would be reason enough to exclude medical marijuana from FDA approval. Every substance is weighing risks and benefits.

 

[fishonjazz]

Addictive medications have plenty of use. Me acknowledging that, however, is not an endorsement or how those medications are prescribed in society. If you have colon surgery, you need opioids. If you have catatonia you need benzodiazepines, if you’re a terminal cancer patient with signicant fatigue then Adderall can be a huge game changer in quality of life. All of those can be addictive. Being addictive or not doesn’t preclude medical use as the assumption is that the substance is regulated by the DEA and to be prescribed judiciously by a license practitioner. That system fails plenty, though. In fact, it’s failing frequently, but there’s nothing precluding medical marijuana from going through the same process and getting approved. One snag it would hit would be if you were approving smoking it, as the FDA has never approved a medication that’s route is being smoked.

Does that answer the question?

Yes it does, thanks.

I suspiciously wonder if they could make these drugs just as effective without being addictive but they like people to get hooked on them. Probably not but I wouldn’t be surprised.

As for marijuana, I think it’s dumb that for many people to be on board with legalization in any form they need proof of why it should be legal.
I think it should be the other way around.
I think we should need proof of why it should be illegal. What is so bad about it that it should be illegal? How is it so much worse and more dangerous than things that are already legal? (Alcohol, tobacco, soda pop, guns, etc). I think we should need evidence of that to even make it illegal in the first place. Why is it even illegal? I have read articles that say that it was made illegal in the first place because of the lumber industry wanting to eliminate competition. I dont know if that’s true or not but I’m betting it had something to do with money and greed rather than research and data showing how dangerous it is.