Why I'm Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That's Not To Say The

Jimbo

New Member
Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:03:55 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

The US government’s longstanding denial of medical marijuana research and use is an irrational and morally bankrupt public policy. On this point, few Americans disagree. As for the question of “why” federal officials maintain this inflexible and inhumane policy, well that’s another story.

One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds’ seemingly inexplicable ban on medical pot — and the use of cannabis by adults in general — goes like this: Neither the US government nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow for the use of medical marijuana because they can’t patent it or profit from it. A related, yet equally common hypothesis argues: Big Pharma lobbies the federal government to keep pot illegal because it won’t be able to compete with patients growing their own medicine.

They’re appealing theories, yet I’ve found neither to be accurate nor persuasive. Here’s why;

First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for — and has already received — multiple patents for the medical properties of pot. (The US government has to, but that’s a different story all together.) These include patents for synthetic pot derivatives (such as the oral THC pill Marinol), cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to the brain’s endocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists such as. Rimonabant This trend was most recently summarized in the NIH paper, “The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of pharmacotherapy,” which concluded, “The growing interest in the underlying science has been matched by a growth in the number of cannabinoid drugs in pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004.”

In other words, at the same time the American Medical Association is proclaiming that pot has no established medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy to bring dozens of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.

Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills either. Most notably, GW Pharmaceutical’s oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a patented standardized dose of natural cannabis extracts. (The extracts, primarily THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CDB, are taken directly from marijuana plants grown at an undisclosed, company warehouse.)

Does Big Pharma’s sudden and growing interest in the research and development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is proactively supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know what’s good for them.

First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted approval from federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration — a process that remains as much based on politics as it is on scientific merit.

Chances are that a government that is unreasonably hostile toward the marijuana plant will also be unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.

A recent example of this may be found in the Medicine and Health Products Regulatory Agency’s recent denial of Sativex as a prescription drug in the United Kingdom. (Sativex’s parent company, GW Pharmaceuticals, is based in London.) In recent years, British politicians have taken an atypically hard-line against the recreational use of marijuana — culminating in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s declaration that today’s pot is now of “lethal quality.
(Shortly thereafter, Parliament elected to stiffen criminal penalties on the possession of the drug from a verbal warning to up to five years in jail.)

In such an environment is it any wonder that British regulators have steadfastly refused to legalize a pot-based medicine, even one with an impeccable safety record like Sativex? Conversely, Canadian health regulators — who take a much more liberal view toward the use of natural cannabis and oversee its distribution to authorized patients — recently approved
Sativex as a prescription drug.

Of course, gaining regulatory approval is only half the battle. The real hurdle for Big Pharma is finding customers for its product. Here again, a culture that is familiar with and educated to the use therapeutic cannabis is likely going to be far more open to the use of pot-based medicines than a population still stuck in the grip of “Reefer Madness.” (For example, Marinol, despite having been approved by the FDA in 1986, was rescheduled so that doctors might prescribe it more liberally in 1999 — three years after California and other states began approving medical marijuana use legislation. Coincidence? I doubt it.)

Will those patients who already have first-hand experience with the use of medical pot switch to a cannabis-based pharmaceutical if one becomes legally available? Maybe not, but these individuals comprise only a fraction of the US population. Certainly many others will — including many older patients who would never the desire to try or the access to obtain natural cannabis. Bottom line: regardless of whether pot is legal or not, cannabis-based pharmaceuticals will no doubt have a broad appeal.

That said, many argue that the legal availability of pot would encourage patients to use fewer pharmaceuticals overall and significantly undercut Big Pharma’s profits. To a minor degree this may be a possibility, though likely not to an extent that adversely impacts the industry’s bottom line.

Certainly most individuals in the Netherlands, Canada, and in California — three regions where medical pot is both legal and easily accessible on the open market — use prescription drugs, not cannabis, for their ailments. Further, despite the availability of numerous legal healing herbs and traditional medicines such as Echinacea, Witch Hazel, and Eastern hemlock most Americans continue to turn to pharmaceutical preparations as their remedies of choice.

