The terrible truth about marijuana: Expert's devastating 20-year study

[muman613]

Let is move the topic to the question of what really motivates people to dismiss the positive uses of Cannibus?

It seems that 'getting high' has a negative connotation. But is 'getting drunk' any better, or is it just 'social drinking'?

As others here have testified, it is possible to become motivated either mentally or physically while experiencing the effects of cannibinoids. As a result a lot of good poetry, literature, music, and other art have been produced while under the effects of this herb. I too have known some of the most brilliant people who have smoked pot regularly, and in my high school where I was in a clique of the 'smartest kids' of the school he was the experimenter who tried pot first. The effects on the person are subjective and different between individuals. Some people get lazy while others get motivated and creative. These are the psychedelic effects of the drug. I do not recommend anyone try it and I do not attempt to paint it as a positive thing, but it does have practical applications and should not be any more illegal than alcohol which does impair a person to a much greater extent.

Cancer is something I must consider as a plague which may visit me (G-d forbid) due to genetics. If there is a cancer cure in Cannibinoids I sure would be happy. It is very interesting to learn that a possible Ebola cure may come from tobacco.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

You are not thinking clearly and are simply reacting based on bias.

It is obviously you that has the pro-weed bias because you keep making false and unsubstantiated claims and when you are called out on it, you ignore it.

I do not take the Norco because it is so addicting and as I posted above (and apparently you just skipped it) Norco quickly becomes tolerated and you need to take more to relieve the same amount of pain.

Whah?   

Quote, Muman: 

I am currently taking Norco (Hydrocodone) for my pain

Are all these inconsistent statements making you a bit dizzy because I think it's making me dizzy.

And you are making assumptions because nowhere did I say I am smoking weed for my pain.

As always, you are either obfuscating, or you completely misunderstood what I wrote.   Most likely it's the former because what I wrote was very clear.   

I did NOT say you were smoking weed for your pain.  I did not even imply that.    In fact, I said the exact opposite.

I posed the question:   Why Mr. "Weed is 100x better than pharmaceutical drugs" do you NOT smoke weed to make your pain go away?    If it's 100x better than medical drugs, then you wouldn't need to take drugs but could just sit there and smoke and the pain would be gone.

So here you mislead the forum promoting your herbs when you yourself don't even take them.   THAT was the comment I made.  I did not assume that you smoked weed for pain.   I asked why you do not, considering you are pimping the idea to the forum as if weed is a miracle drug.    It's blatant hypocrisy that you do not take the miracle drug yourself but rely on pharmaceuticals instead (which at this point it's unclear whether you take them or don't since your statements contradicted each other, as I quoted above).    I guess you 'took norco before you didn't take norco?'

I do know that it has the ability to relieve pain and this is why I hope that it remains legal. You also incorrectly assume that the only way of administering THC is through smoking, as there is also the category of edible medicines which is a better way to administer it.

But I do not need to prove anything to anyone. I have simply been speaking both from what I know, and what I have learned from the medical information.

Back to the baseless statements and promotion we go.
It's not medical information because there is none.  There have not been clinical trials.   There has only been basic research.  The same kind of basic research where you can cure diseases in mice or kill cancer cells in a petri dish but 80% of those miracle cures do not work in humans.     We could construct a graveyard full of failed drug compounds which looked promising in basic research and preclinical studies.    So what you cite about marijuana tells us nothing except that it needs to be studied more.

I can also post many more studies which indicate positive medicinal uses of MJ and THC... As I said before, this topic is really bound to go nowhere because of this bias.

But none of those studies will add anything of value here because of the same reason the first studies you posted didn't.  I already explained why, but you ignored my comments.   It's basic research.    It is not indicative of positive medicinal uses.  It is indicative of interesting research, that's it.     Go bring your weed to the FDA and bring one of these journal articles, they will slam the door on your face.   

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Let is move the topic to the question of what really motivates people to dismiss the positive uses of Cannibus?   

You could work as a PR rep.   Why should we change the subject?  Becuase you want your stated views to go unchallenged?  Several people already challenged them but rather than respond, you ignore them and then say, let's change the subject.   Telling.

It seems that 'getting high' has a negative connotation. But is 'getting drunk' any better, or is it just 'social drinking'? 

