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.