Should the advent of legal, alternative pot-based medicines ever warrant or justify the criminalization of patients who find superior relief from natural cannabis? Certainly not. But, as the private sector continues to move forward with research into the safety and efficacy of marijuana-based pharmaceuticals, it will become harder and harder for the government and law enforcement to maintain their absurd and illogical policy of total pot prohibition.

Needless to say, were it not for advocates having worked for four decades to legalize medical cannabis, it’s unlikely that anyone — most especially the pharmaceutical industry — would be turning their attention toward the development and marketing of cannabis-based therapeutics. That said, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for any royalty checks.

So, if Big Pharma isn’t a significant player in the ongoing prohibition of the personal use of cannabis, then who is responsible? Based on my experience, the answer is obvious. First and most importantly, there’s federal government — as represented not only by the lawmakers who continue to vote in favor of America’s Draconian drug policies, but also the numerous acronymn ladened bureaucracies (such as the ONDCP, NIDA, etc.) who actively lobby against any change in direction.

The second most powerful player in maintaining pot prohibition? That’s easy: law enforcement, as represented by bigwigs like the US Drug Enforcement Administration and the California Narcotics Officers, all the way down the line to small-town police forces — all of whom consistently finance efforts to derail any relaxation of federal, state, or local marijuana policies.

The third and final primary player responsible for maintaining modern-day pot prohibition? Unfortunately, that would be us, the general public — a majority of whom have repeatedly voiced disapproval for legalizing the use personal use of pot by adults in both national polls and on statewide ballot initiatives, most recently in Colorado and in Nevada in 2006. (By contrast, more than half of Americans do support — and have consistently voted for — legislation in support of the qualified medical use of cannabis by authorized patients.)

In short, until there is a significant sea-change in the attitudes and actions of the Feds, cops, and the general public, expect prohibition — particularly the broader prohibition on the recreational use of cannabis — to continue.



NORML Blog Blog Archive Why I’m Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That’s Not To Say They Aren’t Looking To Cash In On Medical Marijuana)
 
Re: Why I'm Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That's Not To Say

I would personally like to add my suspicions on the real reasons behind this ridiculous prohibition:

I agree that there is a definite law-enforcement influence on the irrational prohibition - one only has to imagine a greedy cop who can confiscate houses, vehicles, cash, valuables, etc. - and then try to imagine him/her giving all this up just because it makes sense. Greed is a very powerful drug.
(There is, of course, L.E.A.P., but that is only a small percentage of those people.)
Since Pres. Reagan's escalation of the problem, the law enforcement community has been given more and more in the way of overbearing police power. They love the activity, the drama, the opportunities for "action" and bullying.
I believe they are drunk with power and filled with greed for more power and money and resources - which they are given, over and over, by our legislators who want to show people that they are "tough on crime".

Good grief. What a mess that is! There's more, but I won't go on about it.

But I also believe in another possible reason for this long-standing and irrational prohibition of cannabis: the fact that we're all here, in this place, talking seriously about legalizing cannabis.
Why should so many people do such a thing? It's not all greedy self-interest, like they experience in law-enforcement.

No, I believe that using cannabis liberates our minds in a very curious and interesting way. I believe that cannabis is a very potent weapon of defense where psychological warfare is involved.

Psychological warfare is a very real part of the political world, of the real world. PsychOps, as it is called in some circles, is not some mysterious, far-out paranoid fantasy. It is a very real and powerful political tool.
Propaganda and 'spin' are large parts of psychological warfare, but there are many other mind-twisting tricks in the professional's arsenal that rarely see the light of public scrutiny.

