Prescription painkiller deaths fall in medical marijuana states
reuters.com
reuters.com
Neuropathy is a case in point. Many people don't respond to SSRIs or SNRIs, or the side effects simply can't be tolerated. The next step is opioids.
I for one would much rather use a plant, rather than opioids that cause addiction, physical dependence, and potentially a life-ruining downward spiral of misery.
Something being a plant doesn't make it automatically better or worse than something artificial, otherwise we'd all be taking some nice nightshade tea instead of aspirin.
Most plants would prefer to kill us rather than get us high.
Perhaps I should have been clearer; My point about it being simply 'a plant' is more that it can be grown at home by users - no need for heavy refinement, solvents, chemical processes or pharmaceutical companies.
I can't find the link now, but I recently read a paper from Israel about how the effects of CBD acted in a bell curve when administered alone, but were much more linear when taken as part of a whole plant.
There are many cannabinoids, and they do often seem to work best when taken together.
Isolating salicylic acid from willow bark and then a century later synthesizing acetylsalicylic from salicylic acid were all major achievements in medicine. It wasn't some sort of evil scheme.
I'm also guessing synthesizing acetylsalicylic in a lab is better than growing willow trees in almost every way. Less resource intensive, more environmentally friendly, cheaper, easier to scale, and faster production.
The "natural is always better" (for varying definitions or "natural", of course!) argument is silly.
"heavy refinement, solvents, chemical processes" are all just scare words. They don't mean anything useful. I can use those words to accurately describe cooking my dinner.
The process of taking willow bark and turning it into a consumable product is not minimal, whereas taking cannabis and turning it into a consumable product is very minimal.
From a practicality standpoint, it is simply logical that medicine derived from cannabis is superior to willow bark.
How did you get this idea? Scrape some bark off a tree and steep it in hot water. You now have a consumable product.
Mainly because there are a variety of different chemicals/cannabinoid at play when cannabis is ingested traditionally, not just one "purest" form of THC in high doses which is what you find in THC pills.
Not to say it can't be replicated/refined into pill form correctly, but my guess is it just won't be.
I don't think there will be a market for high quality pot-pills large enough to justify the massive investment needed to do it right when a better alternative (natural cannabis) already exists on the market and can be ingested in ways people generally enjoy (vapor, snacks, teas, etc).
That is, companies probably aren't going to increase revenues by increasing the quality of a product that already exists because the people who already use THC pills can't be "re-converted", and enough of the people who don't use THC pills, but are in the market for medicinal THC, probably won't make the switch.
I'm pretty sure poppy plants didn't evolve to produce massive amounts of Tylenol in order purposely poison people using the plant outside the religious beliefs of the ruling class.
[1] https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-some-opiates-mixed... [2] https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002670.htm
We're in a situation where many people with chronic pain are handed marginally effective, dangerous and highly addictive painkillers, when they could literally grow a more effective and less dangerous pain control medicine in their backyard.
I had a severe back problem that led to a spinal fusion at age 25. I don't react well to most of the painkillers, so my only relief from excruciating pain (to the point where rolling over at night would wake me up) was motrin & hot towels. No idea if marijana would have helped me, but if it can help others basic humanity should compel us to legalize it.
(Not to mention pot seems to dull intelligence; opiates do not.)
For many people opiates are marginally effective because they were misprescribed.
Marijuana, on the other hand, produces consistent highs and its effects reach deeper than mere pain relief though it's good for that too. Pot does seem to dull intelligence because it slows people down. This is not a sign of loss of intelligence however. In fact, the real culprit behind dulling of intelligence is alcohol.
----
In terms of marijuana and its effects on brain cells, or neurons, there is little evidence to suggest that any of the active ingredients in the marijuana plant administered at doses appropriate for human consumption have neurotoxic effects.
This is in direct contrast to alcohol, where the body’s digestive process creates metabolites such as acetaldehyde and other “reactive oxygen species” which are toxic to the brain and other cells in the body. This is why you have a hangover, after drinking large quantities of alcohol.
------
- http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/does-marijuana-kill-brain-cel...
I was given hydrocodone, which dulled things and made me nauseous. The stronger stuff worked better, but left me exhausted.
It was easier to deal with pain.
