Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday July 17 2016, @02:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the pot-kettle-black dept.

Christopher Ingraham writes in The Washington Post that a new study shows that painkiller abuse and overdose are significantly lower in states with medical marijuana laws and that when medical marijuana is available, pain patients are increasingly choosing pot over powerful and deadly prescription narcotics. The researchers found that, in the 17 states with a medical-marijuana law in place by 2013, prescriptions for painkillers and other classes of drugs fell sharply compared with states that did not have a medical-marijuana law.

The drops were quite significant: In medical-marijuana states, the average doctor prescribed 265 fewer doses of antidepressants each year, 486 fewer doses of seizure medication, 541 fewer anti-nausea doses and 562 fewer doses of anti-anxiety medication. But most strikingly, the typical physician in a medical-marijuana state prescribed 1,826 fewer doses of painkillers in a given year. As a sanity check, the Bradfords ran a similar analysis on drug categories that pot typically is not recommended for — blood thinners, anti-viral drugs and antibiotics. And on those drugs, they found no changes in prescribing patterns after the passage of marijuana laws.

The tanking numbers for painkiller prescriptions in medical marijuana states are likely to cause some concern among pharmaceutical companies. These painkiller drug companies have long been at the forefront of opposition to marijuana reform, funding research by anti-pot academics and funneling dollars to groups, such as the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, that oppose marijuana legalization.

Cost-savings alone are not a sufficient justification for implementing a medical-marijuana program. The bottom line is better health, and the Bradfords' research shows promising evidence that medical-marijuana users are finding plant-based relief for conditions that otherwise would have required a pill to treat. "Our findings and existing clinical literature imply that patients respond to medical marijuana legislation as if there are clinical benefits to the drug, which adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that the Schedule 1 status of marijuana is outdated."

Related:
Study Finds That Legalized Medical Cannabis Led to a Decline in Medicare Prescriptions


Original Submission

Related Stories

Study Finds That Legalized Medical Cannabis Led to a Decline in Medicare Prescriptions 42 comments

Researchers have found that states with legalized medical cannabis saw declines in Medicare prescriptions for drugs such as opioids and antidepressants:

Research published [DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1661] Wednesday found that states that legalized medical marijuana — which is sometimes recommended for symptoms like chronic pain, anxiety or depression — saw declines in the number of Medicare prescriptions for drugs used to treat those conditions and a dip in spending by Medicare Part D, which covers the cost on prescription medications.

Because the prescriptions for drugs like opioid painkillers and antidepressants — and associated Medicare spending on those drugs — fell in states where marijuana could feasibly be used as a replacement, the researchers said it appears likely legalization led to a drop in prescriptions. That point, they said, is strengthened because prescriptions didn't drop for medicines such as blood-thinners, for which marijuana isn't an alternative.

The study, which appears in Health Affairs, examined data from Medicare Part D from 2010 to 2013. It is the first study to examine whether legalization of marijuana changes doctors' clinical practice and whether it could curb public health costs.

The findings add context to the debate as more lawmakers express interest in medical marijuana. This year, Ohio and Pennsylvania passed laws allowing the drug for therapeutic purposes, making it legal in 25 states, plus Washington, D.C. The approach could also come to a vote in Florida and Missouri this November. A federal agency is considering reclassifying medical marijuana under national drug policy to make it more readily available.

Medical marijuana saved Medicare about $165 million in 2013, the researchers concluded. They estimated that, if medical marijuana were available nationwide, Medicare Part D spending would have declined in the same year by about $470 million. That's about half a percent of the program's total expenditures.

Less prescription opioids? It seems a few pharmaceutical companies have a reason to fear legal cannabis (as long as they aren't in the business of selling it).


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by ledow on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:25PM

    by ledow (5567) on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:25PM (#375724) Homepage

    Presumably, there's nothing stopping them getting a licence and selling medical marijuana, and so making up some of the lost profit, no?

    Or - even better - finding the active calming ingredients, producing them in pill form, and selling them?

    The pharmaceutical industry is like any other driven by money. Try to make an electric car and every car manufacturer will tell your customers how they suck, try to stop you, patent before you can, etc. and then release their own version.

    The question is - if the marijuana is doing this, and it's saving money, why isn't everyone legalising it? It's not going to be JUST about the money, whatever anyone thinks - industry resistance is natural, but maybe there are other reasons or that the differences are tiny overall? I have never, and probably would never, touch it because I don't ingest or inhale anything unless I absolutely have to (don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs - yes, even down to paracetamol). But it seems to be better than tanking up a populous on the things it supposedly saves here.

    But, to be well-researched, we'd have to see if, say, IQ rates have dropped in the same time, or accident/emergency admissions increased, or dementia cases occurring more - anything else that could be affected.

    The only personal references I have for people who use marijuana (and they are few because I just don't associate with people who do) gives me the impression that the word "dope" is quite adequate. A dulling of the intellect. Maybe that causes them to smoke it (it's personal-use-only here, so you have to have a career that doesn't mind you doing it, and not ever get close to distribution of it), or maybe them smoking it causes that.

    And, unfortunately, that's a long-term effect that'll be fifty years down the road when people have legalised it and used it further to excess than currently because it's commercially available and legal.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:42PM (#375727)

      They aren't going to have the same profit margin with weed as they do with other meds. One popular pain med costs $23 each for a 75 microgram dose. You can buy a helluva lot of quality weed cheaper than that.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:51PM (#375734)

      The question is - if the marijuana is doing this, and it's saving money, why isn't everyone legalising it?

      Generations of inertia don't get reversed in just a matter of years.

      The only personal references I have for people who use marijuana (and they are few because I just don't associate with people who do)

      Or you just think they are few because they haven't trusted you enough to tell you what they do when they aren't around you.

      • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:15PM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:15PM (#375803) Journal

        As far as business contacts are concerned, on the rare occasion it comes up, my personal beliefs about cannabis are that it's a gateway drug, it ruins marriages, it causes mental illness and rots the brain (“yeah, they did a study with lab rats once, caused the rat's brain to shrink”), and it makes people too lazy to want to get a job. Oh, and people who want it legalized just want to spew that disgusting smelling smoke in public. Anybody who wants it can already get it.

        (Note: every belief I just wrote is pretty much completely false and either based on flat out magickal thinking or else cargo cult science.)