"Oh," you might say, "don't go off on some rant about government mind-control!"
OK. I won't rant too much. Don't worry.:smokin:

Consider a member of some strange, extreme religious cult:
How did this person ever get to be like this?
It's amazingly easy. For the sake of saving space, I will just skim over the basics.
One: find a person under stress. The more extreme and emotional, the better. Physical stress works, too. Spiritual stress as well. This makes the person vulnerable to 'brain-washing'. I know this sounds ridiculous. But I am absolutely not bull-sh**ing here.
If you'd like to check up on this, go ahead and get a good college-level psychology textbook. It's real. It happens.

Two: While your victim is vulnerable because of all this stress, fill their head with whatever line of crap you want. At least some of it will probably stick in their heads. The wilder the crap, the more times you need to 'rinse and repeat'.

Three: make sure that your mind-slaves know enough to hold fast to their new faith/ideas/orientations. So much so that they won't listen no matter what anyone says. Interestingly enough, this is an actual indicator of brain-washing. (Ever meet an extreme right-wing "believer"? They seemed mind-blocked against listening to anything you had to say, right? It's like that.)

Demagogues, hatemongers, and the like, rely on such methods to sway their listeners, etc.
People living in fear and terror, living under severe stress are easily swayed.

You can drive people like sheep to whatever crazy corner you want them in - just as long as you keep them riled up. That's all. Just "riled-up". Anger, fear, hate, etc. That is all it takes.

Remember 9/11? Remember how everybody was so freaked out afterwards?
I hope you can also remember how certain people and groups took advantage of that:
*for the first time in history (as far as I know) the survivors and relatives of the victims became millionaires because of the donations that poured in. Why? No one did that for other survivors of other disasters before or since!
*Bush gave his cronies everything on their wishlists that he could. Remember Ashcroft's wishlist that became the Patriot Act? Even the name is a propaganda tool. Bush grabbed at everything, with a little help from 9/11. And got away with it because so many people, for some reason, were in severe shock over 9/11. I wasn't. We've had bombings and such before.
*Everything became "Patriot" this and "War against terror" that. Bush had a blank check and used it again and again. Flags were everywhere. Where are all those flags now?
Face it. The whole USA was running around like a herd of terrified, mindless sheep. It was shameful. People were herded in directions they would never have gone otherwise.
Bush even took a moment to try to tie drugs with terrorists. Remember that?
Psychological warfare, people.

"Wait!" you might say, "Where are you going with this? Aren't you just rambling now?"

No. Well, maybe.:nomo:
My point, (and I do have one somewhere around here...ah, here it is!) is that I believe that cannabis has been found (secretly) to ....wait for it....reduce stress in such a way that a lot of mind-manipulation is difficult to accomplish.

Ah. If this were true, then what of it? So what if some PsychOps people from the War College get their knickers in a bunch over people using weed!

But it wouldn't be just them, you see.
Consider a hatemonger, whether he/she is a preacher, talk-show personality, political hack, or whatever.
They already know that if they don't get the people riled up about what they are saying, then they won't get any converts to their ridiculous point of view. People under stress are sometimes the only ones who do things.
If you control what they do, you have power of a sort.

Now consider the irrational, cult-ish stance of prohibitionists the world over.
Doesn't it seem like they might all have a real, reasonable, and yet well-hidden agenda for such a wild stance?
Some of them, I'm sure, are merely brain-washed against cannabis. But why would it be so wide-spread if there wasn't a reason? A reason that politically motivated people might glom onto with both hands?

We have dictators in many countries who hand out death penalties for possession. We have communists, socialists, military regimes, etc...ALL joining in cannabis prohibition.

Why? These different political systems mostly differ in their political stances, ...so what connects them in this strange, atypical way?

Greed for power, greed for wealth and money. What else do they have in common that might work here?

A need to keep people unhappy, oppressed, uneducated, - what have you.
Then you let up a little bit and the peasants love you. You control them. They have no choice. The more oppressed and stressed they are, the easier they are to control.
Especially if they are ignorant. Education of the masses only gives a limited advantage in the political arena. Dumb, ignorant peasants can be handled much easier.
But it's all about control.
And if the peasants are having fun, then they probably aren't working hard enough.
Putin (of Russia or whatever they're calling it these days) doesn't seem to have learned the lesson. Oppression is growing throughout the world.