Two wrongs don't make a right.   Nice try.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

And for the record KWRBT.... Do you work in the pharma industry? You have been so defensive of this racket ever since I knew you.

You're saying pharma is a "racket"  ?

That is absurd.  They are the ones developing new medicines.   They are the medicines you would take if you had an illness God forbid.  They have saved and extended countless lives.     Don't start with this commie nonsense that you don't like how much profit they make.   I am opposed to all kinds of nonsense getting spread on this forum, and "pharma is a racket" is one type of nonsense which you often peddle here, which is why I react to it!

[muman613]

You're saying pharma is a "racket"  ?

That is absurd.  They are the ones developing new medicines.   They are the medicines you would take if you had an illness God forbid.  They have saved and extended countless lives.     Don't start with this commie nonsense that you don't like how much profit they make.   I am opposed to all kinds of nonsense getting spread on this forum, and "pharma is a racket" is one type of nonsense which you often peddle here, which is why I react to it!

You think I am making it up? I don't care how much they make, and I am no commie and think that drugs should be available on a free market (pay what it costs to develop the drug). But the racket is that the companies are aware that the drugs are addictive, and they are pushing the more addictive ones on the patients. I do not read about this. I have witnessed it myself.

Baruch Hashem my pain went away for almost 2 years and only recently started again. I used to go to the 'Pain Clinic' to get the drugs I needed to relieve the pain from my condition.... But as I said I became concerned with how many Norcos I was going through even though they increased my dosage. It is a drug which quickly becomes tolerated and more is needed.

So they are developing even more addictive medicines, like the oxycontins (which they offered to me also)....

As to their pain relieving effects. Initially when you start to take them they appear to work, but as I said they become tolerated quickly. I just started taking the Norcos on Tueday and initially only one lasted eight hours.... Now one lasts only four hours before the pain becomes distracting.

Maybe when they figure out how to make drugs which don't become tolerated as easily then I will be satisfied. But I really don't need to be addicted to hydrocodone.

[muman613]

And KWRBT, could you answer 'yes' or 'no' to my question about whether you are working in the field?

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

You can drink without getting drunk. You can't indulge in cannabis without becoming high.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

You think I am making it up? I don't care how much they make, and I am no commie and think that drugs should be available on a free market (pay what it costs to develop the drug). 

Food companies don't charge what it costs to develop the food.   They mark it up and make a profit.  That's what a business is.

Appliance stores don't charge what it costs to purchase the appliances from factories.  They mark it up and make a profit.  That's what business is.

Tech companies do not charge what it cost to make their gadgets.  Apple pays chinese slaves 1 dollar a day to fuel their iphone production and their phones cost hundreds of dollars.  Is that a racket too?    Should the phone cost exactly the cost to produce it?   Or can they mark it up a bit and make a profit?   How much profit is fair ?     They charge whatever the customer is willing to pay.  Drug companies charge whatever insurance is willing to pay.   The system of health insurance in this country means that you are not directly the consumer of the medicine.   So it depends on the payors.   There is some pushback from payors on high priced drugs and this will continue to develop in the coming years.     Whether certain medicines are overpriced or not has nothing to do with calling pharma a racket.

It costs over a billion dollars and over 10 years of research and development work to get a drug from start to finish line to be sold as a medicine after FDA approval, on average.   The vast majority of these compounds fail.   Only very few make it past phase 3 testing and get approval.    So there are billions "wasted" (no, it's not wasted, it's an investment) on all the failed drugs in addition to the ones that succeed.     With the profits these companies pour hundreds of millions (in some cases, for the larger companies, billions) into development of new and better drugs.   And they can never just "rest" because eventually the patents expire and the drugs you are selling now, you will not be making much money off them (if any) 10 years from now.  So they have to come up with new treatments or face death as a company.

But the racket is that the companies are aware that the drugs are addictive, and they are pushing the more addictive ones on the patients. I do not read about this. I have witnessed it myself. 