        Then I come home and give money to NORML; then I go to the polls and vote against prohibitionists.

        Got one mind for white folks to see
        Got 'nother for who I know is me
        He don't know
        He don't know my mind

        One thing for people nodding in agreement with GP to think about: I have things to lose if I show up to work stinking like a plant in bloom, and I've also grown tired of people who become enraged when presented with facts in meatspace. The people GP believes are representative of cannabis consumers don't have anything to lose.

        • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Monday July 18 2016, @07:27AM

          by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Monday July 18 2016, @07:27AM (#376039) Journal

          I'm curious why you think it's necessary to lie to your coworkers that way. Supporting marijuana legalization isn't exactly an extreme view. Supporting legalizing all drugs is a little far out, but still not a position most people would consider unreasonable or reprehensible. If someone is just chatting with you by the water cooler and asks you if you think marijuana should be legalized, and you lie, he's as likely as not to disagree with you as agree.

          Moreover, since you're lying about your true beliefs by imperfectly mimicking what you consider illogical arguments from the other side, he is more likely to find your position irrational if he does disagree with you, since you'll likely be unable to reasonably defend what you consider to be an irrational position. Also, now you've lied to someone, and you have to keep up that lie, and, if you ever become friends with that person (which is now less likely because you've given a false impression of yourself, so he thinks he's more dissimilar to you than he is), you either have to keep up the lie, which will be stressful, or come clean, which will (accurately) make you come across a a phony.

          So what exactly do you think you have to gain here?

          P.S.: That's for a "socializing with coworkers" setting. If you're ever asked your position on marijuana legalization in an interview, it's an inappropriate question, and I think the right response would be to say that you don't think your political beliefs are relevant to the job. Of course, if they ask about whether you would be willing to periodic and/or random drug testing, just answer that question, not say what you personally think of the drugs in question.

          • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday July 18 2016, @07:41AM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday July 18 2016, @07:41AM (#376055) Journal

            If you're ever asked your position on marijuana legalization in an interview, it's an inappropriate question, and I think the right response would be to say that you don't think your political beliefs are relevant to the job.

            What if the job you apply for is pharma lobbyist? :-)

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday July 19 2016, @01:59AM

            by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday July 19 2016, @01:59AM (#376456) Journal

            I don't have anything to gain. Why would I want to be friends with a business contact?

            Like I wrote, it's a rare occasion. Usually I just play into the phobia about cannabis users without going full authoritarian. (You never go full authoritarian!) It helps social situations go smoothly. Agreeing with the speaker is a good way to gain points with her. I don't bother defending those positions because they're never challenged. When somebody throws out one of those positions, it's a litmus test, not an invitation to honest discussion.

            The business I work at is too small for most watercooler coversations. These are usually clients who have their heads so far up their asses it's unbelievable. I have nothing to gain either way, only things to lose.

            If I were asked in an interview, I would simply state the conclusions I've reached after studying the evidence and combining it with my libertarian biases: cannabis must be legalized as soon as possible. They can tell me to fuck off, and nobody loses since I'm not exactly vested at the interview stage. I never again want to work with such closed-minded morons as I currently do.

      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday July 18 2016, @05:50PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Monday July 18 2016, @05:50PM (#376266) Homepage Journal

        Generations of inertia don't get reversed in just a matter of years.

        Generations? My mother was alive when it was outlawed and we've been fighting to re-legalize it since the 1960s. It's all about the money; people don't want an alternative to the drugs they make, the wood they cut down for paper, and all the other useful things cannabis is better at.

        I miss hemp rope, nylon rope won't stay tied.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:52PM

      by looorg (578) on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:52PM (#375735)

      Presumably, there's nothing stopping them getting a licence and selling medical marijuana, and so making up some of the lost profit, no?

      Nobody is going to pay hundreds of bucks for one marijuana-pill (or whatever form it comes in) from (insert giant medical company name here) when they can buy bags of it for next to nothing. It's to cheap and to good to make the kind of profits they are used to making. They can't use that giant gem from the past either and tell us they need to charge that much due to the R&D and legal costs involved.

    • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:02PM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:02PM (#375737)

      what stops it is 2 main things:

      - age old stereotypes that just won't die out easily. look, you can't spend decades and billions of dollars in brainwashing and then do a 180 and admit you were wrong all along. never admit you were wrong! if you do, you open the door to question 'me' about other things and my command is no longer absolute. that's how they think.

      - inertia; its still illegal at the fed level and the for-profit prison and so-called justice INDUSTRY does not want to give up that sweet, sweet profit stream. until we wean those assholes off that revenue stream, they will continue to fight for their free dollars at the country's expense.

      fix those 2 things and we fix a multitude of direct and indirect problems.

      only thing I can see is that it takes time; and it is changing, but still will take more time before #1 and #2 can reform.

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:16PM

      by darkfeline (1030) on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:16PM (#375744) Homepage

      For more personal anecdotes, many of the people I know around Mountain View do marijuana, and if marijuana really did make you stupider, these guys must have been geniuses.

      --
      Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
      • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday July 18 2016, @02:43AM

        by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Monday July 18 2016, @02:43AM (#375917)

        I have seen one case where weed may have made somebody stupider. I suppose they could have been that way to start with, and just smoked to cope.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:18PM (#375745)

      My medical insurance company decided to play games and delay authorization to fill every prescription refill for painkillers (which would have resulted in extreme withdrawals and a possible trip to the emergency room), I used weed to get by until it was finally authorized and filled. There is no doubt in my mind that it works better than the crap you get from the pharmacy.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @05:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @05:31AM (#376009)

        My medical insurance company decided to play games...

        Exactly the reason I am not too keen on buying medical insurance.... If I just kept the damn premium money, I would at least have *something* to pay the doctor.

    • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:07PM

      by JNCF (4317) on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:07PM (#375756) Journal

      I have never, and probably would never, touch it because I don't ingest or inhale anything unless I absolutely have to (don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs - yes, even down to paracetamol).

      How about caffeine (it doesn't have to be from coffee, most teas count)? How about excess sugar, or artificial sweeteners? I'm not encouraging you to partake in mind altering activity that you'd rather stay away from, I just find it highly unlikely that a given person on the internet doesn't engage in some form of unnecessary mind altering consumption. The question is not whether a modern human is escaping the Darwinian default of sobriety, it is how.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:09PM

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:09PM (#375757) Journal

      Presumably, there's nothing stopping them getting a licence and selling medical marijuana, and so making up some of the lost profit, no?