Sure, as we all know, prohibition gives governments wealthy returns all out of proportion to the nominal value of the contraband. But, Op*um Wars aside, mere wealth doesn't explain, to my satisfaction (although I could be wrong), the incredibly long-lived and widespread insanity known as cannabis prohibition.

But, to be fair, I don't think it's all black-and-white, either.
It's just a mess, and I'm tired. I've been at this for a while, now.

At this point, I'm going to leave the rest of that point as an exercise for the reader. I hope I'm not too rambling and unprofessional so far.:smokin:

I had another possible reason for prohibition somewhere.....let me see.....
:smokin:

Ah.
Some of you might agree with me here:
There are people out there who absolutely hate to see other people taking it easy or being happy or enjoying themselves.
It's true, isn't it? I've done it myself a number of times. Sometimes I'm so miserable that I want others to be miserable too. Misery loves company.

Enjoy something? Sex? Drugs? Rock 'n roll? Something frowned upon by certain types of people? With certain opinions about things?
Don't worry. Whatever makes you happy will soon be illegal or frowned upon.
These people are under considerable stress, I guess. They have to take it out on someone. Why not you? You don't have a big enough church behind you, a big enough business, or a big enough circle of powerful friends who owe you favors. You are a (gasp) dirty ole hippie!
(gasp!) :Rasta:

They need people to oppress. There's a lot of bad karma out there. Life is stressful anyway. Hate your job? "You're supposed to hate your job. It's normal!" - misquote from Doonesbury.
There's a lot of people who, somehow, came to the conclusion, sometimes subconsciously, that if they put other people down it will lift them up.
The Man will keep you down sometimes, eh?
Who's ever been bullied by a cop? I have. Many, many times. And I'm not even black.

OK, now I'm ranting. Sorry.

There's a LOT of reasons why people out there support (so to speak) cannabis prohibition. Very, very few of them, or so I believe, have anything like a reason that makes any kind of sense, logically speaking.

And here WE are. We are not bereft of all reason in opposing prohibition. We are struggling and fighting for our rights. We fight together in the name of our common humanity and our common interests. Unlike an oppressive government, we are not forcing some hysterical views down the throats of defenseless people.
No. We are just people from all walks of life who happen to like cannabis, who see the truth about how weed can help people in an amazing number of ways.

(kind of sound like I was preaching there for a moment, eh?)
Well, I was.
:nomo:
 
Re: Why I'm Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That's Not To Say

WOW...I'm blown away...GREAT incite my friend, and a great read...just superb!!! :clap:

+420 reputation points for taking that much time to share your views with such validity! :smokin:

That's not ranting and raving my friend...thats laying down the facts!!!

I want to see what else you have in store for us, please feel free to weigh in on all the posts in this 420 action forum....you are a true cannabis warrior and will be a great asset to our community.

Welcome to 420Magazine RaggedEdge...you are most welcome here!!!

:passitleft:Jimbo
 
Re: Why I’m Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That’s Not To Say

I would personally like to add my suspicions on the real reasons behind this ridiculous prohibition
you stated mine pretty well also. great post.

:peace:

But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.- Hermann Goering

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.- Adolf Hitler

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies.- Adolf Hitler

What luck for the rulers that men do not think.- Adolf Hitler
 
Re: Why I'm Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That's Not To Say

Gawrsh! I didn't think anyone read these posts out here in the back forty!

I am amazingly gratified and humbled by your approbation.
If only I had been stoned when I wrote it........geez!
It really is dry here.

Thanks. I'll try to contribute more.
:nomo:
 
Re: Why I'm Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That's Not To Say

Gawrsh! I didn't think anyone read these posts out here in the back forty!

I am amazingly gratified and humbled by your approbation.
If only I had been stoned when I wrote it........geez!
It really is dry here.

