SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the enraging-drug-comapnies-everywhere dept.
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).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday July 07 2016, @08:04PM
The Feds still don't recognize any valid medical use of Marijuana, so other than reducing costs of prescription drugs, there's no universally legal way for a doctor to prescribe it according to Federal regs. This would remain true even if every state set up a medical marijuana system. The feds can pull prescription writing authority from doctors. (Although this would be horrendously stupid - which almost assures that would happen).
The smartest thing to do is for these states to just legalize it, tax it, and recover any enforcement costs that way. Washington and Oregon and Colorado have all gone this way and enforcement of sellers and growers licensing handed over to existing control mechanisms (usually liquor control authorities). So it cost essentially nothing for additional states to copy those structures/laws, The tax revenue alone is worth it.
To get around federal laws, those states insist on home grown sources. No interstate transportation. That essentially also keeps big pharma out of the business. I'm not sure that is essential. But Local sources would probably compete well with big national corporations in this industry. (Sorta like microbreweries generally do well).
Side note: There is evidence [independent.co.uk] that teens use less marijuana since legalization than before.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @08:39PM
I doubt it costs nothing. I know some guys that do security for Washington state, relating to these issues. There's costs involved. I've seen the contracts. (Contracts written by people with only the vaguest idea what they were talking about, but contracts nonetheless.)
They're probably piddling compared to the money the state makes, I just hate when people say it costs nothing, when it costs something.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:20PM
I just hate when people say it costs nothing, when it costs something.
Fair enough. I should have said the net costs are negative to a large degree.
That would be obscure but accurate.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Post-Nihilist on Thursday July 07 2016, @08:52PM
The Feds still don't recognize any valid medical use of Marijuana,
Why did The United States Of America As Represented By The Department Of Health And Human Services apply, and paid the renewal fee, for that patent : http://www.google.ca/patents/US6630507 [google.ca] then ? They seems to have a pretty good understanding of its usages:
The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia.
Be like us, be different, be a nihilist!!!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:36PM
I don't know, you tell me.
The NIH did the research, and the Patent is owned by the government, which essentially makes it fair use.
However they can continue to claim that there is no approved medical use of Marijuana.
This is so because the government also assumed the right to approve all treatments.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:33PM
The Feds still don't recognize any valid medical use of Marijuana,...
And, those very same regulations prevent researchers from studying it to determine if there are any valid medical uses for Marijuana,...
It's a perverse cycle but one that appears to be on it's way out.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:44PM
Exactly. It's pretty freaking clear that MJ is safe enough to at least conduct medical research with.
But, there's a lot of questions that can't be answered without the research being conducted. Should it be legalized, decriminalized, remain a controlled substance? What should the legal limit be for driving after smoking. Are all delivery methods OK, or should it just be edibles or vapes. Not to mention questions related to what the legal age for possession and use would be if it does get decriminalized or legalized.
The bottom line is that there's a ton of information needed to properly craft MJ policy, and barring the researchers that would be looking into it from even studying it is ridiculous. Without doing the research there's no telling what the appropriate way of handling it is. And I despise the notion that we need to let a bunch of potheads call the shots because they refuse to obey the law and are ultimately subsidizing drug gangs in other countries engaging in massive amounts of murder and mayhem.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 08 2016, @01:21AM
And I despise the notion that we need to let a bunch of potheads call the shots because they refuse to obey the law and are ultimately subsidizing drug gangs in other countries engaging in massive amounts of murder and mayhem.
A lot prefer to buy American and/or just grow their own for this reason.
Also, think about reconsidering the stereotypes you may be operating off. A lot of people who use cannabis recreationally are responsible taxpayers and homeowners who work 9-5 jobs. Some have respectable mothers and fathers. They like to stay that way, so naturally, they stay in the closet. Obviously in states where it's illegal that's a big, practical reason to be in the closet, but shall we say that taking sodomy laws off the books (or simply not enforcing them) didn't cause homosexuals to come out en masse. The only ones you knew about were stereotypes. For both categories, every time I see somebody being a stereotype, I cringe and wish I could slap them across the face and tell them to get their act together.
As far as I'm concerned, the law itself is illegal. When we outlawed alcohol, we needed a Constitutional amendment to do it. Why is cannabis so different that the 9th+14th Amendments somehow don't apply to it?
The interstate commerce excuse is horse hockey. No interstate commerce exists between me and my garden, and I can think of plants that smell way worse than cannabis. (Personally, I sort of like the smell, but I understand from another discussion you're not a fan at all. Would love the interstate commerce clause to make certain perfumes illegal however!)