      Yes there is somebody going to stop them.
      Interstate transport of a controlled substance is still something the DEA goes after.

      Most medical marijuana is grown in the states where it is sold. This is also how legal recreational states get around the DEA. They make sure there is no inter-state commerce nexus.

      Once the entire west coast has legalized recreational pot, (probably this upcoming election cycle), the DEA will pretty much give up, and concentrate their efforts on the borders. Also at that time the other states start falling like dominoes.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 1) by lonehighway on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:25PM

      by lonehighway (956) on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:25PM (#375784)

      You suffer from outdated stereotypes. People who use medical cannabis are for the most part NOT a bunch of stoners who sit around wasted all the time. You don't have to be anywhere near wasted to get the benefits from cannabis.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday July 17 2016, @09:10PM

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Sunday July 17 2016, @09:10PM (#375821) Journal

      Good thing it's legal in several states now. Data are beginning to tickle in and indicate that previous studies showing things like declining IQ among cannabis users was mostly cargo cult science. It's likely that near everything we know “scientifically” about the effects of cannabis flower on the whole person was cargo cult science that the DEA allowed to go ahead solely in the interests in their propaganda. Let that sink it. Most of what you know about cannabis flower is based on propaganda.

      The reason why everybody doesn't just legalize it is because of all that propaganda. This all pretty much got started with the temperance movement. When they couldn't keep alcohol illegal, the busybodies turned their attention to something else. Many people even still believe that $my_state is somehow just different, and legalizing it here will cause the zombie apocalypse and a crime wave like you'd never seen before.

      It's not a panacea, no. One person I know even has an allergy to the stuff—she breaks out in hives. However it has several properties that make it a very unattractive medicine for turning a profit.

      • It's not addictive. This is a big one. Pain pills and depression drugs are all highly addictive. I've gone cold turkey on two different SSRIs and holy shit. Quitting SSRIs is worse than quitting caffeine or nicotine. Quitting cannabis flower is about as difficult as quitting cheesecake.
      • It can't be patented. I'll expand on this below.
      • The patient can just simply grow it in a closet.
      • There are very few unpleasant side effects that need to be controlled with further medication. I almost wrote none, but I'm sure somebody can come up with something.
      • There is no long-term risk of injury to different organs in the body (i.e. liver damage). Remember, we're presuming that the goal is to haul in $$$, not cure the patient or effectively manage his symptoms in the healthiest way possible.
      • There's no profit at all for the rest of the medical industrial complex to go with it with full legalization.

      As long as cannabis flower remains illegal, other pills that have a combination of those properties that create profit synergies for both big pharma and their good friends in the rest of the medical world. I also wonder about various back room deals among TPTB since prohibition of anything is guaranteed to make certain players wealthy, particularly the for-profit prisons. As far as prohibitions go, it's mostly what the lizard people/MotU can get away with. Oranges would be illegal if the MotU could get away with it.

      Or - even better - finding the active calming ingredients, producing them in pill form, and selling them?

      The problem with a pill is that currently researchers have trouble getting permission from the DEA for further research as I understand it. There are cannabidiol (one of many cannabinoids found in cannabis flower) pills on the market that are effective for seizure patients and iirc is an effective anti-emetic. There is also a THC (one of many cannabinoids found in cannabis flower) pill, but I've read that patients report that this causes them nausea. There's much more to cannabis flower than just CBD and THC. I was looking over some labwork the other day, and they're finally starting to report CBN [wikipedia.org] (potential sleep aid), CBC [wikipedia.org], and CBG [wikipedia.org] as well.

      While it would be magickal thinking to believe that there never could be a pill that has all the right cannabinoids in the right combination to effectively treat diseases like PTSD, anxiety disorders, depression, and alcohol addiction, big pharma faces an uphill battle against the DEA to make that happen, and Mom Nature (and the cannabis breeders) already has/have quite the head start.

      As far as using it to excess, there is no danger of overdose on cannabis. Compare to alcohol, which is perfectly legal. If you're concerned about people doing it on the job, how many people do you know do alcohol on the job? What would happen to a peon worker caught drinking on the job?

      (There's a company somewhere I read about that lets their employees get high on the job and even encourages it. I can't possibly imagine how that would be a good idea. The code I write while high is complete crap. Fortunately, my full capabilities as an expert computer dork are fully restored the next morning.)

      Hope that helps.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday July 17 2016, @09:11PM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Sunday July 17 2016, @09:11PM (#375822) Journal

        Let that sink in.

        I swear the typos only appear when I use the submit button instead of the preview button!

      • (Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Monday July 18 2016, @04:02AM

        by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Monday July 18 2016, @04:02AM (#375965)

        > "There are very few unpleasant side effects that need to be controlled with further medication. I almost wrote none, but I'm sure somebody can come up with something.

        You mean the hit of meth you need to burn off the excess weight gained by the gunja "forcing" you to eat all that pizza?

        /joke :)

        --
        Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
    • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday July 18 2016, @01:39AM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Monday July 18 2016, @01:39AM (#375888) Journal

      I stopped reading after this:

      I have never, and probably would never, touch it because I don't ingest or inhale anything unless I absolutely have to (don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs - yes, even down to paracetamol). But it seems to be better than tanking up a populous on the things it supposedly saves here.

    • (Score: 2) by black6host on Monday July 18 2016, @03:32AM

      by black6host (3827) on Monday July 18 2016, @03:32AM (#375948) Journal

      >>don't smoke, don't drink

      What do you do? :) Sorry, little Adam Ant memory.

      To be on point to your post, I've always believed it's been about the money. Everyone has known (that stands to gain or lose money) that the big issue to legalization of weed is who benefits. Tax dollars? Maybe Big Tobacco could have a new crop? Loss of the enforcers of the war on drugs funding? Once it's all figured out legalization will happen. But, as with all things these day, or so it seems to me, not until the lobbyists have worked it out.