Patients need medicine for their pain.  They cannot bear it without some relief.   Doctors prescribe the existing medicines.  Some of those are addictive or could be come addictive.  Many companies are working on new types of treatments that hopefully won't have those issues.   But there is demand for the existing drugs because people need treatment.    You admit down below that you yourself took norco.  Because the pain can be unbearable for some people.     The companies that invented these drugs certainly wish there were no side effects but clinical testing in humans is what establishes risk profiles and quite often a drug may have benefits but very rarely are they completely clean and causing no side effects at all.  Believe me, these companies would make a whole lot more money if they could have come up with side effect-free and non-addictive pain meds.     They are trying.    And it will make more money than what you claim is "pushing" the approved drugs onto patients.    I think your claim is a conspiracy theory.     They are a business that makes money and they sell drugs and expect doctors to be responsible in distributing them to patients and explaining proper use and all the risks involved.   If the doctor doesn't, that is his fault, not pharma's.

Baruch Hashem my pain went away for almost 2 years and only recently started again. I used to go to the 'Pain Clinic' to get the drugs I needed to relieve the pain from my condition.... But as I said I became concerned with how many Norcos I was going through even though they increased my dosage. It is a drug which quickly becomes tolerated and more is needed.

So they are developing even more addictive medicines, like the oxycontins (which they offered to me also).... 

And they are developing multiple types of biologics which so far don't seem to be addictive at all.   Why do you think and insist that there is some conspiracy to make sure the medicines are addictive?  It's laughable really.   Don't you know that they will make more money if they can come up with non-addictive medicines?    That is a FACT.     
Companies are working on a few different pathways for pain relief including Nav1.7, anti-NGF (but the FDA has held that up for a long time now), etc.  Others which I can't think of right now.

Maybe when they figure out how to make drugs which don't become tolerated as easily then I will be satisfied. But I really don't need to be addicted to hydrocodone.

Drug development is not easy and obviously they are trying to do just that.    If you assume otherwise, I think that's an insane assumption.     If only they could snap their fingers and make a perfectly clean and super effective drug, they would.   So would any old shmo in his basement.  But it doesn't work like that.

[muman613]

KWRBT,

You completely trust all business? Do you think companies sometimes don't act in the best interest of the customer in order to increase their profits. This happens in both the food, drug, and tobacco industries. Food companies have known about certain unhealthy ingredients and have paid to have information covered up (look into the story about sugar). Cigarette companies knew from early on that their product was dangerous to health and yet they were able to advertise on TV until the 80s...

I believe in the free market (and when I said that they should charge what it cost to develop, I actually meant that they should be able to recoup their investments in the development) but I also believe that some regulation is necessary in order to prevent chaos. Greed does play a part in a lot of bad deals in business. Putting your trust in corporations does not lead to paradise.

[muman613]

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/06/sugar-industry-tactics-to-make-your-food-unhealthy

How the Sweetener Industry Sugar-Coats Science


Food companies have spent billions of dollars to cover up the link between sugar consumption and health problems. That's the conclusion of a new report from the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).



The industry's tactics—similar to those used by Big Tobacco in downplaying the adverse health effects of smoking—were explored by Gary Taubes and Cristin Kearns Couzens in the 2012 Mother Jones investigation "Big Sugar's Sweet Little Lies." But this latest report draws on some newly released documents submitted as evidence in a recent federal court case involving the two biggest players in the sweetener industry: the Sugar Association and the Corn Refiners Association (the trade group for manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup).

The report details companies' plans to bury data and to convince consumers that sugar is "fine in moderation." It also shows how trade groups hired independent scientists to cast doubt on studies that show the adverse affects of sugar consumption—and strategized to intimidate scientists and organizations who didn't tow the industry line.

.
.
.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

KWRBT,

You completely trust all business?

Nope.  You put words in my mouth.   

What I do not do is to equate business with a racket because they make money off their products.    If someone is dumb enough to buy (or they just like the stuff and want to buy it) so be it.

Every industry tries to maximize its profits.   That is true in food, drug, tobacco, tech, transportation, EVERYTHING.    That doesn't mean it's a racket.

I believe in the free market (and when I said that they should charge what it cost to develop, I actually meant that they should be able to recoup their investments in the development) 

What about all the failed investments in the drugs that didn't pan out but failed, and what about the future investments in the drugs they are currently developing, many of which will also fail?

No company can stay in business without being profitable.  And then who will develop the newer and better drugs when they are gone because we had to limit their profitability for the sake of self-righteousness and picking and choosing which industry is "good" and which is "bad" ?