(Disclaimer: as somebody will point out if I don't add this disclaimer, one very much chooses to use cannabis flower.)
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 08 2016, @01:22AM
Some are respectable mothers and fathers.
Damn it, this is your comments on booze!
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:40AM
That's some nice spin you put on it. They aren't any different from any other scofflaws. They don't feel that the law applies to them and bitch about it when it gets enforced. And referring to them as responsible taxpayers and homeowners is just ridiculous. They might be otherwise responsible, but they choose to break the law and that's not terribly responsible.
The law isn't illegal, it's the law. It could potentially be unconstitutional, but to date there hasn't been any ruling calling it unconstitutional. We didn't need the 9th amendment to criminalize alcohol, they could just as easily have done so without going to the extent of amending the constitution. And using an amendment like that was completely wrong, it's only supposed to be used when dealing with long term issues where the courts might make the wrong decisions. And the fact that you don't have the any sense of the history there is pretty much par for the course for people that are looking to support decriminalization. If you can't bother to educate yourself about things like that, then why should anybody take you seriously?
As for sodomy, that's not even remotely similar to the situation with people who choose to use pot illegally. Criminalizing classes of people is completely different from criminalizing things that people choose to do.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:25AM
The law is frequently shown to be illegal when it contradicts the Highest Law of the Land, at least in an ideal world. Many people break the law. It may surprise you, but the Founders were criminal terrorists. Harriet Tubman, double naught spy, had a tendency to break the law. I'm fairly certain that MLK also broke the law. Those folks at Stonewall broke the law. Early feminists (“Amazons” according to the press of the day) had a habit of breaking the law.
It would be nice if we lived in a world where we could all sit down and have a rational discussion about theoreticals such that nobody would need to break the law. Somebody would notice an injustice and go “hold on a moment here” and call a town hall. Then they could talk about it and vote, “Well, that's not right at all. Let's change the law.”
I'm not sure who actually does that, but it's certainly not humans. They probably do it that way out Libertopia way. Unfortunately, I don't know the way to Shell Beach, if you get my drift.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:36PM
Now that it has been shown that legalized Cannabis actually hurts the profit margins of the large pharmaceutical companies they will now start to actively oppose legalization.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 08 2016, @01:44AM
I've been thinking the same way. However, the upshot is that investors are smelling nice, green $$$. It's a bit of a double edged sword, but those green $$$s speak loudly. The NORML blag wrote about it a few times. Here's the most recent time it came up [norml.org].
The True Believers and the Investors
The industry appears to be comprised of two distinct groups of people: those who were active in the marijuana legalization movement for years, and understand the enormous damage done by prohibition; and who have migrated to the business side of the issue. And those who have no background or interest in legalization movement, but who have resources and see the new market simply as an opportunity to get rich. Obviously, it is the latter group that worries many of us, because of their sole focus on profits, and their lack of understanding of the long struggle that led to this point, and the millions of Americans who paid dearly for the right to grow or sell or smoke marijuana.
That doesn't really capture the sentiment, but there are echoes of it in the comments section. TheOracle criticizes Pennsylvania's medical law:
Yeah, about that excerpt, in Pennsylvania for a grower/processor the non refundable permit fee is $10,000, the permit fee is $200,000 and you have to have $2 million in cash reserves. Focus on grower/processor. Senator Folmer was on PCN and pharma companies that make the tinctures and the cannabis vaporizer cartridges are the only ones who are allowed to be growing legal cannabis it looks like. What the fuck! And it’s going to take how long to get the program running?
I think the recent hysteria over opioids is interesting. It's clear that somebody among TPTB realized that it's time to switch the vast majority of opioid cases over to cannabis. I'll be curious to see how much of the anti-cannabis fearmongering we'll probably see in the next however many years it takes for growing and consuming cannabis to become a constitutional right again actually is funded by big pharma.
It may be a lot less than either of us had thought at first. Lock-in to a limited number of growers seems to be what TPTB are going for.
From the rumblings I've heard, it seems that the alcohol and nicotine lobbies are more worried about cannabis than big pharma. However, big pharma has plenty to worry about once it no longer becomes viable to push their SSRI junk. I think it was on the old site that there was a very interesting comment outlining the efforts of big pharma to establish the disease model for depression in order to push SSRIs (which are highly addictive with physical withdrawal symptoms), but it'd probably take all night for me to find it.