      Speaking of weed only and I think we can see where this is heading. At least from a taxation point of view. The states that have legalized weed are making out well and the feds are getting no revenue. Bet you a coke that's going to change.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 18 2016, @04:04PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday July 18 2016, @04:04PM (#376199)

      I do associate with some stoners, because I run into them in musical circles, and here's what I've seen about the effects:
      1. Those that were basically high-functioning individuals remained high-functioning individuals on pot. For example, one of my buddies is a perfectly normal middle management type at a bank, who goes home and smokes a bowl after work. He's a smart guy who does a lot of good for the community. That kind of person is not hard to find.
      2. It really does make a huge difference for people dealing with chronic pain. Among the stoners I knew was a cop who had been injured in the line of duty. He had been told he'd never walk again, but he did until the day he died, in part because he smoked dope to control the pain.
      3. Nobody has ever died of a pot overdose. Opiate painkillers, on the other hand, have caused deaths, and opiate painkillers are the most common "gateway drug" to heroin, which is also killing people.
      4. Nobody has ever become dangerously violent due to the effects of pot. Alcohol, on the other hand, regularly leads to that.

      The one major downside is that pot makes people whose life sucks (penniless hippies surviving on charity, people on the receiving end of intimate partner abuse, etc) feel better, which means they're less motivated to deal with the reasons their life sucks. This is indeed a problem, but nowhere close to the level of problem that the enforcement of current anti-pot laws cause.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @08:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @08:46PM (#376855)

        The whole "gateway drug" theory is complete bullshit. As if people aren't responsible for their own actions. Drugs like heroine mostly kill people because of the black market.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 25 2016, @04:35PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Monday July 25 2016, @04:35PM (#379891)

          The reason I bring up the painkiller->heroin "gateway" is that there is a strong connection between the two. It goes something like this:
          1. Person gets a disease of some kind that leads to serious pain.
          2. Doctor prescribes opiate pain meds to help control the pain.
          3. Person takes the pain meds as directed.
          4. Person gets physically addicted to the pain meds.
          5. Prescription runs out, and the doctor refuses to prescribe more. The person now is trying to satisfy his/her physical addiction.
          6. If they can, they will buy other peoples' pain meds on the black market.
          7. If they can't, they'll start looking for any chemically similar drug they can get their hands on. Heroin is both similar to opiate painkillers and easily found.
          8. Thus, the person has now gone from being a pain med junkie to a heroin junkie.

          This has happened to people I know. At least one of them is dead now because of it (I've lost track of the others, because heroin screws up peoples' lives in a big way).

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Monday July 18 2016, @05:45PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Monday July 18 2016, @05:45PM (#376262) Homepage Journal

      Presumably, there's nothing stopping them getting a licence and selling medical marijuana

      The money's not in the drugs, it's in the PATENTED drugs. Aspirin costs less than a penny per pill, and that's with profits going to the drugmaker, warehouses, shippers, and retail outlets.

      The question is - if the marijuana is doing this, and it's saving money, why isn't everyone legalising it?

      Because half the population has a two digit IQ. Have you not noticed how thickheaded most people are?

      But, to be well-researched, we'd have to see if, say, IQ rates have dropped in the same time, or accident/emergency admissions increased, or dementia cases occurring more - anything else that could be affected.

      A study was done several years ago looking at cancer rates among potsmokers, as opposed to cigarette smokers and nonsmokers. They expected pot to be more carcinogenic than tobacco and that those who smoked both pot and cigarettes would have sky-high cancer rates. Actually there were fewer cancers in the pot smokers than nonsmokers (a statistically insignificant number) and those who smoked both pot and cigarettes had half the cancers of those who only smoked tobacco.

      As to IQ, pot has no affect whatever. However, my daughter say I drink to bring my IQ down to normal.

      As to accidents, the rate has dropped in Colorado since legalization, as have DUIs, violent crime, and property crime. The Jury's in, and the verdict is "innocent of all charges". Meanwhile, Colorado's bringing in shiploads of extra tax. I and most of my friends have smoked pot since the '70s. All of us were gainfully employed, most of us are now retired.

      Meanwhile, a few guys I've known have died from cirrhosis caused by their alcoholism.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:48PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 17 2016, @04:48PM (#375730) Journal

    For about 80 years, we've been assured that legal weed would be the end of civilization. One of the first things that would happen, are the Negroes running amuk, and raping all the white women. Wanton rampages against authority. No one would work anymore. Hell, the sun might even extinguish itself.

    The wife went to the grocery store today, and the shelves were still stocked with good stuff, so I know the "legal cannabis" thing is just a fictional story. Some madman wrote a horror story.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:09PM (#375739)

      LSD next

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday July 18 2016, @02:58AM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Monday July 18 2016, @02:58AM (#375928) Journal

        LSD-25, derived from rye fungus, is helpful in the treatment of alcohol addiction and severe psychological disturbances. As an armchair witch doctor I also recommend for the patient either psilocybin mushroom or iboga root if LSD-25 is disagreeable. Only one of those approaches should be selected.

        It's important that the witch doctor function as a “babysitter” while the patient experiences life-changing effects.

        Personally, I aborted a plan to commit suicide thanks to HU-210 (an analogue to various cannabinoids) and Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by deadstick on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:14PM

      by deadstick (5110) on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:14PM (#375758)

      Some madman wrote a horror story.

      Not a madman, exactly. A Prohibition official who needed a new profit center after Repeal: Harry Anslinger.

      • (Score: 2) by https on Sunday July 17 2016, @10:30PM

        by https (5248) on Sunday July 17 2016, @10:30PM (#375841) Journal

        don't forget dupont, who needed a market for nylon. hemp ropes were the norm on ships at one point, because they were stronger and lasted longer.

        --
        Offended and laughing about it.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @09:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @09:50PM (#375832)

      Standard Internet "bogus straw man" argument.

      1. You insisted that the world would end if we did X.

      2. We did X.

      3. The world didn't end.

      4. Therefore, you were WRONG.

      Only, #1 never happened. Instead, what happened was

      1a. Some people said that doing X had plusses and minuses, but the minuses would outweigh the plusses.

      There's a big difference.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Monday July 18 2016, @12:50AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 18 2016, @12:50AM (#375876) Journal
        I bring your attention to Reefer Madness [wikipedia.org].
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @02:32AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @02:32AM (#375912)

          That was a joke, intentional or not.