Drug development is very risky business with huge money on the line that gets poured down the R&D tunnel, much of it never to be seen again.     The less you "allow" a company to make profits, the less it will have available to invest in future drugs.  That's the basic reality of the situation. 

but I also believe that some regulation is necessary in order to prevent chaos. Greed does play a part in a lot of bad deals in business. Putting your trust in corporations does not lead to paradise.

This is just stupid stuff which has nothing to do with what I wrote.    Invention of new medicines is not a "racket" or some convoluted conspiracy to destroy people's lives.   That does not mean I'm "Putting my trust in corporations"   (Putting my trust in them to do what exactly?   You mean putting my trust that their my savior ?  lol I don't get you).     And it doesn't mean I'm going to paradise by trusting a corporation - where do you come up with this stuff?

[muman613]

Trusting that they have the best intentions for the consumer....

Doing so is nuts considering the examples of how consumers have been lied to about so many things. This is not an indictment in every business, but I can demonstrate how virtually every field has suffered from corruption and misguiding the public. You must admit that this is the case or I will bring examples of the events in our lifetime where companies have violated the trust of the people.

I have worked for many corporations and believe that they are good for our economy. But up till now I have mainly worked for small publicly owned corporations which do not engage in any corruption or misusing of the public trust. I am considering advancing my application to Google (with which I have already held one phone interview) but I do have ethical concerns about this...

Currently I do not have trust in pharma corporations. I am going to conclude that since you did not answer my question directly that the answer is yes. While I certainly appreciate the availability of the hydrocodone drugs I do not appreciate the addictive quality it has. I will give you the benefit of the doubt (which I hope you are capable of giving me) and trust that they don't have the ability to create non-addictive drugs which don't become tolerated as quickly. But it seems to me that the drug companies are putting a lot into advertising these drugs (you should see the drug adverts at the pain clinic) which most who suffer cronic pain become addicted to.

PS: KWRBT, why do you constantly say I am 'putting words in your mouth' when I simply ask a question. Do you see the question mark at the end of the sentence? When it appears in the sentence it is not a 'statement of fact' but rather a query for information. (I admit the sentence structure is not technically a question, it should be 'Do you completely trust...')


This article examines the corruption in the Pharmaceutical industry:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/11/30/pharmaceutical-industry-institutional-corruption.aspx

[muman613]

I realize we have gone a bit OT (off-topic) but this video discusses some of what that link I posted above examines.

[Israel Chai]

I wanna defend Muman so bad after that last post but I'll say that 50 years ago, a town of a few thousand people had a nice pharmacist who was forced to sell inferior flea treatment that required far more uses and cost by the pharmaceutical company which supplied most of her drugs, on the threat that her supply would be severed. She gave the good one out to the poor for free and till this day, heroically refuses to take the blood money the Nazis offer, as much as she could use it. You just try to tell me they got less sleazy since then.

Never take any pill of any kind, unless it happens to be good quality vitamins or salmon oil, or you need it to function. I still have their bottles of pain pills and laxatives they gave me after the surgery. It's no wonder America became the way it did, and the wide and unprecedented use of experimental and "established" pharmaceuticals can be easily proven to have played a major role, from the ritalin in the schoolyards to the noticeable percentage of pharmaceuticals in the New York public water supply.

Lol KWRBT, please tell me about how Pfizer cares about the health of their clients and ensures they drug them with only the best affordable options.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I wanna defend Muman so bad after that last post but I'll say that 50 years ago, a town of a few thousand people had a nice pharmacist who was forced to sell inferior flea treatment that required far more uses and cost by the pharmaceutical company which supplied most of her drugs, on the threat that her supply would be severed. She gave the good one out to the poor for free and till this day, heroically refuses to take the blood money the Nazis offer, as much as she could use it. You just try to tell me they got less sleazy since then.

It's amazing that you think there are no laws and you imagine these companies operate as a mafia and can just do whatever they want.  That is not so.  They are under strict regulation which is stronger than most other industries you can think of.     
There is far more regulation than 50 years ago.  The feds monitor all these situations and people go to jail if they misbehave.

Sales reps have gotten themselves in trouble with unethical practices, and then the govt fines the company billions of dollars.   That's true in some companies, and has caused an image problem for these companies.  Even if an individual's personal greed motivated their behavior and it was not really encouraged or allowed by the company at all, and probably ticked off all the researchers and other peopl in the company who are ethical.    But they are accountable to the law, they do get punished, and they are not just a collection of evil people trying to poison humanity.  You refer to them as nazis, that's pretty childish.