I have no idea about marijuana. It's illegal to study it, so there are few facts available. Personally, I've seen a few people get hooked on opiates without any intention of abuse. All my pothead friends from college seem to have suffered no ill effect.
Due note that the side effects do release over time in some people. For instance one patient I'm familiar with had an adverse reaction to hydrocodone frequently (1:1 to 1:3). But within a year it was closer to 1:50 and years later is around 1:200. There are other options that are more powerful and have less side effect. Combining with an anti nausea med seems to work (dimenhydrinate (Dramamine)).
I've read at least one study that showed improved cognitive due to opiates (from the pain relief). Unfortunately I can't find it right now (but I now get the point of a bookmarking service).
Addiction itself isn't that big of a deal. If the user doesn't want to be addicted, there easy ways to slowly get off. Take time, there's no rush. It's only the legal and financial aspects that make it problematic. If a doctor gives someone half a gram of hydrocodone for pain, they should be legally obligated to provide significantly more over time in case the patient starts to suffer any withdrawal symptoms. But doing so now, even admitting you took an extra one some night, gets you listed as a bad person. That's what needs fixing.
Seriously? Im sorry but have you ever actualy met someone who developed an addiction to their pain meds!?
I've met successful CEOs, VPs, and scientists that are addicted to opiates (Confirmed.) In your next professional interactions, look at everyone's pupils. You'll find some incredibly pinned. That's a pretty good sign.
Truth is things like OxyContin are often given to middle-upper class users and they suffer little downside (sex drive and constipation being the main things.) After you have enough income and supply the popular perception of addiction being a problem just disappears.
You are aware of some people who function well with addiction so you assume that all addiction "isn't that big of a deal." BS. Go to a treatment facility and tell the patients (of all income levels) their opiate addiction "isn't that big of a deal."
I've meet many people (one an amputee, one great grandma in her 80) who have become addicted to their doctor prescribed medicine. All of which look like they have their lives together from the outside (and aren't having problems paying for their medicine) but their lives are being absolutely destroyed by opiates.
In the case of alcohol addiction there is even a word for this - "high-functioning alcoholic."
Just because you are able to function normally doesn't automatically make your addiction "not a problem" or doesn't mean it doesn't effect you in a negative way.
I'm not telling you that every addict is having their lives destroyed by addiction, but to assume that just because some don't means that all don't given enough income is preposterous.
"In your next professional interactions, look at everyone's pupils." No, thank you. I couldn't imagine wanting to do this.
I know professionals, drowning in whatever their work is. On behind or in debt. Opiates give them the optimism to face another day.
I'm honestly curious to know who is being destroyed by opiates, as in, what does destroyed mean? Outside of finances, legality, quality control, and other non-intrinsic, imposed issues.
Edit: If you'd like, my email's in my profile
Chewing coca leafs is healthy and I guess close to impossible to overdose, but if you take a condensed and highly extracted version of that, cocaine, you can very easily overdose.
I heard rumors that in russian prisons people make this condensed coffee drink that acts as a sort of meta-amphetamine replacement. They basically make coffee out of coffee until it's this sticky black thing that gets you really driven, I don't remember what they call it, but I remember many people die from this substance also.
Same thing with natural plant vs chemical extracts. Much easier to overdose and get lethal dosage.
Probably, you are referring to the "chifir": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chifir' It is prepared by boiling tea leaves, rather than coffee beans. Chifir is indeed a stimulant, although totally unrelated to methamphetamine (which, by itself, is not popular or easily obtained in Russia at all).
One point of contention I'll raise is that with self-grown anything one can control what adulterants are added.
A particular problem with opioid overdose is the tendency for opioid pain killers to have paracetamol/acetaminophen/APAP/Tylenol added, which when taken in large doses will cause permanent liver damage.
There are issues that come into play way before physical dependence. For instance, some people are quite intolerant to opioids and exhibit severe nausea, chills and vomiting.
I broke my leg in a fight a few years back and found it much more tolerable to sit (and sleep) very still than to take codeine. I would have loved to have some sort of cannabinoid derivative available, and failing that, I might have considered smoking some cannabis.
Replace that with:
"I for one would much rather use a substance with no long-term side effects and generally considered safe, rather than opioids that..."