        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday July 18 2016, @06:04PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Monday July 18 2016, @06:04PM (#376275) Homepage Journal

          Here's [youtube.com] the actual movie.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:12PM (#375741)

    ...users are finding plant-based relief for conditions that otherwise would have required a pill to treat.

    Sigh, there's that typical arrogance born from ignorance and a false sense of superiority. Drugs are drugs, whether they're in pill form, plant form, or liquid form. The insinuation here is that one would be better off taking opium or poppy seed tea over Vicodin or Oxycodone, or coca tea or khat or ephedra over Ritalin or Dexedrine, or datura over atropine/scopolamine/hyoscine/hyosciamine, et cetera. Being a plant does not make it inherently safe (Hemlock, Nightshade, and Wolvesbane, anyone?). The only thing plant-based drugs have over artificially-created ones is that they have a long history of use, so side effects and consequences of long-term use are typically known, but that doesn't make them superior, it just means we need to study the newer ones and their effects, and the only way to do that is to use them.

    • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:01PM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:01PM (#375755) Journal

      For a long time now in Western medicine anything that's natural or homeopathic is considered fraudulent, in large part thanks to questionable claims. Yet it turns out that even applying the vigorous standards of research to "off-limits" substances is finding they do have uses, but thinking like yours ensures our laws prevent much of that research.

      Don't forget the ancient Romans found a plant that acted as a morning-after pill and harvested it to extinction.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:36PM (#375812)

      You dumbfucks do realize that the synthesized stuff gets its ingredients from plants right? Where the hell do you think it all comes from.. Woodchips and plastic?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @10:58PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @10:58PM (#375846)

        You dumbfucks do realize that the synthesized stuff gets its ingredients from plants right?

        Which is yet another problem with the moronic "Its natural, maaaaaaaan, that means it can't be bad for you!" hippies, they're just as clueless as the morons who think that methamphetamine contains battery acid and gasoline and completely fail to understand even basic chemistry.

        • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Monday July 18 2016, @03:10AM

          by art guerrilla (3082) on Monday July 18 2016, @03:10AM (#375937)

          as you apparently fail to understand there is a difference betw distilling (or synthesizing) a CERTAIN PORTION of hundreds of chemicals inherent in mj to then administer ONLY THAT PORTION; AND, the 'natural' ingestion of the 'whole' flower which includes ALL the other compounds...
          because, we DON'T know what the fuck we are doing, and make some assumptions it is X or Y or Z in the mj cornucopia that is the effective ingredient in this or that usage; when it may be a subtle interaction and cocktail we have NO IDEA is going on...
          i don't give a shit WHAT bullshit 'studies' some Big Pharma lapdog has done: given a choice between a WHOLE/holistic application of mj versus some singular portion of its chemical soup, i will go with the WHOLE/holistic dosage every time...
          BESIDES the TOTALLY moralistic (and specious) 'argument' that by taking any/all 'high' effects out of mj derived meds, that somehow makes it acceptable...
          oh noes, dog forbid i should actually not only dose myself with some compound that helps my condition, but also actually ENJOY IT as a side effect ! ! !
          will great aunt ella get the vapors ? ? ?
          well, too fucking bad, not-so-great aunt ella...

          • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday July 18 2016, @08:04AM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday July 18 2016, @08:04AM (#376062) Journal

            So your argument is that it is better if we don't know what the medicine we take does?

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday July 18 2016, @02:25PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Monday July 18 2016, @02:25PM (#376161)

            because, we DON'T know what the fuck we are doing, and make some assumptions it is X or Y or Z in the mj cornucopia that is the effective ingredient in this or that usage; when it may be a subtle interaction and cocktail we have NO IDEA is going on...
            i don't give a shit WHAT bullshit 'studies' some Big Pharma lapdog has done: given a choice between a WHOLE/holistic application of mj versus some singular portion of its chemical soup, i will go with the WHOLE/holistic dosage every time...

            So what you really mean to say, is that we *do* know what's going on; you just reject the research. Alrighty then.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @09:25PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @09:25PM (#376868)

              The fact that there have been some studies doesn't necessarily mean we know what's going on. Those studies need to be replicated, and there needs to be massive scientific consensus before you can be justifiably confident.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 18 2016, @12:55AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 18 2016, @12:55AM (#375880) Journal
      I imagine the pharmaceutical industry would be concerned, if we were making our own pills too.
    • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Monday July 18 2016, @10:34AM

      by Rivenaleem (3400) on Monday July 18 2016, @10:34AM (#376097)

      The wording of the summary "painkiller abuse and overdose" and "choosing pot over powerful and deadly prescription narcotics" are highly biased in favor of MM. As I see it (disclaimer: I work for Big Pharma), availability of NEW product, encroaches on the market for EXISTING product.

      I'm very much in favor of a drug that one cannot possibly overdose on. But we should stop seeing this for what it is and just market shifting to a new product. I'll start worrying when MM can take the place of Insulin, Vaccines and Tetanus shots.

      I'm sure Big Pharma is quaking in their boots at the loss of sales of painkiler meds, thankfully we have smaller revenue streams [medscape.com] to tide us over during the droughts.

      MM doesn't even come close to the designer protein molecules we are producing for cancer patients. Everyone complains whenever we discover a new drug to help treat cancer, saying we deliberately hide the cure so we can make more money just treating it. MM does exactly the same thing, yet nobody seems bothered by it. MM is great for making really sick people feel better about their current situation. But don't worry guys, Big Pharma is actually busy working on the bigger picture.

      I may regret saying these words, but I'm mildly confident that when the cure for cancer is found, it won't be marijuana.