Lol KWRBT, please tell me about how Pfizer cares about the health of their clients and ensures they drug them with only the best affordable options.

A patient is the client of a doctor, not a pharmaceutical company.  The doctor prescribes the medicine.  He can prescribe any treatment he wants.   If the doctor is ethical, he prescribes what he thinks will work best for that patient.   It's amazing how many places you imagine Pharma has its imaginary tentacles doing magical acts of mind control and controlling the world when they are not even involved.    Pfizer tries to sell its own medicines, not the medicines of another company.  They try to convince doctors their medicine is better, using whatever trial data they have to suggest that (and if it's not in the trial data, they cannot legally make the claim).  Do you think pfizer would recommend merck's statin for a heart patient when pfizer markets its own statin?  Only the best affordable options?  Does Pepsi encourage people to drink Coke?
There is no choice for pfizer or any company except to sell the medicines their researchers have invented and were approved.  It costs whatever it costs.    The doctor and patient consider the options available to them, including the cost involved, and try to choose the best one.   Take responsibility.  There is no giant conspiracy of pharma companies to kill you.

[nessuno]

Like every morning...this morning six geniuses were standing in the rain a block from the high school smoking.  Such brilliant and creative children.

  Not.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I thought this topic bored a certain person--obviously, it doesn't. 

[Israel Chai]

You refer to them as nazis, that's pretty childish.

You aren't worth me condescending my intellect by talking to you.

[angryChineseKahanist]

Mariguana should probably be legal. Their isn't a point in incarcerating many people because of this and wasting all of that $ on the legal system with courts and jails.
 Medical mariguana should definitely be legal. Their are many people in need of it. Its a lot safer and affective then many of the legal drugs that are out their with a lot less side affects. No one can die from it whereas many people die from the legal prescription drugs that are in the market and that are prescribed.

China has a great solution for that. It doesn't cost them a thing to get rid of drug dealers and drug users such as people who use poison like marijuana.
And the solution is permanent.
They make a lot of money selling their organs.

[muman613]

China has a great solution for that. It doesn't cost them a thing to get rid of drug dealers and drug users such as people who use poison like marijuana.
And the solution is permanent.
They make a lot of money selling their organs.

Your nuts...

[Israel Chai]

China has a great solution for that. It doesn't cost them a thing to get rid of drug dealers and drug users such as people who use poison like marijuana.
And the solution is permanent.
They make a lot of money selling their organs.

Half of Canada would be dead. No wonder they keep fleeing here from China. Also, I'd live in Canada over China, along with all normal people.

[Israel Chai]

Lol based on the responses, the forum would have me and Muman in rape-me-in-the-ass jail or dead for smoking weed. Better not try to win too many youth votes.

[muman613]

I have been, and continue to be, a contributing & tax-paying citizen of this great country. I have worked my entire adult life, from a low-paying engineer to a senior software engineer working at a major Silicon Valley corporation developing leading edge products for digital video applications. I have worked for video game mfg and defense companies in the past. I have a great reputation and am sought by several corporations for my 30 years of skill. I really don't care what people think about my position concerning medical MJ. So far it has not been a detriment to my parnassa (livelihood)...

[Israel Chai]

I have been, and continue to be, a contributing & tax-paying citizen of this great country. I have worked my entire adult life, from a low-paying engineer to a senior software engineer working at a major Silicon Valley corporation developing leading edge products for digital video applications. I have worked for video game mfg and defense companies in the past. I have a great reputation and am sought by several corporations for my 30 years of skill. I really don't care what people think about my position concerning medical MJ. So far it has not been a detriment to my parnassa (livelihood)...

The main understanding of politics is that you must always care about others' positions, because they will try to make them law, and this is usually a detriment to a lot more than parnassa.

[nessuno]

Lol based on the responses, the forum would have me and Muman in rape-me-in-the-ass jail or dead for smoking weed. Better not try to win too many youth votes.

Young people read this forum.
Don't give them false information.
Marijuana should be put through rigorous testing for medicinal use.  Like other prescribed medications. 
I am not adverse to marijuana being prescribed for chronic pain in terminal patients
But...it is a drug.
Young people shouldn't be led to believe it is totally harmless to experiment with.