:)
But regardless of how rational it seems, some people just want to avoid heavily refined pharmaceuticals that have gone through chemical processes, regardless of how 'benign' we are (currently) told these are.
You mean Vodka? :)
I said 'some people' - I didn't say that was my own opinion.
Personally, I don't have a problem with refined drugs in general, but I do prefer to keep things (both food and drugs) simple, when it is possible, practical and effective to do so.
"heavily refined," "chemical processes," (oh no! Not the maillard reaction!!!!), "a plant," "solvents."
* This cannabis was produced without the use of a potentially toxic pesticide.
* This cannabis has been treated with no other adulterant.
Even knowing very little about the specific properties of the cannabis one consumes, one can have a high degree of confidence that it will not cause harm if they have grown it themselves.
Yes, and the reason we have to rely on that informal history is a political one, which has resulted in the avoidance of primary research on the effects of cannabis consumption.
Even someone with multiple PhD degrees in the relevant areas of study isn't necessarily going to know the complete catalog of molecules involved, nor know which of those are biologically active in humans and which are inert, nor know which molecules agonize or antagonize which receptors, or whether they promote or inhibit uptake or reuptake of related neurotransmitters, nor know the short-term or long-term effects on any particular individual. There are only a few people that actually study the plant in enough detail to know those things.
This is, for the most part, because the federal prohibition has stifled scientific inquiry, by limiting both the availability of the plant to prospective researchers, and restricting the grant money far beyond what is normal for pharmaceutical research on other plants flagged for further investigation from traditional herb lore. Politics over science.
Most people don't know any more about it than ginseng tea, or chewed coca leaves, or even coffee. They don't have to. Eventually, we got to the point where instead of drinking boiled aspen bark tea for headaches, we started swallowing acetylsalicylic acid tablets, because that was determined to be the active analgesic ingredient. But before that, the tea still worked without anyone knowing exactly why, but with more side effects and less reliability. Using the raw plant--especially when harvested from the wild rather than cultivated under controlled conditions--caused less certainty in the dosage. The pills allowed us to take just enough to relieve our pain without causing more damage to our stomachs than was strictly necessary.
But in the case of marijuana, people tend to enjoy the side effects, and nothing in the plant seems to result in health-threatening effects, even from massive overdoses and shockingly frequent usage. So there's no rush to identify active ingredients, except by some twisted impulse to stop sick people from enjoying their treatment, or to prevent people from being able to produce their own medicines outside strict authoritarian supervision.
And different effects can be produced by selective breeding, like the strain for people who need to use a lot of medical marijuana to manage their symptoms, but don't want to be stoned or high all the time. You can't really do that with a drug that doesn't have a genome.
Drinking opium tea for pain relief is probably a bad idea.
I'd also hazard an (uneducated) guess that the number of seeds (and hence land area) required would render this unpractical for most people?
No, opium is highly addictive. It tends to be eaten, drunk, or smoked, not injected, and that route of administration makes a difference. But the actual substance is addictive.
Opium poppies provide their own seeds. A small garden provides plenty of space for small scale opium growing.
If I was in pain I would want a refined quality controlled product. I wouldn't want variable unpredictable doses. I need to be able to function (so too much is bad) and I want to control pain (so too little is bad).
But I don't live in a free country, so I mayn't do that.
As you doubtless know, I didn't say it wasn't - I said it was less addictive that 'pharmaceutical grade' opioids.
In fact, pure morphine has fewer side effects than opium. Opium has alkaloids that can cause severe nausea, etc.
Yes, it's well known that the alkaloid morphine causes nausea[1]. I can tolerate up to 30mg of immediate-release morphine (prescribed!), but beyond that I get bad nausea that is seriously off-putting. The nausea would certainly be a barrier to me getting addicted!
Morphine is however just one of the many alkaloids that make up opium - together they have a different effect than morphine alone.
I can't quickly find a reference beyond Wikipedia[1] that mentions opium being less addictive than, for example, morphine, but I read a lot of papers on drugs and have read this before. I'll try and find some and post back if I do.
So perhaps the poppy also produces a substance that creates an aversion affect (probably due to extreme nausea) when it reaches a certain concentration in the body. If you approach an overdose, you might start puking your guts out, and wouldn't even be able to look at a 1928 O'Keeffe painting without clamping your jaw shut.