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday July 18 2016, @06:10PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Monday July 18 2016, @06:10PM (#376278) Homepage Journal

      The insinuation here is that one would be better off taking opium or poppy seed tea over Vicodin or Oxycodone,

      Actually, they would be. Opium is far less dangerous than those drugs simply because opoids are far stronger. Vicodin and Oxycodone are as dangerous as heroin, which is refined opium.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @06:19AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @06:19AM (#376530)

        Heroin isn't actually dangerous. What dangerous is the completely unregulated black market created by prohibition that has caused "heroin" to be anything and everything you can imagine but only occasionally containing diacetylmorphine but always in unknown amounts. The overwhelming majority of "heroin overdoses" are caused by either a. the drug you got is NOT heroin, but fentanyl or fentanyl+heroin (product received is not product marketed), b. you suddenly got a way, way stronger batch from your connect and did the same size shot you normally do of the normally-weak dope, resulting in your dose being several times what you normally do (product received is not product marketed / purity/potency will never be a known in unregulated markets), or c. mixing heroin and alcohol. Get rid of these causes, resulting entirely by prohibition rather than the drug itself (except for c which is caused by ignorance and recklessness, but still not anything inherently dangerous about heroin, mixing any two respiratory depressants is dangerous), and the only heroin overdose deaths are caused by the phenomenon of "situational tolerance", whereby one's tolerance is significantly lowered simply by being in a different environment, leading to one's actual normal dose to have far greater effects than usual.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @05:14PM (#375742)

    One limitation of the study is that it only looks at Medicare Part D spending, which applies only to seniors. Previous studies have shown that seniors are among the most reluctant medical-marijuana users, so the net effect of medical marijuana for all prescription patients may be even greater.

    I'm not in that demo, but as a stage IV cancer sufferer I have benefited enormously from medical marijuana, specifically in two ways:

    1) Treating the symptoms of chemo, etc. All the anti-nausea meds I was prescribed were synthetic products derived from marijuana. Vaping the bud works better, with less side effects.

    2) CURATIVE effect of cannabis concentrates on cancer. Visit phoenixtears.ca, learn about Rick Simpson Oil (~55-65% THC, ~3% CBD) and more potent cannabis extracts (~80-85% THC, ~3-5% CBD). I have inoperable colon cancer in my lungs, which chemo won't cure. My oncologist turned me on to Rick Simpsion Oil (a number of this doctor's patients have cured themselves on their own with RSO and more potent cannabis extracts. I'm not out of the woods yet, but with one great scan behind me I'm already halted the progress (the tumors should have grown 8x bigger over three months, and instead have either stayed the same or shrunk. I personally know other people who have gone into remission and stayed in remission using Rick Simpson Oil alone (rectal cancer in one case, throat cancer in another, and colon cancer in a third). It works about 70% of the time, and most of the failures are because people ramp up too fast, get too high, get scared, and stop.

    3) My oncologist revealed that they are NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS TREATMENTS THEY KNOW WORK. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SIGN IN EXCESS OF A DOZEN DOCUMENTS SAYING THEY WILL ONLY DISCUSS (1) chemo, (2) radiation, (3) surgery, or (4) FDA-approved studies, and NOTHING ELSE. My oncologist is disgusted and sick of being hamstrung by the hospital, big pharma, insurers, etc. and is telling people anyway, but that is the exception.

    4) My oncologist's patients who are using cannabis concentrates are in remission. A couple of patients who stopped cannabis to go onto an FDA-approved study are not doing well, though they had been before.

    5) go to phoenixtears.ca to learn more. Beware of scam artists. I know of people who have gotten Rick Simpson Oil through the medical marijuana programs in Colorado, Illinois, California, and Michigan and successfully treated their stage III and stage IV cancers. Generally they either bought bud through a legal dispensary and made their own oil, or purchased oil through care providers or legal dispensaries depending on the laws of the state they're in.

    It works, I've seen it with my own eyes, and much of the medical cancer industry is desperate to keep it out of patients' hands.

    • (Score: 2) by deadstick on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:20PM

      by deadstick (5110) on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:20PM (#375761)

      One limitation of the study is that it only looks at Medicare Part D spending, which applies only to seniors.

      On my 74th birthday I shared a toke with my granddaughter...;-)

    • (Score: 2) by KilroySmith on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:29PM

      by KilroySmith (2113) on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:29PM (#375767)

      And before Rick Simpson oil there were plenty of other "magic elixirs" for curing cancer. When my grandfather got cancer and medicine had nothing for him, DMSO was the magic cure at the time. He died anyway.

      You'd better believe that if I got a death sentence from my doctor, I'd want the right (without having to worry about spending my last few months in jail) to use whatever I wanted. I'd expect a patient-oriented healthcare system to monitor my health and what I was taking, and be able to provide me with useful information ("Well, last year a lot of terminal patients used Marijuana, and had slightly better life expectancies, and reported significantly better quality of life during their final months").

      What I don't want is an entire industry to spring up overnight filled with pitchmen and charlatans peddling snake-oil with no need to show any comparative results v. no therapy or standard therapy, selling their pills for $1000 apiece on a fading promise.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @11:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @11:00PM (#375847)

        You'd better believe that if I got a death sentence from my doctor, I'd want the right (without having to worry about spending my last few months in jail) to use whatever I wanted.

        I want the right to control my own consciousness as I see fit without the death sentence. Self-sovereignty for anyone but themselves is a foreign concept to authoritarians.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @07:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @07:16AM (#376031)

        The difference between RSO and DMSO is that one (RSO) has medical findings backing up that it has cancer fighting properties. DMSO on the other hand has medical findings that it is in fact a carcinogen and does the exact opposite of fighting cancer.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @09:35PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @09:35PM (#376878)

          Right. You may or may not have some cherry-picked studies at your disposal. If any studies were done and reached a different conclusions, they would probably be disregarded because they're "biased". Countless studies are unscientific nonsense, but don't let that stop you from instantly reaching a conclusion based on some studies that reach conclusions that you like.

          Next you'll be talking about the latest social 'science' studies. What a joke.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:30PM (#375785)

      I know of people who have gotten Rick Simpson Oil through the medical marijuana programs in Colorado, Illinois, California, and Michigan and successfully treated their stage III and stage IV cancers.

      I bet you don't know any who got RSO and failed to treat their cancers. Because they died.
      Its called survivorship bias. [wikipedia.org]

      Remember, the most important facts are rarely the obvious facts.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:45PM (#375796)

        I bet you don't know any who got RSO and failed to treat their cancers. Because they died.

        Actually I do. (He started it too late and died a couple of days later. You do have to stay alive long enough for it to work, and most people start RSO as a last ditch attempt after they've tried most other things. Despite that it has a surprisingly high rate of success.)