Thanks. I'll try to contribute more.
:nomo:

This ain't the back 40..no, no...this is the front lines of canna reform.
This 420 Action forum, is where we should all gather to discuss what we need to do to free our beloved cannabis sativa as well as industrial hemp!

This is all part of the gathering to make our collective voices known and to brainstorm ways to get our ideas and knowledge out to the masses.

If we all sit back and do nothing, then nothing will ever change.

We the smokers of this country are the only ones that can truly re-educate people on just how unjust this war is on such a beneficial plant and a non-violent group of oppressed people.

Please feel free to cruse the rest of this forum and by all means, weigh in on as many of these topics as you like...I have a feeling, you have alot to add my friend :smokin:
 
Re: Why I'm Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That's Not To Say

Where have you guys been all my life?

I think you're right about Big Pharma. I agree that lobbying by big pharma is unlikely in any 'official' capacity, yet I won't dismiss that keeping cannabis illegal is important to lobbyists in general, for whatever reason, and thus a bias is generally present. Plus it's extremely important for golf partners to agree on issues.

For decades U.S. scientists, doctors and university research groups very much desired to do cannabinoid-related research, but it was severely restricted due to the Schedule I status — the archaic reasoning was that a Schedule I drug has no medicinal value, so why allow medical research? With Marinol (synthetic THC in sesame oil) being assigned to Schedule III, cannabinoid research mushroomed and it has been building sinse [sic]. New research and technology spurs new technology and research.

I think that we could assume that the majority of cannabinoid-based drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies from here on out will have no psychoactive effect, and they will be 'tuned' to specifically regulate only certain types of cannabinoid receptors. Whereas, raw cannabis is a qualitative shotgun blast in terms of stimulating multiple types of cannabinoid receptors. The weight-loss market for cannabinoid-based drugs is real and polypharmaceutical (raw) cannabis won't be a competitor; many drugs will be antagonists as you mentioned, they block the receptors.

But I also agree that pharmaceutical use in areas with well-supported medical cannabis programs is likely lower than in non-cannabis populations. Cannabis is a minor competitor against drugs like ibuprofen, aspirin, most opiates, blood pressure meds. Legalization movements are more likely to threaten top money makers than the legal-pharma-cannabinoid market alone.
 
Re: Why I'm Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That's Not To Say

How much money does the sheriffs department make catching a pedophile, a car thief, a murderer, a rapist? Uh, none.

How can they fund the criminal justice system and police departments with ever shrinking budgets in local and state budgets?

Confiscate illegal drug profits, homes, autos, lights, computers....


The answer is simple. It's a combination of many factors that allow this continued ignorance to continue. From the Paper mills, to the Big Drug companies, hell even to corn ethanol production now...
 
Re: Why I'm Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That's Not To Say

How much money does the sheriffs department make catching a pedophile, a car thief, a murderer, a rapist? Uh, none.

How can they fund the criminal justice system and police departments with ever shrinking budgets in local and state budgets?

Confiscate illegal drug profits, homes, autos, lights, computers....


The answer is simple. It's a combination of many factors that allow this continued ignorance to continue. From the Paper mills, to the Big Drug companies, hell even to corn ethanol production now...

My dad said the same thing to me just the other day...There is no money to be made from the real crimes, but huge amounts to made from the drug war...which one do you think they are focusing on more? Why do you think they are so against what we stand for? Money is the root of all evil...and that's a fact!!! If someone can figure out how to pull their drug war profits from them, then this whole mess will be over...and that is also a fact!!! :smokin:

Any takers om solving that one? I'm all ears!!! :grinjoint:

Pop's is a smart cookie too :smokin:
 
Re: Why I'm Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That's Not To Say

I was thinking big alcohol has much to lose as well. Which kinda means if you vote for McCain, his wife is the largest beer distributor in Arizona, there is NO chance of anything pro-Cannabis getting passed :0
 
Back
Top Bottom