With purified morphine or heroin or methadone, you might just fall asleep and never wake up.
But the raw plant material might also contain something you don't know about that erodes the septum in your heart, and you die from chronic use instead of overdose. That's just one of the risks with whole-plant drugs.
Generally speaking, we have attempted to eliminate hidden side effects by using purified molecules, and attempted to overcome overdose by using prescriptions from trained experts. That isn't necessarily the best or only way to run civilization's pharmacy.
What do you mean exactly when you say "the actual substance is addictive"? Does it contain addictaniolol? What you are saying makes no sense. People are either prone to be addicted to a substance or they aren't. Blaming the substance doesn't help anyone and it means nothing.
If "the actual substance" were actually addictive, as you seem to believe, then every person without exception would be addicted to it after one try. Clearly that isn't the case, therefore there is nothing inherent in opium, nor any other drug, that makes itself addictive.
So people who are concerned about heroin abuse, should really want to find alternatives to handing out prescription opioids unnecessarily.
They're also often the cause of accidental overdose.
If you do take opiate meds please keep them in a safe place; don't stock pile them; consider smaller more frequent prescriptions if you or someone you live with are vulnerable.
When a doctor prescribes opiates for pain they often cause an addiction, whilst not fixing the pain.
Cannabis has HUGE side effects! After consuming cannabis, I feel good but I'm also totally worthless and incapable of doing anything constructive. That'a serious side effect and unless I have no other option, that's a state I'd like to avoid except for recreational purpose.
If you can, try to find a strain that has close to a 1:1 THC:CBD ratio. The effects are quite different, and you will experience much less of a 'head high'.
Also, comparing "addiction, physical dependence, and potentially a life-ruining downward spiral of misery" and your feeling over "worthless and incapable of doing anything constructive" seem so bizarrely juxtaposed that I'm not even sure you weren't being sarcastic.
Legalization/regulation is a good step, but let's not kid ourselves.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
I'm sure you can search around and find a lot more, there is a growing understanding/acceptance that it exists.
After all nightshade and tobacco are both just plants, but are really pretty awful for you.
To be fair, opium is a plant, and there is growing evidence that some synthetic cannabinoids may have medical benefits.
Don't assume that because something is a plant that is is a better medical alternative. Some people find no pain relief from MMJ, so it's still a crapshoot.
Of course, MMJ is literally saving lives in this scenario, so no complaints! Opiates are overprescribed, so alternatives are always welcome!
Completely ignoring the fact that millions of kids are using marijuana illegally right now, and that driving under the influence of drugs is illegal and wrong now, and will still be illegal and wrong when marijuana becomes legal.
1 - not sure there will be an increase in availability. I don't know if it's always the case, but where I live, any kid can find weed easily. Ironically, it may be more difficult for adults!
2 - My understanding is that kids in the netherlands (where cannabis can be legally bought) don't consume more cannabis that those from neighbor countries.
This has been my experience. When I was at university there was cannabis everywhere, it was relatively cheap, and finding someone that was willing to sell to you was very easy. When I left university and started working (even still living near the same university) my schedule would have made it more difficult to obtain (as the hours where I was awake did not often overlap with the hours of my friends who smoked pot or would be willing to provide it). Now it is even more difficult to obtain (having moved across town) because everybody I knew that used cannabis have stopped because they're in a career that drug tests and everyone else that sells it would want some sort of a reference (which I don't have).
Alcohol is a more damaging drug.
Making less harmful drugs illegal, and the more harmful drugs legal is backwards.
Ideally, no children would have access to recreational drugs under any circumstances. However, we don't live in that world. We live in the real world.
Young people will find it easier to find a weed dealer their own age than one that's 21+ AND willing to do something illegal for them (provide alcohol to a minor).
NIMBYism is a cancerous tumor on America. It's only with time that things will change. Some things will change as boomers die off, others will be revealed as time goes on with millienials acquiring political power and such.
As an example people who have more sex make the most money. While we would all like that to be true there's no science proving causation http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/sex-makes...
Most of the examples given in the comments here are anecdotal. Not that I disagree with the overall tone, but this is not the study to hold up and say "This is why we should legalize"