        I also know several people who haven't had their cancer go away, but have held it in check for far longer than anyone expected. It's not perfect, but it does work for many late-stage cancers. Whether the approximately 70% success rate skews a little higher as a result of survivor bias or not, the fact is that regardless, cannabis concentrates are working, word is getting out, myself and others are alive because of it, and no amount of obfuscation by the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA blocking double-blind studies (and then saying there's no "evidence" because they block the studies) is going to put that genie back into the bottle. You can dismiss it if you like, but I've watched a throat cancer the size of a baseball disappear from a man's neck, who refused all other treatment (surgery would have removed his tongue and part of his jaw, chemo would have been brutal, etc.). He went from 120 lbs at 6'4", on his deathbed and ready to die, to gaining 40 lbs, eating well, and living again. I've watched it work with my own eyes too many times, and so have too many others to bury this again. The anectdotal events I have witnessed are simply too dramatic and obvious to miss, and the mountain of growing evidence cannot be reasonably dismissed simply because it desn't map to your world view.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:44PM (#375816)

          I bet you don't know any who got RSO and failed to treat their cancers. Because they died.

          Actually I do. (He started it too late and died a couple of days later.

          And I do as well, but they started taking it too early. They didn't go to those quack "doctors" who think they know all about "evidence based medicine", and so they died because they had been taking RSO for too long. One person I knew was just thinking of trying RSO, and died before they could even finish the thought, and the cigarette they were smoking. But taken just at the right time, and in the right amounts, it is one hundred percent effective, when it works. Also cures Planter's warts, and the heartbreak of excema.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @07:22AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @07:22AM (#376035)

        So you're using "survivor bias" to discount published medical research that cannabinoids help to kill cancer/fight cancer symptoms?
        https://www.alchimiaweb.com/blogen/82-studies-efficiency-marijuana-against-cancer/ [alchimiaweb.com] (scroll down for links to published studies)

        Or are you just posting FUD because you're an asshole?

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:48PM (#375797)

      Beware of scam artists. I know of people who have gotten Rick Simpson Oil through the medical marijuana programs in Colorado, Illinois, California, and Michigan and successfully treated their stage III and stage IV cancers.

      Yeah, sure, right. How did you get colon cancer in your lungs? Head that far up your arse? I know people who have gotten Rick Simpson Oil and they are now all dead. They died screaming about the amount of money they paid on fraudulent therapies for terminal cancer. Seemed painful.

      Sorry to seem so callous, but have you tried homeopathy yet?

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @10:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @10:06PM (#375834)

        You stupid fuck, cancer spreads from one organ to another. That's what stage IV means, as two seconds on Google will tell you. The poster had cancer in their colon, that spread to his/her lungs. This would be colon cancer in their lungs, not lung cancer (with different characteristics) that hasn't yet metastasised.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @10:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @10:24PM (#375838)

          Wow! Nasty shit! And here I thought it had to be something anal, because of all the hype about Rick Santorum Oil.

          Just another thought: do you think that sales of pain-killers may have declined because all these miracle cure types got stoned and didn't go in for actually effective therapy, and so did not need pain-killers because they experienced the death of all pain?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @07:25AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @07:25AM (#376037)

            Yeah... So maybe since you do not even know what metastasis is... You shouldn't be commenting anymore?
            Seriously you dont even know basic facts about the disease but you think you know how the treatment should work? Grow a brain and get a clue.

            There is a good deal of published medical research papers about cannabinoids killing cancer cells... Here is a link with 82 published studies (linked further down the page).
            https://www.alchimiaweb.com/blogen/82-studies-efficiency-marijuana-against-cancer/ [alchimiaweb.com]

            Please don't get involved in discussions and try to insult people over a topic you obviously know next to nothing about.
            Jackass.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @08:58AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @08:58AM (#376075)

              Seriously you dont even know basic facts about the disease but you think you know how the treatment should work? Grow a brain and get a clue.

              Clue One: the idiot promoting Rick Santorum Oil is a fraud. All his evidence is anecdotal, based no on survivor bias, but on confirmation bias. Bullshit like this will get people dead who did not need to be. Do I need to go all Steve Jobs on your asses? Yes, I know the disease, I know its diagnosis and its prognosis. But what I cannot abide is these pathetic terminal patients looking for some magical phoenix tears to save their sorry asses from what is probably an end to an already overextended stay on Planet Earth. You do not hear poor people bitching like this. But now I am bombarded by all kind of ads for "Cancer Treatment Centers" where I can get second opinion. Funny how that second opinion is usually based on liquid assets!

              Now I think it is time for you to just go and die with some dignity. Take care of your children, if you have any. If not, arrange your affairs to repair as much of the damage you have done to the environment as possible. We wish you well, seriously. Do not embarrass us any further.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Monday July 18 2016, @02:47PM

      by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Monday July 18 2016, @02:47PM (#376167) Journal

      I have no personal experience either way, but this sounded suspicious, so I went Googling: http://skepdic.com/ricksimpson.html [skepdic.com]

      That said, if you really have cancer and are in remisson, I'm happy for you. Just don't quit taking chemo or whatever without your doctor's recommendation ... and, if your oncologist is as outside the norm in his beliefs on cancer medicine as it sounds, getting a second opinion, for good measure.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:23PM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:23PM (#375763) Journal

    The usual Republican suspects here in MA are dead-set against any Liberty that involves cannabis. They're wrongfully conflating cannabis with opioids in a foolish effort [metrowestdailynews.com] against a ballot initiative whilst noting cannabis is decriminalized. Apparently they'd rather have a black market operating than a legal one. Some groups even sued up to the state's supreme court because of the wording of the question and that somehow edible THC products are "oh so dangerous to teh childrenz." Then again even in our supposedly "progressive" state we passed a casino law that ensured only existing corporations and billionaires could bid.

    It seems like many pressure groups have something to "lose" when We The People have Liberty to do what we choose.

    Alcohol may not sell quite as much if people can smoke cannabis freely, especially once THC is off drug tests.
    Attorneys won't have as many defendants, nor prosecutors as many indictments.
    Businesses of all types will have to compete against an activity that cannot be done indoors.
    Cops and various other enforcers won't be able to claim they smelled something during a traffic stop and arrest people for having a seed under their floormat.
    Doctors won't be able to require endless revisits to treat every type of pain.
    Federal agents will have to find something else to investigate.

    “There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

    • (Score: 1) by fubari on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:17PM

      by fubari (4551) on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:17PM (#375783)

      For soylentils that don't recognize the quote by Ayn Rand: [goodreads.com]

      "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:31PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:31PM (#375786) Journal

        Just because it's from Ayn Rand doesn't make it wrong. A stopped clock is right at least once a day...if it tells you anything.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:32PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:32PM (#375810)

          And a quick glance as Tesla tells you that everything else Rand wrote was correct as well.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @11:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @11:11PM (#375851)

          Governments have many, many more powers than just cracking down on criminals, and its retardedly easy to govern innocent people, all it requires is their consent. The problem with this quote is that its built around a Faulty Generalization Fallacy based on the tautology that government is authoritarian because its government. Authoritarian governments certainly work the way she describes there (but even then they have lots more powers than merely creating new criminals), but not all governments are authoritarian nor is there anything inherently authoritarian about government.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @09:41PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @09:41PM (#376882)

            All governments that currently exist are authoritarian. Name a government and someone will be able to tell you some authoritarian things that it does. Many governments violate the privacy of its citizens - sometimes illegally, depending on what the laws in that country are. Many governments restrict freedom of speech. Many governments have little or no due process. Pretty much all governments restrict what recreational drugs you can put into your own body. All of those things are bad and make a government authoritarian to some degree.

            It's true that there's nothing inherently authoritarian about the concept of a government, but in practice, it's almost certain that a government will be authoritarian.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:32PM (#375809)

      I don't like it outdoors either.

      There is a reason why we require diesel particulate filters. There is a crazy reason (grilling!) why Houston air is horrible. I'm sure you've seen pictures of Beijing. The kids who suffered through the terrible London smog of 1952 were changed for life, with a 25% risk of asthma instead of the normal 5% risk.

      Let's solve this for pot before things get too badly out of control.

      We can start by making potheads buy pollution credits at auction from the local EPA office. Actual usage (in milligrams dry mass) must be recorded in a log which may be audited by the EPA. Potheads should file quarterly reports with the EPA.

      We should make potheads wear astronaut-style head gear to prevent the escape of any smoke. (pots on their heads) Each helmet would include a filter to remove the particulate matter. It's either replaceable, like a vacuum cleaner HEPA filter, or regeneratable, like a diesel particulate filter. There should also be a catalytic converter to deal with any noxious gasses.

  • (Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:43PM

    by digitalaudiorock (688) on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:43PM (#375773) Journal

    For me, this is the bigger question: WHY are opioids still even being prescribed at all??

    For decades they were only used for pain if you were terminal, and it was rightfully viewed that they were NOT a viable long term pain management solution, because they stop controlling pain, and turn you into a fucking addict.

    It's bad enough that view changed because a handful of drug cos lied to everyone...but WHY after this ugly experiment has proved this to be a catastrophic failure, will this practice not fucking die already? There's all sorts of talk about the opioid addition problem, even from the POTUS, but these mother fuckers are still getting rich making addicts. WTF?? And yea...big surprise they don't want any alternatives to be available.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Aiwendil on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:31PM

      by Aiwendil (531) on Sunday July 17 2016, @07:31PM (#375788) Journal

      They are still prescribed because if you know how to use them properly they are darn effectice (and often the only things without noticable sideeffects).

      The problem with opioids is that very few people are taught how to use them properly, and the dosage-information given rarely convey enough information - so the bigger question should be: WHY are we not teaching people how to use medicine? (and why don't we do regular follow-ups on meds we know people suck at using?)

      • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday July 17 2016, @11:22PM

        by GungnirSniper (1671) on Sunday July 17 2016, @11:22PM (#375855) Journal

        And specifically with Oxycontin, they ignored the 8-hour timeframe many trial patients were reporting so they could market their new and patented medicine to doctors as easier and more effective. Good old morphine would have been fine had it not been a generic.

        • (Score: 2) by SacredSalt on Monday July 18 2016, @01:17AM

          by SacredSalt (2772) on Monday July 18 2016, @01:17AM (#375885)

          Its funny that you mention that about Oxycontin, when Mscontin is also listed as a 12 hour drug (which is an 8 hour drug for any prescribing physician with any actual experience). Oxycontin is certainly still closer to a 12 hour drug, but there still are a substantial number for whom they do not get 12 hour relief. Duragesic is the one I have the most problem with those overly optimistic effectiveness claims -- 72 hour drug? I've met plenty of people who couldn't get more than 50 hours out of those patches even when they did work.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:22PM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:22PM (#375806) Journal

    I just love the medical expertise of SoylentNews in the Morning!!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @07:27AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @07:27AM (#376040)

      It's the best we can do!

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by SacredSalt on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:41PM

    by SacredSalt (2772) on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:41PM (#375814)

    Or less than 1 for a patient like myself (and I'm far more typical of the severe chronic pain patient). This is not a huge difference, and its certainly less than the difference that will come about from the CDC's prescribing guidelines for opioids. In addition to which, most pain patients are taking several other medicines in addition to their opioid pain killers. Plus marijuana seldom eliminates the need entirely for opioids, but merely reduces it for certain types of pain.

    That being said, I wish it were legalized for general use here. Marijuana is one of the single most effective treatments for PLMD that exists. Even at twice street prices here, its STILL half the cost of my two prescriptions for it, and its far more effective. Unfortunately, a single severe sarc flare that requires me to visit a hospital and results in a positive test, and I would likely lose my ability to get my pain medicine from my current physician. Good pain management doctors are hard to find, especially in the midwest. There are people with seizure disorders as well as pain who are in the same boat. Every medical marijuana law that has come up for vote here has not only failed, but been so poorly written that it wouldn't help patients like those seizure patients or PLMD patients -- two cases where it has been proven to work and does so more effectively than most of the prescription medications available. For PLMD the results are certainly faster. Relief in a few seconds versus possible relief in a few hours or a few more hours if the dose has to be doubled. Plus less likely to cause a host of other problems later.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @12:51AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @12:51AM (#375877)

    On one hand I deplore the use of opiods for anything, on the other hand I seen a fat guy interviewed on line at a medical dispensary claiming he needed it for back pain.... Have you tried losing weight? was my first thought. Stupid people who take opiods wills till be stupid if they take cannabis.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @07:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @07:29AM (#376043)

      But they wont be physically addicted to a drug that kills thousands of people every year... Not to mention their slow death by opiates wont be the source of profits for some assholes in Pharma.